Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at pathlights.com ...
>>I am still waiting for you to name a single technical achievement of a modern creation scientist that contradicts mainstream theory, say in the last 30 years. It should be really easy for you to produce.<<
Maybe it would be, if I tried. You value the "man made rules" far too much. Science can discipline itself all it wants. It doesn't mean that someone cannot say, in a science course, that "Gee, evolution theory has more holes in it than swiss cheeze and, barring any NEW evidence, ID hasn't been DISPROVED yet, so we will, at the very least, entertain it's possibility."
That would at least be intellectually honest.
How can anyone take creation science seriously? It boasts of no achievements, makes no successful predictions, does not publish in any scientific journals. What a track-record. Most of its output it easily refuted nonsense on websites and in tracts for the devout.
A sample of what? This has to be some of the sloppiest thinking and writing I have ever encountered. For one comic example:
The writings of Denton, Behe, Johnson, Dempski, and Meyer have turned the thinking world upside down.3 The rebuttals have come from virtually every field of science: paleontology, physics and, quite conclusively, microbiology.
I don't think the writer really meant to say this (although it is perfectly true). And another comic example:
When we encounter events that are extremely improbable - that is, highly unlikely to have occurred by unaided chance alone - we attribute them to deliberate design.
I suppose this explains why the occasional lottery winner claims that God wanted him to have the money.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't take "creation science" seriously either. It is an oxymoron.
Without admitting it, many scientists are getting back to the idea that the design in nature is far more creative than they are. So as a result they have shifted gears and are searching the Creative design of the God to come up with ways to handle real world problems.
Through the advent of the genome project, scientists are taking ideas garnered from examining how God's design handles information retention and transfer, to come up with new ways of transferring data in the technology world.
In biology scientists are using God's design to better manipulate chemical reactions on the production of various pharmaceuticals. The amazing chemical laboratory that exist in the human body, continues to lead scientists into new ways of creating desired results in regard to medicines.
In the field of agriculture, we have scientists that are borrowing God's design to enhance crop resistance to insects and fruitfulness of yeilds.
This is the same thing as having ones hands on the source code for a software application. Building on previously designed intelligence.
We know that nature has no intellect to produce these marvels, so that leaves us with God.
That would at least be intellectually honest.
It hasn't been disproved that aliens arrived from outer space. Are you intellectually honest and want that taught, also?
[snip blather]
Failure to describe a single technical achievement of creation science noted. Doesn't that say it all?
And they do all this WITHOUT invoking ID philosophy. hmmm.
The author refers the reader to Dempski, who has laid out a comprehensive mathematical method for discerning probabilities.
But you are at a loss for words, and must resort to messenger attack, as opposed to message attack. It is to be expected of one holding such a weak position. Typical.
I think I read on one of the creationist websites that they're planning yet another expedition to find Noah's Ark. And you scoff at their lack of research!
I am sorry. I read your post at least five times and I just don't see how it relates to the theory of evolution. Not trying to be cute here, I really don't see the point you are driving at.
I see your point, but the logic fails. I have no ancient writings from aliens that have proven themselves. I have no instructions from aliens for living my life that have proven themselves.
Those things HAVE proven themselves in Christianity. But then, Christianity is all about my PERSONAL relationship with God, and his request that I help Him make others aware of His free gift. I may not be able to prove to you whether I flew to the moon and back last night, but I know what happened.
Remember, Christianity asks only faith, not blind faith.
BTW, ID is not religious. Religious people may embrace it, but it is not religious. It is a simple statement that someone may have designed the universe and all that is in it. You would think that the more man knew of the complexities of nature, the more we would be inclined to believe it, hence this:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
But it looks like the opposite has happened. It seems that the more we find, the more confidence we have that our findings will be complete. In other words, the more we know, the more we know we don't know, but the more our pride convinces us we WILL FIND THE ANSWER OURSELF AND IT WON'T INCLUDE GOD.
Meanwhile, we ask the wrong questions.
There are a couple passages in Scripture that was written specifically to you.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
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:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
2 Pet 3:4-6
4 ...all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
All real world science is creation science. Beginning with; we are here therefore we have a Creator. Denial of this truth leaves evolutionists sputtering about where matter came from, where the physical laws originated...
Sir Issac Newton, the greatest scientist in history, admitted to being lead to his discoveries from the mindset of Creation and a Creator.
But that won't dent your dome.
Perhaps the Bible was handed down by aliens? Something to ponder ...
Huh. I thought I was attacking the message (and that it was just an added bonus that the messenger is incompetent). You identify the so-called message as:
The author refers the reader to Dempski [sic], who has laid out a comprehensive mathematical method for discerning probabilities.
I hate to break this to you, but Dembski ain't no pioneer in probability theory, and his applications are riddled with fundamental errors.
And what kind of nonsense is it that equates "extremely improbable" with "highly unlikely to have occurred by unaided chance alone"? Or that goes on to claim that we must attribute the "extremely improbable" to "deliberate design"?
Do you propose teaching this mush to students as part of some "intelligent design" curriculum?
Admiration for a man that criticized the Council of Nicaea. Admirable.
Failure to understand does not require the existance of God.
Who made the aliens?
But seriously, I pondered that back in 1970. The problem is that as you read His word, as written by over 50 men over thousands of years, and actually study the meanings and "apparently" unintended consequences, you come up with one truth: Either God is telling the truth, or you better assume he is, because fighting Him is like fighting the wind. And then there is this:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Not that it comes down to that, for His love has been confirmed many, many times in my life, often through my hardest times.
What I am saying is, you can do what your father says because you know it's for your own good - and enjoy His presence, approval and love - or you can do what your father says or you'll get spanked.
I prefer the former attitude - and it's ALL about attitude.
What about the parts of the Bible that were thrown away? Why would men throw out the Word of God?
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.