Posted on 03/10/2015 8:20:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Neither of those are Jesus [personally] speaking. (I was hoping for Gospel/Revelation references.)
Re 36.
Thanks for your honesty.
I didn’t think you had any experience, teaching or training.
And be amazed, be very amazed.
JK Rowling told a funny story about how she made comments on an online discussion, incognito, on the Harry Potter series. The “experts” there told her she didn’t know anything about Harry Potter And didn’t know what she was talking about.
Genesis 1 is very sparse, though, to the point of poesy. "And God said, let the earth bring forth grass ... and the earth brought forth grass."
Doesn't this indicate a natural process? I don't see anything about designing chlorophyl or anything else. That's all left to the earth. It is simply His Will that it should happen.
Think about it - isn’t that really the point ?
Exactly what it says: God creates by his Word.
The details would be incomprehensible to most people thousands of years ago - and even to most people today.
Grass can’t be “built” piece by piece over time... by “letting nature take its course”.
We must remember that we can’t have “part” of a grass plant - it’s all or nothing.
It’s really quite nonsensical to think that grass “evolved” from “some other plant”, once you begin to contemplate just how complex and elegant a design a plant is, and how reproduction works - and how “survival of the fittest” makes very little sense with plants, since they can’t “run away” from anything. Grass begets grass. Grass either lives or dies. If it lives, it can beget more grass. Not clover. Not any other plant.
The details of God’s Creation are left as a mystery to us even today.
Just how did God speak and things came into being ? We can not even make a good guess.
I wonder about the phenomenal forces and incredible precision required to put the moon in orbit around the earth. Seems an incredible feat in the enormous emptiness of space with the mass involved.
Remember, “natural process” with secular humanist (satanic) science means starting with nothing but a big rock, the earth. No organic material, no life. Just elements. And that’s just for creating life. How’d the earth come to be here to begin with ? If one really approaches this from an engineering point of view, one realizes that one is simply out of one’s bandwidth in positing origins. Thus we see the few scientists who actually work on these “theories” of creation resorting to pure conjecture, and allowing the powers that be to convince “the masses” that those scientists “have it all figured out”. It’s a pretty easy scam to pull off if you have a public that is mentally conditioned to “believe” in science rather than be scientific about science. The first step in understanding is always to admit that one does not know.
“The article in Science can’t be read unless you have a membership...”
The second article linked is accessible.
“I have degrees in science, geology and pharmacy and know a hell of a lot about chemistry.”
If one wants to call a contemporary Pharmacy degree science. (Just kidding) (or am I?).
“Evolution is real and a fact. “
That’s dogma. Definitely not scientific.
“I have held the rocks and bones in my hand. Evolution is real and a fact. “
What if someone else held the same bones in their hand and pronounced, “evolution is not fact!”.
You say silly things.
It’s a freaking theory that has a lot of problems.
When they talk about “teaching evolution” in high school, it’s important to discover what they actually mean.
In one sense, molecular evolution is trivial to demonstrate. Staphylococcus aureus will evolve penicillin resistance in a few days.
In the Darwinian sense, it’s impossible to demonstrate. You can’t “evolve” Staphylococcus aureus into Salmonella, or into a frog, no matter what you do. You can’t even demonstrate a mechanism that could over thousands of years lead to that result.
So, teach evolutionary adaptation within a species? Even Darwin’s stupid finches? Of course.
Teach the Origin of Species? Ridiculous.
Bookmark
“I believe that Evolution is the action of God’s mighty hand, continually creating and re-creating the range and diversity of living things.”
The god of evolution does not permit you that degree of heresy; it decrees that nothing used nothing to create something and there is no other god before it.
The main point of that “god” being - there is no ultimate objective accountability,
decide for yourself what is right and wrong,
and your hereafter will be decided based on how you abide by those standards.
Obama said it perfectly: “Sin is... being out of alignment with my values”.
Charles Darwin was a brilliant Christian and his genius brings great credit to The Church,as he rests today in Westminster Abby.
Charles Darwin proved that it was physically impossible for Noah to bring seven of the “Clean” and two of the “Unclean” species aboard the Ark in their present form and condition.
That Mankind cannot unravel the fabric of life woven by The Hand of God is of great importance,and,from time to time is often evidenced through the evolution of brilliant thought and experimentation , and therein is found the “Beauty of Evolution”.
What is the difference between “evolution” and “adaptation”.
Your point #2 seems to suggest that since all the species alive today came from a much limited set of species aboard the Ark,
then “evolution” must be true.
There is a HUGE difference between common multiple ancestry (the “kinds”) of today’s species and extrapolation of that observation into “proving” molecules to man evolution.
Well, I understand your sarcasm (directed at evolutionary extremists), but their beliefs (including whether I'm a heretic) are not of interest to me, any more than those of other fanatics. Fanatics exist in all areas of human belief, and are useful in nailing down the fringes of human thought, but otherwise are simply boring.
The evolutionary biologists I've known are all much more reasonable, and quite interesting on the whole.
They were exposed to different elements and conditions. I would expect them to still be fruit flies in 600,000 generations.
That there is no scientific evidence supporting it could be a place to start the discussion about ‘why’.
Your comment is very well and beautifully stated. Thank you -- you have enriched my day considerably. :)
> I have never seen that term in a single scientific journal, and I have ready plenty especially having to do with TToE and Earth Sciences. I am going to need a link to see the context.
You can easily Google it. I’ve heard the term for years. One search result:
“In one sense, molecular evolution is trivial to demonstrate. Staphylococcus aureus will evolve penicillin resistance in a few days.”
One of the problems is that what you describe is an example of a sort of natural selection and the problem is natural selection is conflated (often purposely by those with agendas) with evolution.
So your sentence is technically wrong. SA does not evolve resistance in a day or two when exposed to anti biotic.
All ready existing penicillin resistant bacteria are selected for by the introduction of the anti-biotic.
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.