Posted on 09/03/2004 6:49:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
This is pretty definitive proof that life is nothing more than a completely natural event, and probably widespread throughout the universe.
You are right and God created every bit of it.
"You are right and God created every bit of it."
Or in this case, scientists with some chemicals in a lab.
Or in this case, scientists with some chemicals in a lab.
And the scientists came from where ?
I think that you’re smart enough to differentiate between disagreement engaged through reason on these boards and one or two liner name calling posts.
I missed an earlier dork reference, but I take you at your word.
They most likely came from a natural version of what they are doing in the lab. Just groupings of chemicals.
If you go back more, you'll get into string theory which is beginning to explain a natural and completely spontaneous universe creation too.
Fair enough. I think that no evolutionist has a theory that’s any more solid than creationism of what came before the big bang.
If you go back more, you'll get into string theory which is beginning to explain a natural and completely spontaneous universe creation too.
I don't have to go back any more than
Gen 1.1
And when Tweedle Beetles battle with their paddles in a bubble in a bottle,
And the bottle's on a poodle, and the poodle's eating noodles,
It's a Tweedle Beetle Noodle Poodle Bubble Bottle Paddle Battle.
“In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Same BS as the article
ROTFLMAO! 87 seconds! (including the time it took to post back to me) You did not even bother to read what I wrote, yet you call it BS.
"I missed an earlier dork reference, but I take you at your word."
It was in the post directly above mine, the one to which I was responding.
But in any case, had I added the " ;) " my intent would have been clearer.
Friday Church News Notes, September 3, 2004 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org,
http://www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
Modern science has made much progress, but we still know very little about the world around us; scientists cannot create life and do not even understand what life is; and yet many scientists tend to think that they have truly "arrived."
When Hurricane Charley was heading toward the Florida coast earlier this month, I was in Virginia on a preaching engagement and I heard a meteorologist state that they were quite confident of where the hurricane would make landfall because of the recent perfection of the weather models.
The next day Charley took a sharp turn eastward and made landfall 100 miles south of the predicted place, making havoc of the evacuation plans. At the end of the day, all the meteorologists could say with certainly until the very last moment was that the hurricane was going to hit somewhere on the Gulf coast of Florida, and anyone observing the storm in its last few days could have made the same prediction. Recently the Sunday Telegraph in London investigated the reliability of weather forecasts more than one day in advance and found that they are so vague and unreliable as to be virtually useless.
"For the five locations that were studied -- London, Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Norwich -- the worst forecasts turned out to be those predicting rain, which proved correct barely 50 per cent of the time, a success rate equivalent to flipping a coin" ("Now here's the weather forecast; we haven't got a clue," London Telegraph, Aug. 29, 2004). When modern science can't even predict the weather a couple of days in advance, it is foolish to think that it can figure out the origin of the universe. I will make my stand with the Bible; which has never been wrong in any prediction!
BTW I took a speeding reading course in third grade.
Ever hear of cosmology, relativity, quatum mechanics, etc? Shall we march backwards to the 12th century and just say "God did it"?
I see now, you’re not the one who lost it.
All great science has its genesis in alcohol, as does philosophy, psychology, religion ...
There was no compelling. It was pure mechanics. Material was siphoned from weaker protocells to ease the tension of stronger protocells. The latter did not seek out the former, but when the two protocells bumped into one another, a natural chemical action took place.
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.