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 ...
Actually, I can’t take credit for that observation, but I subscribe to the idea just the same.
”3. Based on 1 & 2 you know then that I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate historical account written under Divine Inspiration.”
Fundamentally correct, but that’s a complicated concept, schaef21. The creators of the KJV were commissioned with the task to produce a translation of the Hebrew and Greek (with some Aramaic) texts that was both elegant in form and faithful to the original meaning (see Alister McGrath, In The Beginning). Apparently they were successful because no less a master of literature and language than Thomas Jefferson himself once remarked that he believed the KJ Bible to be the greatest work in all English literature. That means the Bible as translated in the KJV is meant to be read at many levels (as does all of our literature): literally, metaphorically, allegorically, and historically. Which is simply another way of saying that if one is sincere in wishing to be open to the Spirit of God’s word that is how the Bible can be read and understood successfully. Some of our scientific friends, who worship Science as though it were a religion, perfectly well understand how to read the literature of Western Civilization, but still insist nonetheless that God’s word must be read as though it were a chemical formula in an experiment, or, failing that, we must accept the Bible as no more than a collection of myths and fairy tales. They know better. Their sincerity is bankrupt.
”You are debating a Creationist.”
Anyone of the Judeo-Christian belief, by definition, is a Creationist. Within that broad category, there is room for some difference.
Thanks for your posts. They are a revelation.
Another one? You wanna throw some scriptures at me too?
Ah, so now your belief in Darwinism makes you a psychic.
Now, let me get this straight: You're demanding that I commment on a historical event without using any source other than my own thoughts. That's ludicrous in and of itself unless I was present for the historical event. But does that mean you're going to adopt the same standard? If you're going to comment on evolution without using any research other than what feelings you have, wouldn't you have to be such an expert in the field that you'd make Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan loook like kindergarteners?
Sorry, but I don't buy the intellectual superiority bit. You're hiding under your desk over a simple question, another intellectual lightweight who thinks a mocking tone is proof enough. Anaswer the question: Are you a Christian?
Nice straw man.
I only "threw scriptures at you" because you asked me a question that was (although you didn't realize it at the time) related to scripture.
If you want to discuss something else, exhibit some common courtesy and answer my question...or the ones I asked when you freepmailed me.
Another one what?
"You wanna throw some scriptures at me too?"
Look up your own scriptures. Answer the man's questions. Or is everything a one way street with you?
Seconded.
****Well, your “scientists,” as far as I know, fall into that same category. They are all 100% entitled to have opinions about a field of study in which they DO NOT work, and have NOT published articles, but their opinions are of no more authority than mine.****
BroJoe.....have you looked at the list? Since you consider yourself on par with these scientists (I assure you that I do not) I thought I might just cut a small section out of the list for you.
Mark Geil Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University
Ibrahim Barsoum Ph.D. Microbiology The George Washington University
Jim Gibson Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University
John W. Balliet Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania,
Post-doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School
William Gilbert Emeritus Professor of Biology Simpson College
Joe R. Eagleman Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Kansas
Dexter F. Speck Associate Professor of Physiology University of Kentucky Medical Center
It looks to me like they are fields in which they DO work.
****Indeed, their opinions may be less valuable than mine, if they conclude that science itself is bunk, and only religion can provide the correct scientific answers!****
I’m sure if you spoke with any one of them they would tell you they love science and that is why they’ve spent their life doing it....I doubt if they’d tell you that science is bunk. What they are saying is that they believe the orthodox scientific view of Evolution has serious flaws.
You need to come to grips with that, man. Learned men and women disagree with you based on their knowledge of the evidence which is far greater than yours or mine will ever be.
****I’ll say again: if a serious scientist publishes serious evidence demonstrating serious flaws in evolutionary ideas, and somehow “proving” that the only viable alternative is “intelligent design,” then I might take notice.****
Wow, BroJoe....you’ve left yourself a lot of loopholes.
He has to be a “serious” scientist, which I’m assuming that you want to be the arbiter of that.
It also has to be “serious” evidence....again I’m sure you will decide what is and isn’t serious.
They have to be “serious” flaws...same arbiter.
Somehow “proving” that the only viable alternative is “intelligent design”....first of all, a flaw shouldn’t have to prove anything. A flaw should expose a weakness in the theory, it doesn’t have to then provide an alternative.
I have to admit that I can’t figure out how you can profess belief in God and then say that there is no design. What exactly is it that God did?
