Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Science isn't apologetics.
What is your point? Humans comprise a tiny percentage of living thing, and the civilization that has improved human survival rate is a very new thing in the history of the world.
Belief in a Creator I share.
Belief in “Creationism” is a specific Biblical interpretation insisting upon the “special” creation of mankind and all other species or “kinds”, the earth, the sun and the universe; all within a literal seven day week.
Thus Creationists, in an attempt to shore up this unlikely interpretation, feel the need to delve into the scientific data and tell scientists (most of whom in the USA are people of faith) that they are atheists who wish to turn people away from God.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule if any Christian, not blessed with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma that which scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas.
So no hot steaming pot of primordial soup?
Belief in “Creationism” is a specific Biblical interpretation insisting upon the “special” creation of mankind and all other species or “kinds”, the earth, the sun and the universe; all within a literal seven day week.
Where does the Bible say this took place in a literal modern era calculated seven day week? It is NOT there, and Peter says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years, etc., and you think Peter never heard about Moses and what Moses penned in Genesis? Wrong claims or wrong interpretations does not give evolution out of a hot steamy pot credibility!!!
Thus Creationists, in an attempt to shore up this unlikely interpretation, feel the need to delve into the scientific data and tell scientists (most of whom in the USA are people of faith) that they are atheists who wish to turn people away from God.
Pointing an accusing you are wrong finger to the 'Creationists' does not make you holder of the TRUTH.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule if any Christian, not blessed with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma that which scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas.
Now which book did Aquinas pen? Who put him in charge of Christianity? See I find more than enough to study from Moses to John without the need to see what others penned to explain the truth of God, and His plan. It was Christ of course that is recorded as having said "I have foretold you all things" and this was before Aquinas came along. Now Christ did not say that everybody would understand all things but He did say He had foretold all things. I am early in the stage of beginning of this understanding. But there are some primary things that will not fit in what Christ foretold and one of them is there never ever was a hot steaming pot of bubbling primordial soup. And that hot pot is the foundation upon which the claims of the system of scientific methodology spring forth.
Yes, as I said, it is a Biblical “interpretation”, that means that it is not directly stated that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, or that the Genesis account is meant to be taken as a literal sequence of events taking place over a literal seven day week. That is why I refer to that as an “interpretation”. This, however, is the favored interpretation of Creationists.
It is in an attempt to defend this rather unlikely and completely unsupportable by the evidence “Biblical interpretation” that the Creationists delve into science in an attempt to ‘apologize’ it into a six thousand year old box.
I did not and do not claim to be the “holder of TRUTH”. I claim to know and understand and use a useful biological theory that explains and predicts facts and data.
[[There is no scientific evidence of a contemporaneous worldwide flood.]]
Not true- there is- you don;’t accept it which is fine- but don’t claim there isn’t when there is
[[There is no scientific evidence to support a “young earth” or a “young universe”.]]
Again- not true- there is- plenty- and again you simply won’t ceede anythign that conflicts with your view
[[To claim that creationism is a “theory” supported by “evidence” is to reduce both terms to having no meaning.]]
To claim Creationism has no evidence is to display blatant biased a priori faith- Again- there is plenty to support this and you know it- you just don’t admit it.
[[Creation has apologists, not scientists.]]
Well now- that’s 5 blatant lies in a row- Well done- you’ve ‘defended’ Macroevolution brilliantly!
[[There are miracles today comparable to many of what Christ did, verified by medical tests and scans, and predictably, they are explained away as co-incidence, spontaneous remission (naturalistic), and errors in diagnosis.]]
I agree there are miracles, but that they are of a nature that isn’t as spectacular as a lot of Christ’s or the disciples or prophets- (Outwardly spectacular I mean), and therein lies the problem, these inward miracles are simply dismissed by skeptics now liek you said. While I’ve personally Seen God work in reposne to prayer in ways that show He is answering, and seen others receive very specific answers to prayer- again, they are of a nature that skeptics will never allow as direct answers- although, the consistency of answers is somethign they seem to ignore as well,
[[Apparently it’s not possible to get a direct answer. It’s going to get taken out of context and restated in a form that provides an opportunity to protheletize.]]
you were given answers- What more do you demand? you know it’s goign to turn into preaching how? ID doesn’t posit who or what the intellgience is- they simply forensically examine the evidence and produce the results that show nature can not do the things we witness in biology- Don’t worry Tactic- Yuo can assign all kinds of watchdogs to make sure those ‘criminal’ ID teachers don’t stray fro mthe strict science and start prosthelizing (sp?) beyond the science like the Evos have done for 150 years now. I’m sure ya’ll will be quite diligent in that regard. You worry too much
[[The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has as little to do with the origin of life as the theory of universal gravitation attraction of mass has to do with the origins of matter.]]
And where do you propose Macroevolution started from? If not from non life, then from where?
[[I did not and do not claim to be the “holder of TRUTH”. I claim to know and understand and use a useful biological theory that explains and predicts facts and data.]]
