Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
I really think you should go talk to a minister.
WildTurkey: < crickets >
Your version is supported by Stephen Gould, in Eight Little Piggies (paperback, p. 148.) Gould says the influence was indirect, and came from reading the Scottish economists. A distinction without a difference. Smith's invisible hand is evolution directed by natural selection.
A better theory on origins and one that stands up to more scrutiny is the theory that aliens planted life here. I didn't say I believed it, it just stands up better to criticism.
If that is the best that Scientific American can do then they better consider deleting Scientific from their name.
If you are trying to enlighten me by by pointing out that human knowledge has increased since the time of creation you need not bother. I already knew that. God created man with minds that are willing and able to inquire about the universe, and man has at times discovered that his thinking must to be modified here and there to be in accord with reality.
But to suggest that by virue of increased knowldge it thereby follows that inanimate matter is capable of organizing itself without an agent other than natural selection applied without intelligence or design, well, that is a bit much. That is a philosophy that should have a course and classroom of its own so we may consider it as one of many possibilities for explaining the universe.
At this time it is apparently a strain for you to consider that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. Thankfully science can get along just fine without your kind.
Sounds like a hoax to me. Who made that one up?
My words at #495 were prefaced with, "But I am fairly certain," so they were indeed qualified. It is not my aspiration to make biblical creation a tenet of science, unlike those who deceive themselves and others into thinking the philosophy of evolution is anything but the same.
While philosophy of evolution lends itself to fraud, if you check the thread carefully you will see it was not I who brought it up here. If this is any indication of your manner of thinking I can understand why you would remain dogged in your attempts to ascribe scientific merit to what is little more than a philosophy.
Clearly I overstated my case, and you were kind enough to provide additional examples of where the scientific community deceived itself and others. It would bear some research to learn the manner and degree to which fraud is perpetrated, welcomed, widely published, and sluggishly retracted in scientific circles, and see how adherents to the philosophy of evolution have performed.
The philosophy of evolution, however, is not a science, so its adherents should be granted more leeway when they interpret the evidence and present their notion as to how the history of the universe has run its course.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: - 1 Timothy 6:20IOW,
No, I was pointing out that if you were born a few centuries earlier, you would be fighting those that said the earth revolved around the sun; if you had been born a hundred years earlier, you would have been figting those that said man could fly; if you had been born a few decades ago, you would have been saying man could never exceed the speed of sound.
It has more documentation than the coming of Christ. It's called history.
Nevertheless, I strongly suggest you author a thread on the Religion forum where so many ministers and seminary students post in order to get a wide-ranging conversation on whatever issues from that era which are important to you. There are many doctrines represented on the Religion forum - Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinist, Arminian, Mormon, Jewish - even an occasional Buddhist or New Ager.
If you follow-through, please also include the forum experts on philosophy: betty boop, cornelis, marron, beckett.
Religion belongs in the closet. Shut the door and don't come out. Its a brave new world.
You mistake me for one who has a closed mind, like one who believes the philosophy of evolution is a science. Biblical creationists are way ahead of the game when it comes to a basic understanding of the universe. They also tend to excel where basic science is concerned.
No, it isn't helpful at all to actually understand the idea that you are trying to criticize BEFORE you actually try to criticize it. /sarcasm
First of all, it's the law of conservation of mass-energy. Einstein showed that the law of conservation of matter is not true. Second of all, even if true, how would matter conservation contradict the theory that matter left over from the formation of the sun coalesced under the influence of gravity to form the earth?
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.