Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
This list of 10's of thousands of 're'verifications only apply within a narrow scope of like biological "kinds" (genus/species). I don't know any ID/creationist scientist that disagree with these theories when applied narrowly. It's when scientists attempt to mold micro-evolutionary observations to macro-evolutionary assumptions that I dissent. Not just because some of it flies in the face of my belief that Genesis is accurate but because nothing used as macro-evolutionary "proof" proves anything of the sort.
I hadn't thought of it this way but you may not be far off by saying, "...his conspiracy has been the most successful the earth has ever seen." (though I doubt he had the foresight or intent to do so)
That's OK Fester, I've got pretty good hops for a 53 year old.
Ah yes, MM, but "science" does not equal "truth."
The Bible is truth, and science is only man's finite (and often failed) attempt to discover one small aspect of it.
In that spirit I offer this counter challenge: Give me evidence of biological macro-evolution. This cannot be unobserved assumptions based on micro-evolutionary observation. For those who went to public schools, this means show me transitional fossils, explain cross-stata fossils, & fill in the holes in the supposed fossil "record".
You believe in macro-evolution, I don't. You believe that the biology class is not the place to teach dissenting ideas, I do. You believe the mainstream is right this time, I don't.
You don't have to agree with me and neither do I you. That said, we are doing our children a disservice by feeding them one theory and not even addressing another.
But you forget that the founder of your faith believed that Africans were not as fully evolved as Europeans.
LOL
Actually, jwalsh07 did meet my challenge as presented. Positive, objective evidence (not proof) of intelligent design without bashing Darwin or citing the Bible. Jwalsho7 gets the lolipop.
Science has yet to get a grip on that nature of time. Those who subscribe to the notion of a billion-year-old earth have the same evidence as one who believes the universe is created from moment to moment. Such notions are better suited to philosophy than to hard science, but don't tell that to a dogmatic evolutionist.
My challenge, my rules. If you don't like it, then don't accept the challege. You remind me of the Freepers and others who waste a lot of energy complianing about the morality of a particular TV show or radio program rather simply changing the channel.
I mean real, empirical proof that any of the tenets of evolutionary faith, are actually facts.
Will that be forthcoming?
Actually, you have to think of the invisible hand as a heuristic metaphor, such as Maxwell's demon or Schrodinger's cat.
Now . . . what about the false assumptions, frauds, and misconceptions pushed by the macro-evolutionists? Can we get rid of those?
Amazingly, 3 years ago, my son's 5th grade science book had a picture of archaeopteryx and a blurb about it being a "transitional" fossil - and absolutely nothing about the controversy surrounding its validity or the complete lack of any other "transitional" fossils.
I now don't worry much about this disinformation for my kids as they are now home schooled. Evolution is now discussed as a theory not fact.
Tell me what the controversy is over archaeopteryx.
What Creationists are demanding is more honesty regarding the fallibility of the methods science uses to base and measure their findings. For instance, how did crystals trap 218 Po without the parent uranium halo? The polonium isotope has a half life of only three minutes, yet it is found trapped inside crystals.
The lava flow that ran into the Grand Canyon measures older than the bottom of the Grand Canyon which is impossible. Science seems to be stuck in a situation in which all data must be shoved, tweaked, and molded to fit into a preconceived paradigm. That is what is being called on the carpet, and the answers have not been forth coming.
I am consistent - the Bible is the Word of God. You cannot dismiss some of it and not be rejecting it all. Just because current science attempts to ensure God is not part of anything, doesn't make it so.
That is the very point of current science, which is the factor that removes its objectivity, and renders it unscientific.
If the real goal of science were to determine truth, it would not purposefully remove potential answers to their questions before they are asked.
I think it's a touch more superstitious than the above, although for the most part it is a metaphor. My impression is that Smith thought there was some sort of mysterious Divine providence that had ordered society in such a way that by seeking your own self-benefit, you unintentionally benefitted others.
More along the lines of, say, bees unintentionally pollinating fruit trees while collecting honey and pollen, thus helping out the fruit trees without meaning to do so. This actual metaphor (bees) was first used by Bernard Mandeville in 1714, in The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Publick Benefits.
It was not unusual for Deists of the time to refer to Divine Providence as a sort of ordering principle for the world that wasn't actively involved in day to day pursuits, sort of along the lines of Natural Law.
Exactly how old the earth is, I don't know. Based on Biblical geneology, it should be about 6 to 8 thousand years. Before you attempt to flame me, those numbers are an semi-Biblically-educated guess.
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.