Posted on 11/01/2003 4:13:59 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
I'm curious though, how do you figure that someone who doesn't accept Darwin is ill-equipped to do vaccine immunology?His account seems to have been nuked since then. All posts deleted, big red "Nobody by that name" if you look for the profile. Nuking is the typical treatment for returning bannees. He was phony!You misspelled "immunologist." ["Immonologist."] I make misspellings, too, but there are words a budding immunologist shouldn't misspell and "immunologist" is one of them. You were profoundly ignorant of the relationship between theory and law in science. You only know the pig-ignorant "science" a YEC knows, which is not science at all. You are in fact militantly ignorant.
I think you're top-to-bottom bogus.
He's probably back again. They love us, and can't stay away.
Gotta keep "evolution under fire," you know!
I don't think "threaten" is the right word.
Christians have two sets of evidences.
One set comes from God whom they know and trust and whom they know to be much smarter than any and all of mankind put together. God tells us that He created the animals and man and if we understood him right, He did it in a very short timeframe. Christians typically believe God is so powerful that He wouldn't need to wait the eons that evolution requires.
The other set comes from evolutionists. The problem with evolutionist is that they have pursued their agenda with a zeal that remains unsupported by the evidences. There have been a number of "missing links" that have been discovered to be frauds. There are questions about the accuracy and validity of the dating methods. They select evidence to support their case and their dates but often ignore evidence that contracdicts their case, like the trees standing through multiple strata. Fame and fortune comes with discovering things much "older" as opposed to finding things that occured in the last few thousand years. Thus the typical Christian perceives the Evolutionist's case as biased and rebellious towards God. And perceives their "science" as suspect and as more imaginative story telling than true science.
It comes down to who are you going to trust. God or the evolutionist. God is infinitely more trustworthy. You could show me scientific evidence that appears to make a case and if it contradicts what God has said, then it is your evidence or your interpretation that must be wrong. God doesn't lie and of the two of you, God is the one with the answers.
Could we have misunderstood God? Could God have used evolution as a means of creation? Could the days of Genesis represented much longer timeframes? It's possible but it's not likely.
There are reasons to doubt the evolutionist claims. Some of which are pointed out in the article. There is more than one interpretation of the evidence. The zeal with which the evolutionist discounts the design theory and presents evolution as fact, when he can't possibly know with certainty, brands him as a liar. That he appears to be going against what God has said, just confirms it.
"What an arrogant statement. " - Dimensio
In as much as it depends on us being willing to listen, it might be an arrogant statement. But in as much as it depends on God not speaking clearly, it's not an arrogant statement.
No, it comes down to whether you trust some words written in a book, or the hard evidence written upon the rocks of the Earth and the cells of your body.
You could show me scientific evidence that appears to make a case and if it contradicts what God has said, then it is your evidence or your interpretation that must be wrong.
If that's really the way you feel, then why do you bother debating the evidence? Its quality should be irrelevant to your position.
This really isn't true; there are possible observations that would lead to a design inference. EG:
On one of the pulled threads (IIRC) a few weeks ago, one of the creationist/id-ers was going on and on about genetically-engineered hogs and sheep that contain human and spider genes, respectively. If this sort of thing were commonly observed in the natural world, (especially the interphylum gene transfer), *and* viruses were pretty much as they are now (they can do lateral gene transfers, but it's quite rare), then some sort of genetic engineeering would be a reasonable explanation.
Or, along similar lines, if genetic data didn't arrange itself into trees, or different genes made dfferent trees, or the genetic tree didn't match the already-known phylogeny, it would be reasonable to assume something other than common descent, mutation and selection was at work.
However, the overwhelming majority of genetic data very neatly fits with other genetic data and the already-known (or suspected) phylogeny.
To quote my favorite example for the N720-th time, where N is large: If a psuedogene, transposon, etc, is found (in the same place) in the genome of both chimps and orangutangs, it will also be found (in the same place) in gorillas and people. This sort of *fact* points to a common ancestor, not design (which is in principle arbitrary in the absence of any limits on the hypothetical designer)
Don't blame the biologists for being close-minded; blame the data
The quality may be irrelevant to my position. But that doesn't mean I have no interest in examining the evidence. I am very interested in creation and how it made. If the evidence challenges my preconceived notions, so be it.
But if evidence that challenges my preconceived notions include fakes and logic errors and bias, well that's evidence too.
If the evidence for evolution was not controversial, then I would simply wait for the Good Lord to explain why the evidence appears thusly. Because their is obviously something I don't understand between what He said and what the evidence is.
It is not merely trusting some words in a book. The bible is backed up by miracles which demonstrate God's power and prophecies which demonstrate God's foreknowledge. That makes this particular book a lot harder evidence than a mere book. Add to that answered prayer and you have a lot of hard evidence supporting that book.
Now compare that to the evidence presented by evolutionists. They presume to know what happened thousands and millions of years ago, but when you start looking at how many assumptions that have to make to come up with their conclusions, it doesn't appear to be "hard" evidence at all.
If you were shown a great deal of evidence of transitional species, would you change your mind?
What did I give you a whole bunch of in post 20? I answer you on there being no in-betweens and you just say the same thing. Hello?
Are you looking for something like movie frames? Here, try Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.
You seem upset here. It's no fun realizing that something you've had drilled into you isn't true. Calm down and write something clearer tomorrow, maybe.
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.