Evolution:
"I'ts just a flesh wound! Come back and I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
Evolution:
"I'ts just a flesh wound! Come back and I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
I haven't been talking about the six days of creation, except in passing.
I ask you again, does your understanding that the earth moves, and that the Bible is being figurative, come from the text of the Bible itself, or from the findings of science?
I point out to you one more time:
The Bible is not wrong, people have taken it wrongLY.
Any action any church does is the will of Man, not God. Whether or not that action agrees with God's Will is independent of that.
Any knowledge that science finds will not dispute the Bible. All it can do is clarify some misconceptions.
You missed the point. The "six days" literally bit was pointing out that you may have been reading mostly one side from a rough translation.
Since the entire Bible would have been translated the same way, it would be safe to assume you (in 6 translations) didn't get the right information.
Does that address your question now?
I can explain it for you, I can't understand it for you.
Hiya!
hey dude...
So you are not going to answer the question. When the Bible says the earth does not move, and astronomy says it does move, which is more likely to be correct.
You have, in effect, said that you agree that the earth moves, but you have not said how you reached this understanding. If it was through reading the Bible, can you explain your reasoning, and can you explain why church leaders prior to Galileo reached other conclusions?
"When (your translation of)the Bible says the earth does not move, and astronomy says it does move, which is more likely to be correct."
I'm going with the astronomy. Seeings as what you referenced was not a 100% accurate translation.
btw, this is exactly my answer and has been for the past few posts.
Ignorance, no matter how militant, is not science and makes lousy classroom subject matter.
The above picture is from this link, which contains a discussion of what it all means.
Speaking generally....just try to get an article published in Scientific American having encorporated theistic influence into your other wise fine rigourously written piece on evolutionary processes with all proofs and evidence needed to support your hypotheses assuming you get past peer review!
The following are not arguments against a theory, nor are they a competing theory:
1. Ignorance of the existing theory.Give us a contradiction of the existing theory. Or give us a theory of your own, which explains things better than the existing theory.
2. Failure to understand the existing theory.
3. Astonishment at the existing theory.
4. Dislike of the existing theory.
5. Denial of verifiable facts.
6. Pointing to something not yet known.
7. Asserting something that isn't falsifiable.
"Or give us a theory of your own, which explains things better than the existing theory."
ID would account for the presence of freewill. Evolution does not.
"Zeus theory" accounts for it also. So what? A scientific theory must be testable. It must be falsifiable.
So when you meet God, you can tell if He exists or not. There's your proof. Hope you have a long wait.
"How is a rational adult supposed to believe that because Eve ate the wrong fruit, the default destiny of every human born is eternal torture? "
And so the use of annologies to explain things in a simplified manner to people wandering the desert (and memorizing it by word alone) becomes proof that the Bible is false.
Gotcha.
The parts that don't make obvious sense at the time are going to be "analogies" just like "6 days" was an "analogy" for creationism. It's 6 YOM.
Not just every human. Earthworms and puppy dogs! Kittens! Every baby robin and bunny rabbit will suffer and die for that one incident of human misconduct. Before, nothing died. Now only amoebas, bacteria, and simple stuff like that don't necessarily die.
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.