Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
Those espousing creationism aren't scientists, any more than those promoting evolution are theologians. And those who say all evolutionist are atheist are merely fools.
Evolution cannot, I repeat cannot have any place for God.
______
I’m pretty sure we can shut down this and all future crevo threads. Carl sounds pretty sure of himself on this point, so I think we all need to shut up and start posting on Barak Obama threads.
So God has limitations in your view, eh? God cannot use evolution as His vehicle? Mosts believers I know think God is all powerful. Not you. He’s got serious limitations according to you.
It can suggest that it was designed, but how can you show something was designed without identifying a designer?
The example I gave you is what is called, day-age theory's.
Because you try and make your case not by proving your theory to be correct, but trying to disprove the other theory and then saying ID must be correct by default, as if it were an either/or question. That is not science.
Yeah. Then maybe they can become as polite and open-minded as the evolutionists. /s
I believe evolutionary theory and I am not an atheist. I work in biochem. I believe in God.
_______
No. You really don’t. Carl from Marietta
says that it is simply your ignorance about the theory of evolution that leads you to say this. See his #61 on this thread.
And he seems really sure of himself, so it must be true. I mean, I read it on FreeRepublic :-)
Yep, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Bacon (founder of the scientific method), who all believed in creation,
“aren’t scientists”. Well, I guess they “aren’t” because they’re dead, but are you saying the “weren’t” scientists?
And yes, you’re right, evolutionists aren’t all atheists, but “evolution is the engine of atheism” is a truism.
Darwin himself wasn’t an atheist, since he did refer to “his deity, Natural Selection”.
Ben Stein is confusing apples with oranges and is attempting to create a tempest in a teacup.
_____
Nah, he’s just trying to create a nest egg.
Legs which are the major limbs are certainly a new kind of organ gonig from apes to humans; so is voluntary control over breathing. You might want to find a copy of Elaine Morgan’s “Aquatic Ape” for a long list of things which are totally different between us and apes.
Except it kind of goes sideways when you find out there were atheists before there was a ToE.
Gestapo tactics? How many dead IDers so far?
Whatever else you could accuse Hitler and Stalin of, you cannot accuse them of any sort of a breakdown in basic logic; they were simply following the teachings of Darwin to their logical conclusions.
_______
So you are suggesting that killing off all the Jews is logical?
When I mentioned the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, she didn’t know what “macro-evolution” was.
_____
LOL. That may be because the anti Darwin forces made up the term macro evolution because they couldn’t deny that evolution happens, so they had to break it up into 2 varieties, one of which they could blow up.
I won't go there because I think it's up to people of faith to determine the requirements of their faith, not me. Different Christians put emphasis on different verses. Some take the Bible literally and even others believe that God can change the rules by talking directly to you. That's why there are sects.
My point is only that if, for instance, you claim that your whole religion is dependent on a certain city being on the banks of the Nile be ready to decide what you believe in case it is ever found on the Red Sea instead.
It's no different for scientists. If all of quantum mechanics depends on the uncertainty principle, and someone sets up a contrary experiment, it's time for a fast shuffle. That very thing happened when it was believed that atomic beta decay violated the law of conservation of energy. The neutrino was invented to account for the difference and then discovered. Whew! But many scientists were willing to accept that conservation of energy was not really a law. That camp of scientists would have had to come up with explanations of when and where energy is conserved and where it is not. And, they would have to give us a tool to predict the difference.
If you accept the premises which Hitler and the nazis were working with, which included Darwinism and the concept of “genetic death”, then yes, the entire thing was logical. In fact if you were to assume that a particular group of people was going to be weeded out by evolutionary processes sooner or later one way or another, then according to this same Darwinian logic, you’d not even be doing them any favors by leaving them around to prolong the agony.
One of which is observable, and no one disputes it - it’s called “breeding”,
the other one, there is no example of, and no possible proof that it happens or happened.
The whole “all species descended from a common ancestor” REQUIRES that one species change into another over time. No evidence.
I’m a little surprised that you did not note that your entire post is copied verbatim from the AiG website.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/370.asp
You’re going to feel really stupid when Expelled wins best film for 08.
______
LOL. From what source? Discovery Institute?
"There is no way to prove man has a soul, or to empirically prove the existence of God. This is where it ultimately comes down to faith; that is actually what we are called to have throughout all the Bible!
If we accept the Bible as the Word of God inspiring man and recorded by man, would that mean that it is a LITERAL, EXACT set of words like the Koran is supposed to be? Or that God chose to use stories to illustrate His relationship with us, and couched those stories and inspiration in terms that man - at that time, and for all time - could understand?
This is why ultimately, I believe the inerrancy of the Bible is about the teachings and truths within the Bible, not the actual WORDS of the Bible. The fundamental truth of the Creation story is that God created the universe, and made us like Him (in his image) so that we could relate to him.
If we start to accept the Bible as a LITERAL, word for word dictation from God, then is not ANY translation of the Bible a corruption of the Word of God because it will change the meaning from the original ancient Hebrew and Aramaic (neither of which is spoken)? Can we truly know the original words - all of them - of the very earliest written Bible? And what about the oral tradition of the Bible before that?
And what of the Protestant Bible? Sure that would be an abomination as it does not contain the original books as defined in the 4th century (the Catholic Bible). Which is also different from the Russian and Greek Orthodox Bible! Two versions must be incorrect and NOT “of God” if we’re to accept the Bible as a literal, word-for-word dictate (unless we were so presumptuous as to decide what to pick and choose from God’s words what we should record).
This is why I believe the story of Creation is simply an allegory - it stems from the consideration of the Bible not as a literal, word-for-word dictate from God, but as an inspired set of truths and writings (with history of His people recorded by His people as well) to explain who He is, and what our relationship has been and can be with Him."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.