"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things."
Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things."
I am more concerned about what is true than what is deemed wise by some. It is true that evolution is supposed by some to be true. It is not true that it is a fact.
It would be less than wise to suggest that evolution does not occur and has not occurred.
Still, both sides agree that there was a beginning. Logic dictates that
| (1) |
| (2) |
| (3) |
| (4) |
| (5) |
So if it is true that we don't know much of anything about "beginnings", we do know the materialist's version is illogical.
Maybe Voltaire was right, "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one."
Does Voltaire still have credibility with some? His most famous prediction was that Christianity would disappear within a couple of generations. It is now the world's largest and fastest growing "religion."
The fact that evolution is uncertain does not render it useless or unscientific. All scientific theories are uncertain. Does that mean we should stop teaching science? Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories. We cannot observe atoms or space-time curvature either. These are the best theories we have for the observations. Similarly evolution is the best scientific theory for the observations. Furthermore, and I'm not necessarily pointing to you in particular, many creationists focus more on disproving evolution than they do supporting their own ideas. Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true. (or ID or any other idea, for that matter). Any alternative to evolution should rise or fall on its own merits.
Revealing too much about your support of Ellen G Whiteism?.
There are things in the modern world that bother you. But rather than confronting them on the merits, you choose to blame it all on a mild mannered 19th Century Emglish scientist.
This topic doesn't lend its self easily to discussion between persons having different worldviews. We will continue to talk past each other.
I would argue that pain and emotions do not exist independently of the physical body which experiences them.
Ideas are trickier, particularly mathematical ideas that are widely accepted.
Kind for a lack of a better is comparable to species. The use of the word kind is directly from the Bible.
I am getting very frustrated with people who make all kinds of assertions without any knowledge of fact. For about the gazillionth time, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence of God. Evolution deals with what happened after the first life form came into existence. Notice that it has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of this life. It could have arisen as a result of chemical processes, it could have been created directly by God, it could have come from space, or it could have been sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. It is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution. I have furthermore repeatedly maintained that no scientific theory or hypothesis, up to and including the big bang theory is a repudiation of God's existence. Could God not have created space-time via the mechanism of the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of nature which he also created? Could not life have arisen as a result of this process? Could not all the life seen on earth have arisen then as a result of evolution? God would still be the Creator of life; he just used the big bang, the laws of nature and the process of evolution to do the job. To me, a God who could design and create all of this is a much more awe-inspiring God than one who has to create each and every thing separately. Science continues to reinforce my faith. If it causes you to question yours or anyone else's, then maybe the problem isn't science.
This is like trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin.
sorry if someone else already asked you this, but define "kind".
Great analogy.
Hilarious, but precisely who believes in this story? If you think this is what the theory of evolution is about, you have a serious misunderstanding of evolution.
Have you ever noticed how liberals embrace Darwin when it comes to evolution but reject him when it comes to natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest)? They reject war (survival of the fittest), embrace abortion and try to save species from extinction (both are direct interference by man in the natural selection process).
My own simple take: Evolution and natural selection may be the "how" but that doesn't mean God didn't do it. Ya think he's going to try to explain it to man thousands of years ago or just keep it simple and understandable?
Add to that list the gangs of tatooed, amoral, porn-watching, communist, dope-smoking, late-night-partying biologists and you've captured the core constituency of the evolution-conspiracy cabal. (By the way, we meet on fridays at the VFW. BYOB.)
Does Voltaire still have credibility with some? His most famous prediction was that Christianity would disappear within a couple of generations. It is now the world's largest and fastest growing "religion."
Do you have a credible source for that?
Sounds a bit urban-legendish to me.
Of course evolution is not useless. It is extremely useful to some. My complements on your honesty regarding its uncertainty.
Does that mean we should stop teaching science?
Has anyone on these threads ever indicated that to be their desire? No one here is opposed to science. That is entirely a construct of the opposition.
Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories.
Perhaps, if you think theories about unobserved phenomena should be equal to theories about observed phenomena.
Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true.
The creation does not become true by default as evolution fails. However, in any debate it is SOP to support your argument while dismantling your opponent's. The difficulty in this debate is not exposing the weaknesses of evolution, but (like Gore) getting the opposition to admit when they've lost.
Non-responsive. What is your test for objects to be of different "kinds"? If you cannot give such a test, the definition is meaningless. Does "failure to have viable offspring" mean two entities are of different "kinds"?
I have never seen a Creationist define "kind." Of course, lacking any defnition, there is no way to verify any of their claims about "kinds."
Evolutionist or Evangelist? ....... 
Evolutionist or Evangelist? .......
Wow I didn't realize my opinion could disprove an entire theory!
We do disagree on whether the mind is an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. I say no, you say yes. But I consider that issue separate from qualia which (IMHO) more closely relates to a (non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal) mathematical structure or idea.
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.