Posted on 12/25/2010 4:00:25 AM PST by wendy1946
They are just funny looking people and you should be ashamed of yourself for calling them "apes".
I assume you’re talking about the people you see still driving around in Volvos with Bork Obunga signs on them...
gosh,Wendy, can you expound on the evolution of the angiosperms some time?
Sometimes I wish Jim Robinson would double the Freepathon to create TWO separate FRs.
FR Modern Science (or FRMS for short)
This would have FReepers who believe in Science. However, we believe in classical science with proof and Q.E.D etc. Thus we Freepers believe in Moon Landings, Evolution, Earth being 4 billion years old etc. However, we believe that AGW is unproven theory etc
FR Biblical Sciences (or FRBS) for short
They would be Freepers who believe in Biblical based sciences.
Whenever a Freeper would then post an article, she/he would be asked if they wanted to post to FRBS or FRMS or both.
In case a Biblical Sciences article was posted to FRMS, the mods could TRANSFER that article (not zot it) to FRBS. Vice verca, if a Modern Science article made it to FRBS, the mods would transfer it to FRMS
This would keep both of us groups happy. We are all economic conservatives over here. Some of us are more modern science types, others are more biblical. Rather than get in flame wars and divide our Conservative movement, how about having two sub-boards?
ML/NJ
Such a system is already in place and has been tried using the religion moderator’s guidelines, with scientism being classified as a religion and, hence, given religious protection on this forum. If you don’t think scientism is a religion, then why do you use the term “believe in Science”?
Seen any new creations lately??
I agree, but what's ACTUALLY going to happen is all the FRMS Freepers are going to gradually get ZOTed over time.
Back in the 50s scientists claimed that all the basic information was known and it was just a matter of filling it the details... and that perception quickly dissipated. Then other “sure things” in science arose, and were shot down eventually, and so on until today.
Hardly a day goes by when something isn't found/discovered which potentially casts doubt on some part of some science “fact”.
For instance: the more we look at stone artifacts, the more we become amazed at the construction techniques. The list goes on.
I think arguing dogmatically from any one point of view is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Look at what happened in physics when James Clerk Maxwell's 200 quaternions (vector equations) were radically deformed and changed into (field equations) by Oliver Heaviside. We got modern electromagnetic theory, but no on has ever gone back to the original 200 quaternions (AFAIK).
“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” - J. B. S. Haldane
Merry Christmas to all.
You realize that your reasoning is illogical, don’t you? Most Christians are “old earth”, but the earth age issue is peripheral (although evolution isn’t). The math of macro-evolution is absolutely hopeless. People cling to Darwin because it is their “creation story”.
BTW, someone who says that you have to have a specific view of the age of the earth to be a Christian is quite literally a heretic.
Flesh beings have NO power to determine who is Christian. Some like to call 'young earths' Bible literalistic, when in fact there is no place in the whole of the WORD that hints or suggests this earth is young. The most modern flesh can do is come fairly close to how long flesh beings plodded upon this earth.
Genesis through the one Moses who penned it, does NOT even describe when and how each and every 'soul/spirit' was created. Only that the Adam was not living until the 'breath of life' which means 'soul' was breathed into the man's nostrils.
Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood long before the first flesh being was formed/created.
Evolution is a myth. There is NOT one shred of evidence that flesh beings morphed out of a hot steaming pot of pond scum. The Bible nowhere hints or suggests this earth is young, that is a reactionary myth in an attempt to disprove evolution.
I don't think I quite said that. The way I usually hear it (including many times on FR) is that the Bible says the universe and all the life in it was created in a certain number of days. And if we choose not to believe that, there is no particular reason to believe anything else in the Bible, including the life and resurrection of Christ.
fyi
This is a concept that I have broached on a few of the crevo threads.
I'm usually told that the only reason scientists advocate for an old Earth is that their commitment to godless evolution requires the aeons needed for evolution to work.
So that once I accept that there is a Creator, my belief in an old Earth can be discarded like a no longer needed crutch.
We actually have one planet (Venus) in our system which appears to be ballpark for the sort of 6000 - 10000 year age you could derive from Bible chronologies and Venus LOOKS like a young planet, 900 degree F surface temperature, 90-bar CO2 atmosphere, statistically random cratering etc. etc. Since Earth and Mars don’t look like that at all you have to assume they are significantly older, but not hundreds of millions or billions of years old. Bob Bass once redid Lord Kelvin’s heat equations for the Earth WITH maximal figures for radioactive elements and came up with an upper bound of around 200M years.
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.