I can point you to any number of books, DVDs and websites featuring learned men and women of science putting forth all kinds of flaws.....If I point you toward some would you actually read them? Be honest.
I’ll just throw this little tidbit at you about the giraffe. I’ll describe him to you and then ask you a question at the end.
The Bull Giraffe goes, on average, about 18’ tall. His neck, again on average, is about 6’ long. In order to pump blood against gravity up 6’ of neck to his brain requires a heart like a jackhammer. The giraffe’s heart is about 2.5’ long.
So now this giraffe has got the heart pounding like sledge hammer and decides to bend down and get a drink. With the pump now going with gravity instead of against it, he has just blown his brains out.....EXCEPT....in his arteries are little valves that shut down the flow of blood as he is bending over. The last valve though (and only the last valve) stays open and shoots the last squirt of blood into a sponge-like membrane that just happens to reside underneath the giraffe’s brain and absorbs the blood.
This, of course is extremely fortunate for the giraffe. As he’s drinking, he senses a predator and stands up quickly to run away. He then, from standing too quickly and having no blood flowing in his brain, passes out and gets eaten by the predator...EXCEPT....this doesn’t happen because as he stands up, the sponge shoots blood to the brain, the valves reopen to resume the blood flow and the giraffe can flee the predator.
Michael Behe has referred to this in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” as irreducible complexity. In order for this morphology to work, all of the pieces have to be present at the same time.
The neck without the heart....dead.
The heart without the neck....dead.
The neck without the valves....dead.
All of the above without the sponge....dead.
In other words, the morphology of the giraffe requires that:
1. A jackhammer heart
2. A 6 foot long neck
3. Valves in the arteries that close when he’s bending (except the last one) and open when he’s standing.
4. A sponge under his brain
all be present at the same time or he’s dead meat. Or to put it another way, extinct.
This means that if even one of these pieces is missing, the species ceases to exist.
Here’s my question....do you think all of those pieces evolved at the exact same time, defying all laws of probability and common logic....or is it more likely that the giraffe was designed by a Supernatural Creator.
Just askin’.....looking forward to your response.
****Matter sprang up from nothing? I don’t think I ever heard that before.....What happened to amoebas heated by the sun?****
An Amoeba is matter....where did it spring from? The sun is also matter....where did it come from?
****I believe that is what God might have done.****
Ahh...belief. I believe that you are asking me for proof of what I believe but you are allowed to believe without proof......I believe that is a rather jaded viewpoint, what do you believe about that? I believe you’ll punt that one just like you did the last time.
****I never did get Adam and Eve’s race and religion out of you guys...what were they?****
You did get their race from me.....human. Maybe you don’t remember....you can go back to post #1379 you’ll see that I did.
Mitochondrial DNA has shown that all races go back to one female.....that means that the differences in skin pigment, eye shape, etc. are variations that existed in the gene pool of that woman and her mate. These variations expressed themselves over the course of time and were selected out due to a variety of factors including but not exclusively, environment. In short, Fawn...we are all one blood.
Religion is irrelevant since there were no “religions” back then. I would say that since they had a personal relationship with God they would be of the “God Worshippers” religion.
It’s about time you answered Mr. Silverback’s question.
***Actually, I can’t take credit for that observation, but I subscribe to the idea just the same.****
Sorry, man....I don’t like doing that and I’m usually pretty careful about it.
****That means the Bible as translated in the KJV is meant to be read at many levels (as does all of our literature): literally, metaphorically, allegorically, and historically. Which is simply another way of saying that if one is sincere in wishing to be open to the Spirit of God’s word that is how the Bible can be read and understood successfully.****
Wholeheartedly agreed.
There was a study done.....I don’t have it at my fingertips... that looked at the writing styles of the various books of the Bible. Genesis matched the style of the other historical books. I take it as literal, not allegorical.
Jesus confirmed the following as historically true:
Creation of Adam and Eve (Mt 19:4-5)
Historicity of Abel (Mt 23:35)
Historicity of Noah (Luke 17:26)
Historicity of Abraham (Jn. 8: 56-58)
The Noahic Flood (Mt:24:37-39)
Creation (Mark 10:6)
I’ll also say that the world we see today is exactly what we would expect to see based on what we find in the Book of Genesis.
It amazes me that archaeology backs up the Bible’s history 100%. Discoveries have been made many times by looking at the details in scripture and then searching accordingly.