What is ‘useful’ about a hypothesis that ignores natural and biological and mathematical laws?
Nope- not hardly:
5. Chemically speaking, life uses only "left-handed" ("L") amino acids and "right-handed" ("R)" genetic molecules. This is called "chirality," and any account of the origin of life must somehow explain the origin of chirality. Nearly all chemical reactions produce "racemic" mixtures--mixtures with products that are 50% L and 50% R. However, some Darwinist websites report studies that found chemical reactions that slightly bias the products in favor of right-handed or left-handed molecules. However, as an anonymous Ph.D. chemist explains below, these studies have hardly solved the problem of chirality in naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life:
"What is needed is not just some partial enantiomer bias but a full 100% resolution of the enantiomers -- anything less just bites them in the butt in the long run -- and the mechanism must be both fast and self-correcting otherwise racemization will undo them in the end. What this means is that for some amino acids, you have less than 10 kyrs to get the job done and invent a full up evolving organism; self-replicating molecules aren't going to cut it as they rely on an external pool of amino acids that is rapidly racemizing. All the mechanisms so far offer only a partial resolution at best and are so slow that they are quickly undone by the racemization reactions. And sugars are even worse as the reducing ones are capable of mutarotation. For example, while it is well recognized that RNA uses only D-ribose, few folks talk about it also needing to be (alpha)-D-ribose. It is not sufficient to have the 3,5-hydroxy groups on either side of the furanose ring, the #1 carbon must also have an equatorial bond (that is the alpha designation) so that the nucleobase winds up in the plane, an axial bond won't do. Until the nucleobase is joined to the sugar, the axial and equatorial position flips as the furanose ring opens and closes in a process called mutarotation. The half-life on this process tends to be on the order of tens of minutes. No natural process can out race that one! It takes a biological system to keep the sugars in the right conformation.
Some folks have also done enantiomer enrichment experiments using clays and other minerals that are optically active that showed some promise. The big catch here is that in nature, these minerals are racemic as well and it is only in the lab where someone selects one of the crystal orientations to add to the experiment that one encounters optically pure minerals. What these experiments show is that an independent agent acting with intention can achieve some measure of enantiomer enrichment, but without that independent agent (and we can argue later whether they are "intelligent" or not) the so-called natural system is limited to racemic mixtures -- or quickly reduced to same."
Crud- I keep forgettign the links: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838
So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."23 [LINK]
I do understand the methodology. The problem is the conflict between particular religous beliefs and scientific theory. One solution to the problem is to get everyone involved to adopt those religious beliefs.
If a particular line of inquiry is not contributing to a particular solution then you pursue a different line of inquiry if you want to get that solution to work.
[[Have you ever actually seen anyone say that the Bible has to be interpreted to be either totally literal or totally metaphorical, other than yourself?]]
Lol- You’rte kidding, right? Have you not seen the pages and pages of arguments that occure when Christians are accused by non Christians of being either strict literalists or not? It’s always amusing when non Christians try to tell us how we should read God’s word- they attempt to use our own Book to beat us over the head with, but always end up looking silly for havign attempted to do so.
Arguing the age of this earth does NOT give the base claim of TOE credibility of any kind. And there is none in the evolutionary circle that can honestly ignore the base stems from a hot steaming pot of primordial soup. There is NO hiding from that claim, read any biology book or watch any evolution show and there is stated as fact life started from a hot pot. That hot pot is what makes the whole theory a fairy tale.
IF the Heavenly Father said I set forth a heated steaming pot of pond scum wherein I directed a gravitational attraction of one single cell to another cell then I have no problem believing. But that is NOT what the Heavenly Father said, He said I made it, and why. He had Moses distinguish kind from kind and when man in his sottish state went against the nature of God there was a grand ZOTTING post haste on His time.
Now you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe, however, when you join the crowd to mandate by law that God can’t even be mentioned in the halls of taxpayer funded worship then take the full credit of what happens when man in flesh walls out the Creator from His children. Bama nation has come full circle, be happy, as the claim is the most educated among us voted for his way.
[[It’s pretty obvious from the comments posted that creationists believe scientists are frauds and liars.]]
We don’t beleive all of htem are intentional frauds and liars- Some just do so because htey beleive what they beleive, and aren’t well informed abotu counter evidences that refute what they beleive- but yes, I’ve run across a great many INTENTIONALLY misleading scientific articles- sins of ommission and al lthat- Talkorigins is a prime example- chock full of blatant lies, half-truths, and sins of ommission- As well magazines like scientific American are again full of outright blatant lies, half-truths and misdirections and sins of ommission. Just got doen reading just such an article infact about hte supposed rise of RNA (apparently because Science has given up on the biologically impossible rise of DNA)- and my goodness- what a fairy tale was spun by S.A. trying to make the evidences against spontanious generation of life conform to their a priori world view
Abiogenesis is the subject that deals with how the earth or the ocean could bring forth life (and to a Christian, the conditions that would happen when God commanded them to).
Will I be able to get a direct answer that question as it was asked, without having it changed into a question I did not ask?
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.