Posted on 09/22/2005 8:25:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
A "gut feeling" is not a scientific observation...
So very true!
Unless it is related to a stomache flu diagnosis!
DK
Jesus described this condition as deaf and blind.
Those who look but cannot see and listen but can not hear are often violently committed to their ignorance. They will dismiss without consideration what they will not understand.
They demand that their private little hell is the world's reality and nothing short of the fear of eternal death and damnation will drive them from their lair.
So, for the sake of their salvation, we preach their damnation, with as much love and gusto as we can summon.
It is a mighty work to witness to reality, especially in the face of all of the alternate realities being practiced. But, we know that there is one reality and only one and that keeps our feet on the path of truth.
Whereas creationism is usually associated with Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) there are other origin beliefs which stipulate an act of creation. Diests, for instance, who believe God created everything – or caused the beginning - and then withdrew from it, are creationists.
Although most people around here want to focus on Genesis, the biggest difference in Christian creationism is whether Adam was the first mortal man or the first ensouled man – based on the understanding of Romans 5:12-14 and I Cor 15:42-48.
One group of Christians believe that Adam was the first mortal man and therefore asserts that the physical evidence must support a young earth, about 6,000 years old in proper or absolute time. Many of the posters here and mainstream media are constantly trying to equate creationism to this particular group of young earth creationists evidently because archeological evidence, dating methods and the expansion of the universe make the young earth interpretaion an “easy target” for snide remarks and public ridicule. Such ridicule is silliness because in the first place most Christians are not young earth creationists. It is also silly because the young earth creationist view is a matter of faith which cannot be trumped by any physical evidence to the contrary anyway.
There is also a group which asserts that Adam was the first mortal man but believes that God created an “old looking” universe, 6000 years ago. This is called the Gosse Omphalos hypothesis. There is no scientific argument against this group, because there can be no scientific argument that God did not create ‘all that there is’ last Thursday. It is a “no bones about it” matter of faith.
There is yet another group which asserts that Adam was specially created in some unspecified manner and place, 6000 years ago. Thus he may or may not be the first mortal man (as compared to other creatures) but he would clearly be the first ensouled man. The assertion is vague and I’m confident any argument against it would be like stacking marbles.
Still another group, which includes the official Catholic view, asserts that Adam was the first ensouled man. It does not dispute the age of the universe or evolution theory and may actually represent the majority view among Christians. Many in this group self-identify as “theistic evolutionists” even though they obviously believe in creation.
My group may be the tiniest (but perhaps we are growing). We assert that God was the only observer of creation week and the author of Scripture and therefore the 6 days of creation must be viewed from the inception (beginning) space/time coordinates using inflationary theory and relativity. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has shown, using that formula, 6 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates is equal to approximately 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates. For those who wish to calculate it for themselves, Schroeder provides this tip:
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the hypothesis that ”certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”
ID has no doctrine, no articles of faith, no Holy writ. It does not seek to explain “all features” only “certain features” thus it is not equivalent to “God created the universe”.
ID does not dispute that mutations and natural selection occur. It is not a replacement for the theory of evolution. Like the theory of evolution, it is not a theory of origins.
Moreover, ID does not stipulate the “intelligent cause”. It could be a natural phenomenon like an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Or it could be an agent such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc.
Orionblamblam, your argument is that Gerald Schroeder's statement is false because it is a combination which is precisely what I observed in my original post back at 17. It is time to end this shell game.
Metaphysical naturalists (atheists) cannot have it both ways - decrying combinations here and then using combinations to aver that this universe is equally possible in a field of 1080. If you want to go Bayesian to reduce the field wrt the protein, then you must do the same wrt the big bang.
Probability is like the complexity argument. Select a method and stick with it.
And I really don't care which mathematical model you choose (as long as it is mathematical and not descriptive) --- just be consistent.
It is much more than just "grist for the mill". I'm bookmarking it for me and hoping you'll copy it over to the Freeper Investigation project - I certainly agree with the connection to the Primary documents which are relevant to the change in the Supreme Court.
Thank you so very much for the post and for all the encouragements!
I agree strongly with your assessment of the situation - so many people without "ears to hear" or "eyes to see". These are people who willfully hunker down into a second reality of their own making.
These threads are ALWAYS far too serious, and generally too pompous.
Thanks for being here!
DK
Yes.
The guess that natural selection is random is a bias in favor of Marxist atheism.
There is no evidence of random selection whereas there is substantial evidence of directed selection. The colors of bird's feathers is my favorite demonstration of selection by choice, not chance.
Any time I can have an Alamo Girl thank me, I know I am going to be a
Dark Knight
Sleeping very contently.
Good night!
#3 What happens when you restrict your information sources to creationist sources rather than science sources?<rimshot>You get nothing but spin?
"It is dangerous because it has a philosophy Max, unlike you."
Videodrome, as best I recall it.
Marxism is destructive.
I heard Michael Crichton talk recently, and he avered that man needs a religion, and if he chooses atheism he will find a religion without a god. EcoNutism, Gaia, etc.
If there is a hole in a person's heart, someone or something will take advantage of it. Marxism is one of the worst, not only has it been proven destructive, but college professors continue to teach it as nondestructive.
DK
What is normal atheism?
Marxist atheism is the type practiced by socialists who politicize atheism. These are in evidence whenever discussions about public facilities and religion occur.
These folks would oppose teaching science in public schools if it were tied to religion.
Oh, that's right. Science and religion cannot coexist. I almost forgot.
Yeah, it's double plus bad.
a·nal·o·gy
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand
2. similarity: a similarity in some respects
Indeed, a declaration of randomness - without the qualifier that science cannot say a phenomenon is actually random in an undetermined system - is a bias towards metaphysical naturalism (atheism).
IMHO, it is a prime example of scientists with an ideological/political agenda "poaching" into theology/philosophy. If the community held to Bohr's epistemic cut these things wouldn't happen:
They, for instance would not say that random mutations – natural selection > species is a correct formulation of the theory of the evolution. Rather, they would say that variation – natural selection > species is correct.
This is very hopeful for a serious discussion of the intelligent design hypothesis because, of a truth, the hypothesis only addresses causation of “certain features”, i.e. that intelligent cause is the best explanation for certain features. Since animals are known to choose their mates, the feather color of birds may be a prime case-in-point as you say!
> Creationism is literally the belief that God created the universe.
And, as we see from this very thread... so is ID. There is no fundamental or practical difference between the two, except that IDers misuse scientific terminology to try to hide the true nature of ID... which is Creationism.
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.