Prophecy in scripture is amazing.....whether Messianic or not. The amount of fulfilled prophesy can’t be ignored when discussing the truth of scripture.
Jeremiah 31:10 (which was written in the 6th century BC) speaks of the regathering of Israel 2500 years before it happened...that by itself is amazing.
****Anyone of the Judeo-Christian belief, by definition, is a Creationist. Within that broad category, there is room for some difference.****
Agreed...most importantly, while these differences are interesting intellectual endeavors, they are not matters unto salvation....our salvation is in Christ.
****Thanks for your posts. They are a revelation.****
Thanks for your kind words....I’ve lurked FR for a very long time but until recently had stopped posting because of the “if you disagree with me you’re an idiot” crowd.
Somehow recently I felt compelled to contribute.
Blessings, brother......
Both an evolutionary cosmology (Big Bang) and the Creation account assume matter was came into being suddenly out of nothing.
My posts were directed at how you believe God plopped a full grown beautiful man and woman--the first on the planet and obviously without belly buttons
And whether they had belly buttons matters how, exactly?
I never did get Adam and Eve's race and religion out of you guys...what were they?
I expressed a willingness to answer those questions, but only after you extended me the courtesy of answering my question instead of playing games. So, why don't you tell me your religion (as before, you can do it by freepmail if you wish) and I'll tell you my answers to all your Adam & Eve questions.
Have to agree with YHAOS...your posts are great. Love the “Jesus confirms Genesis” list.
Apologies are not necessary with me, but I understand your sentiments.
”I take it [Genesis] as literal, not allegorical.”
”In the Beginning,” for example. But it’s a mistake, I think, to believe that any part of the Bible can be taken at only one level. The first books of the Bible, for instance, are very much germane to Hebrew tradition, doctrine, and religious ritual. Larges parts of those books, in fact, are referred to by biblical scholars as ‘the Priests’ Manual.'
”Somehow recently I felt compelled to contribute.”
You must respond as God’s spirit directs you.
And likewise, blessings to you and yours.
Sorry folks, I've been out "pounding sand" to make my daily dough, now let's see if I can help straighten out some of your thinking. ;-)
Btw, I like to keep posts as short and to-the-point as possible, so instead of one long post, you'll see several, each addressing a main point.
Now I'm being told that the reason defenders of science are so grossly outnumbered on this thread by anti-evolutionists, is that science defenders keep getting banned, most recently Cayoteman.
Well, I'll keep going until I get banned too. Then we'll know something about Free Republic that I didn't know before, won't we?
And, we should take note of the fact that the first "free republicans" were our Founding Fathers, and it's their views on things that I've tried my level best to reflect.
In this regard, we should note that our Founding Fathers were almost all Christians (Thomas Paine is the only athiest name which comes to mind), some very devout, but most not really.
Remember, Jefferson and Adams are often accused of being Deists. Washington was a sincere Christian, but also a Mason, along with many others, which means they were in no way devoted to any particular church's doctrines.
And Benjamin Franklin, the elder statesman among our Founders, was the world's preiminent scientist. So, in defense of our Founders, I will also defend science.
I'll note once again that among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.
Finally, I'm being told the reason Free Republic opposes the theory of evolution is because it's a product of "atheistic science." Well, here is a source for my claim that most scientists DO believe in God:
If I understand, you've produced a list of scientists who've signed a statement saying that further research is needed into the processes of evolution, right?
Well, somehow I'm not very impressed with this. Here's what would impress me: these same scientists, who are both knowledgeable and doubtful of evolution, have done research and published scientific articles which express in scientific terms actual research results that could effect our understand of evolution (or not evolution).
If we had such articles, then we could see an actual scienfitic debate, such as we do now see on "global warming." But so far, it hasn't happened. When it does, I'll pay close attention.
OK. Now that you’ve played the martyr (in advance), could you address his post?
Not at all. In my mind, a "serious scientist" is doing actual research in his or her field, and publishing peer-reviewed results in recognized journals.
The importance of this is, when that happens, THEN you have an actual "scientific debate" going on. But now you don't. All you really have now is some obviously religiously motivated people lowdly shouting, "we don't want to believe what science is telling us!"
I've said before, you are 100% entitled to your religious beliefs, but you are not entitled to pretend your religion is a science, or that science is just another religion!
Buy a clue. Don't mouth back at the owner of the site, and you'll be OK to start with.
Then we'll know something about Free Republic that I didn't know before, won't we?
Like what? What do you think it would tell us?
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.