Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
It's curious how, for some people, science is gospel, because it supports their religious views.
I find it curious that people who have faith in creation and God, do their best to misrepresent science and those who understand it.
If you are indeed correct, then science should not be a threat to you, but for some reason, it is.
Is your faith that weak? or is your reason that strong?
Please tell me where you arrived at your conclusions from my post.
Could it have been this?
It's curious how, for some people, science is gospel, because it supports their religious views.
Science supports no religious views, it comes to conclusions via scientific evidence, and logical deduction of that evidence, therefore it does not support any religious viewpoint.
Religious views, by definition, are based on faith, science is not based on faith.
Therefore you were misrepresenting what science is and what it stands for.
“It's curious how, for some people, science is gospel, because it supports their religious views.” (See Dawkins, Dennett, Scott, etc…)
I am merely pointing out that this happens on both sides…
Heck, go visit infidels.org.
Anyway, rest assured, ‘science’ is not a threat to me.
I am glad to hear that science is not a threat to you.
Rest assured, it does not happen on my side. My side is me personally, I can't speak for others.
Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I worship the intellectually honest God who created intellect. The discoveries we make in science were made possible by a God that wants us to explore the world He placed us in.
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Luk 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Faith is a gift from God, which opens our eyes to the truth regarding God's personal love for each of His faithful children.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
2,000 years + or - 50 years
4,600,000,000 years + or - 120,000,000 years
I like my chances at accuracy better! Speculation increases with time.
It will remain the same, if the freezer is unplugged or the freezer mechanism is nonexistent or broken!
A form of the Clausius statement of the Second Law is the following:
It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.
This seems to say that it is impossible to construct a refrigerator -- which we both know is not true. What is the "no effect other" mean? What does this imply about thermodynamic systems and the direction of processes?
Let us say there is a container that has helium and hydrogen. A divider separates the two gases for state number one. The divider is then removed, and the gases are allowed to mix for state two. Which system is more ordered? Is s1 < s2, s1 > s2 or is s1 = s2?
And you responded:
I'm sorry; posing one instance of a system proceeding from order to disorder does not prove a general rule.
Deductions made from the Second Law are very weighty. In fact, the concept of entropy is based on deductions made from the Second Law. I am not giving one example and expecting that to suffice in explaining the problems that thermodynamics poses for Macro-evolution. It is based on a deduction made from the Second Law.
In reference to your last statement, can we prove the Second Law?
You posited an application of the Second Law in circumstances where it does not apply. Your entire specious argument becomes quite clear - that systems cannot become more ordered over time, therefore evolution cannot occur. The entire argument is based on a faulty premise.
The Second Law has application to any system where there is matter and energy. We analyze many types of systems where I work. Perhaps, you should be a little more clear for those who are following this discussion. Your main gripe with me is because I apply the Second Law to an open system. Is this correct?
Well, I think you nailed it!
- - -
Entropy, information (maybe), mutations, knowledge (speculatively), and especially “speculation” increases with time. I think science should acknowledge ‘speculation’.
Put simply, evolution doesn’t deal with abiogenesis, the cosmos, Big Bang, etc… That being said, how can evolution state that mankind came from a system void of any intelligent design? If intelligent design is factored into abiogenesis, the cosmos, Big Bang, etc… how is evolution ‘by fact’ without intelligent design? IOW, is this merely speculation increased by time in order to fit within the 'now' purely natural speculation?
If any part of the equation is not purely natural – i.e. Big Bang, the cosmos, abiogenesis, than how can ‘evolution’ ignore and accept life springing up from nonliving chemicals without intrinsic intelligence? Obviously evolution has something to say about lack of design throughout the existence of everything.
Here is the rub, if one claims that evolution ‘started’ when life was formed and then carried on fine without intelligent design – they must also believe there is no intelligent design from the beginning.
From chaos comes design and from mindlessness come intelligent consciousness. Neo-Darwinism becomes the theory of everything by default while pretending to ignore any ‘speculation’.
You: How is it such a blinding revelation that things that group have similar genes?
It isn't; the thing that's so amazing is that the *little details* in the genome *always* group into the same tree structure as the earlier anatomical, biogeographic, etc, studies showed. The simplest explanation for this is that the mutations occurred once and were inherited. IE, that baboons, chimps, apes, people, et al (or cows, hippos, cetaceans...) have a common ancestor.
And how can something be called a mutation if you did not witness the mutation?
Consider the famous GLO sequence: If a single base pair is added to the genome of people, or that of chimps, gorillas, et al, It would be almost identical to the corresponding sequence in other mammals, and we would be able to make our own vitamin C. Again, the simplest explanation is that a single base pair was dropped from the genome of a common ancestor, and that the common ancestor (and all its living descendants) ate fruit or other vitamin C rich food so that the mutation was effectively neutral.
Interesting link. The point of my previous post was that the exact same mutation prevents the synthesis in people and some other apes, and that the simplest explanation for this is inheritence from the common ancestor who had the mutation.
.Maybe you are a better person than I am, I don't know. One belief of the Christian faith is that man is fallen and has lost his spiritual state. Without that, he is just another animal, something evolutionists are happy to proclaim.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims the good news that man, through Him, can regain that lost state. Thank you for asking.
Deifying a prophet? I can think of no prophet that ever claimed to be God, although some do have tantalizing attributes that God has given them, say Elija, Elisha and John the Baptist.
A little yeast can spoil the whole batch and we are cautioned to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.
Similar animals have similar genes.
The simplest explanation for this is that the mutations occurred once and were inherited. IE, that baboons, chimps, apes, people, et al (or cows, hippos, cetaceans...) have a common ancestor.
That is only necessarily true if you assume evolution in the first place. The idea that they have a common ancestor fits the observation of their genes. The observation of the genes does not mandate a common ancestor.
Again, the simplest explanation is that a single base pair was dropped from the genome of a common ancestor, and that the common ancestor (and all its living descendants) ate fruit or other vitamin C rich food so that the mutation was effectively neutral.
In the framework of evolution.
But none of this has anything to do with the most credible criticisms of evolution.
I also noticed the good doctor didn't talk about the actual genome changes, just the effects.
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.