Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3
So if you found a hamburger wrapper, you would say "Look what the atmospheric conditions produced?"
I say life is too complicated to arrive by chance, something like eyeballs focusing light with a lens to different receptors, and these receptors are wired to the brain, all by luck?
Hearing sound waves, by chance?
The chemistry of digesting food, just stumbled upon?
Before I even heard of ID, I was always suspicious of such a highly integrated systems, all developing by chance. It's the monkey at the typewriter thing.
If that were the case nobody would be calling evolution a theory at all; all of the facts contradict it.
Well at least the Slimes admitted they think Christians are "INSIDIOUS"
He turned to the other panelist and said.....if you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys that's alright with me.
Evolution theory does not contain speculation on origin of life. Many people confuse that because of the conmen propaganda and the title of Darwin's book The Origin of SPECIES.
"how can the King James Bible be taken literally?"
Good question.
I have been studying Genesis in the Hebrew for many years.
It does not mean what the creationists say it means.
For instance the word translated day, clearly is an indefinite period of time, as Gen 2:4 confirms. Since the Sun was not created until the fourth day, it is absurd to think the first 3 days were of a fixed 24 hr period.
The only thing on this point that goes the creationists way is the phrase "morning and evening". Since Gen 1 is Hebrew poetry, though poetry, this repetition shows that there is poetic license and a misunderstanding of what causes morning and evening to happen.
Scientific theories are not the same as mathematical theories or theories of logic.
They are affirmative but not demonstrable. There is no such thing as a scientific theory that can be contradicted. There are no proofs in science only strong or weak evidence. Facts don't contradict anything. They are just states of affairs, determined only by accident and circumstance.
But note the status the NYT gives "evolution" - a fortress, something concrete and formidable, unmoveable even, capable of being "attacked".
It's an hypothesis. There is data that tends to support it, and data that tends to call it into question.
It's perfect for teaching the scientific method-there's nothing better that middle schoolers and HS students can grasp for the purpose.
But for the NYT, and far, far too many scientists, it has achieved Holy Grail status, so that teaching the data that tends to undermine the hypothesis is a revolutionary act.
It's pathetic.
Back to politics, have fun, y'all.
Your minister is correct. We must try to understand the cultural milleu at the time. We must try to put ourselves in the heads of the writers of the Bible and see what they could know in their age, the limitations of language and unscientific thinking.
You are dead wrong. Evolution is a theory, essentially a fact of science.
Evolution is an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution explains that fact.
For once, the NYT is correct.
I see you haven't learned much from all the links you were given to understand the science behind evolution.
Only if you consider creationists Christians. I think they are on the fringe, perhaps a Christian-like cult.
"There is no such thing as a scientific theory that can be contradicted. "
One of the main criterion for a system of principles to be elevated to the high status of scientific theory is that they must be able to be falsified.
Find a human skeleton in the same strata as dino bones and you would falsify evolution.
Your statement just doesn't reflect the realities of how science defines theory.
-The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography.-
Pronography provided by the NYT, perhaps?
In fact, the Bible clearly states that it is the Seas that brought forth the life, and the Earth. (In that actual order, too, btw!)
Doesn't say that God created it directly. Says the ocean and land produced life. Eerie, eh?
Name another religion that describes the creation of the world in the correct order!
Genesis even (correctly!) claims the first thing to be created was LIGHT. Everything followed after, and still in the correct order that our scientists tell us happened: Molten Earth, empty ("without form and void"), then stars (which were not visible due to opaque atmosphere--again, just as science tells us--then plants, then animals, and finally, man.
Would it not make sense, as some religions have it, to CREATE MAN FIRST, and have him an observer, given a special place to assist the gods, as is done in some other religions?
How 'bout havin' Earth rest on the back of a giant turtle? Or suspended from a giant tree? Both, as in some other religions.
The creation accounts of some of these other religions are hilariously funny. That of Geneis mirrors our scientific understanding as it exists today.
Please explain how the author of Genesis could have guessed so correctly on so many matters. Too coincidental, and I am not one for coincidence.
Considering that Genesis wasn't written to be an explanation of how/why of everything, but only as a quick genealogical explanation of the history of people, and you have to wonder how much more detail could have been provided to us about science...if the intention of the author of Genesis were to focus on science.
In fact, the Bible clearly states that it is the Seas that brought forth the life, and the Earth. (In that actual order, too, btw!)
Doesn't say that God created it directly. Says the ocean and land produced life. Eerie, eh?
Name another religion that describes the creation of the world in the correct order!
Genesis even (correctly!) claims the first thing to be created was LIGHT. Everything followed after, and still in the correct order that our scientists tell us happened: Molten Earth, empty ("without form and void"), then stars (which were not visible due to opaque atmosphere--again, just as science tells us--then plants, then animals, and finally, man.
Would it not make sense, as some religions have it, to CREATE MAN FIRST, and have him an observer, given a special place to assist the gods, as is done in some other religions?
How 'bout havin' Earth rest on the back of a giant turtle? Or suspended from a giant tree? Both, as in some other religions.
The creation accounts of some of these other religions are hilariously funny. That of Geneis mirrors our scientific understanding as it exists today. No other religion's creation account even comes close, which immediately "flags" Genesis as distinct from other accounts.
Please explain how the author of Genesis could have guessed so correctly on so many matters. Too coincidental, and I am not one for coincidence.
Considering that Genesis wasn't written to be an explanation of how/why of everything, but only as a quick genealogical explanation of the history of people, and you have to wonder how much more detail could have been provided to us about science...if the intention of the author of Genesis were to focus on science. Posted on 01/23/2005 7:20:22 AM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
Apologies for the double posting.
It did't show up, even after refreshing the list.
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.