Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
I, however, will answer you question, although it may take more than 100 words. The big bang is more consistant with creationism than with evolution.
Supposedly, there was abosolutely nothing, and then from a single point, a singularity as some say, in which all matter existed, an expansion occured which created space and all the objects in it. No one knows where this point came from, it just was there(typical science, right? when something can't be explained, it just was, or is, and has to be taken on faith, much like religion, correct?). This is much like the story of creationism. Nothing, and then suddenly, something.
The origin of life is treated the same way by scientists. Dead matter was there and then suddenly life formed, somehow, no one can explain just how, and no one can duplicate it, we just have to take it on faith that it happened accidently, suddenly without warning( as I said much like religion, no?).
This is what the big bang has to do with Darwinism, and BTW, an evolutionists brought up the big bang first, I was just asking him to explain it and tell me where all the matter came from. Maybe if you are though asking questions to answer questions you can tell me, no one else can, maybe you will be the first and make yourself famous!
I am NOT a christian, I am NOT a creationists, I am NOT an evolutionists. I don't subscribe to any theories except one: The theory that no one knows what happened or how and all theories, be they scientific or religious, are just that, theories.
No. Such a irrational theory can never be a starting point. It's after the blood has rushed from one's head to one's nether parts that evolutionism becomes attractive.
Our descendants might need a lot of prayer.
F: Evolutionism is a cancer to knowledge. Evolutionists are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence.
G: Where did you find this "definition"? Please supply it here.
F: That is not a definition. It is an observation.
So your exploration of this has to stop somewhere with some unknown factor that is just a name? I am not allowed to question it via logical extension? Gee... I thought the theory explained Everything.
Inflationary process sounds almost God-like to me.
I am happy to let you believe that it all started with an "inflationary process" and I won't ask you any more, I see that you accept it on faith.
I believe that the Big Bang may be an explanation for the physical universe. Just don't stomp on me for having faith in another meta-process -- "Let there be light" and for wanting other non-material souls to believe it.
The same way one tests for the presence of planet Earth and the universe.
Ummmm ... is there a dispute regarding the presence of the earth? (Ditto the universe). Your answer, and I have to do some guessing here, as usual, is that the presence of design self-evident. To which my answer is, "No, it isn't self-evident."
Or is it unscientific to test for such a thing? Is it unscientific to assume such things exist without testing for them?
Depends on what you mean by "them." I would say it's unscientific to assume design where no proof of it exists.
Has it occured to you that design might just be a "given" under which science is capable of taking place?
Nice trick question. "Design" is a given under which science does take place. Science is "designed." It does not follow that life is "designed," or that the "design" of life should be assumed. But that's been pointed out to you countless times already. I have no expectation that one additional time will make the least difference.
And what "evidentiary vein" is that?
One theory can be more scientifically evidential than another based on quality and quantity of evidence but neither is anything more than a basic assumption and a lense through which the facts are viewed.
There is no "Theory of Creationism". It isn't even remotely scientific. Evolution, on the other hand, has loads of scientific evidence behind it. Just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Why should creationism be taught in schools when it isn't even a scientific theory?
You said that "Evolutionists are definitionally incapable of recognizing intelligence". The word "definition" is there in your statement, so there must be some definition to refer to.
If your thinking is as sloppy as your posting, it's pointless attempting to engage you in conversation, then.
It's not addressed to you, but you're allowed to read post 152.
The design and order in the universe is part of scientific evidence of a creator. And so the theory goes.
What scientific evidence is that? "Wow, look how complicated things are, it MUST be created". So we shouldn't teach evolution because there isn't enough evidence, yet we should teach creationism because there's even less?
How can you justify teaching an idea that is entirely based on the Bible, when not everybody believes in the Bible?
If an argument from astonishment is science, why not?
Religions provide countless examples of evolution at work themselves; they are constantly adapting to their local environments and popular cultures. The incorporation of pagan rituals and symbols in N. Europe and S. America was instrumental in fueling Xian mindshare and growth in those previously competitive spiritual markets.
What Are The Darwinists Afraid Of?
Posted by Gumlegs to TomB
On News/Activism 08/07/2005 5:05:35 PM EDT · 174 of 173
Integers are for wimps!
You see, evolutionism definitionally confines itself to unintelligent process. If there were a Creator (who may have endowed people with certain rights, etc...) the evolutionists are unable to recognize Him by definition. Evolutionists are unable to recognize intelligence. Very indescriminate beings, these evolutionists. There are words for people who are unable to recognize intelligence.
"Why not? Once the Biblical version of creation is accepted as a viable science, what is to keep physics and medicine from being the next target?"
I knew you wouldn't understand-- it's because we're NOT stark, raving mad. :D
They say paranoia is its own reward, but I'm not sure about that. Get help!
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.