Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
Which of course, isn't exactly evidence that "HUMANS and no other creature CONTINUE to grow intellectually, while other species remain just as primitive as they were 1,000,000 years ago." You get the idea. : )
>>>Which of course, isn't exactly evidence that "HUMANS and no other creature CONTINUE to grow intellectually, while other species remain just as primitive as they were 1,000,000 years ago." You get the idea. : )>>>
Uhhh, no. You haven't made any point except that animals haven't developed at anywhere near the rate of humans.
The Bible says that, but you are the one who has locked his mind on the idea that "created" means zapped into existence instantly. You are incapable of imagining that "created" could have been a 3+ billion year project with ape like creatures in-between.
Even ignoring the "day" length problem, Genesis cannot possibly be true without bending the rules of physics. Sure, God could have done so, but why would he break his own physical laws, merely to make a very short synopsis of his Creation make physical sense? It's so very much more believable that Genesis was not intended to be literally true, because to make it so would have made it incomprehensible to earlier generations, and way too long to fit in the Bible.
The sad part is that the ID people you support are attempting to change the very definition of "science" to allow for supernatural intervention. And you don't understand that a "science" that labels anything it doesn't understand as "god did it", is a science that has no reason to inquire further into the nature of the universe. Because if it did learn new things, it might undermine something that was believed to be Gods territory, as the understanding of evolution has done.
Imagine if "science" said that God lit up the sun, there would be no inquiry into the nuclear science of it, because people like you would scream heresy. The marrying of "science" and faith destroys science. The two subjects *must* be kept separate.
You, and your kind, are taking us back into a new dark ages. And you're oblivious to that fact, and completely unconcerned. I will do everything I can to make sure you fail.
I heard this before, man is actually a large wingless fruit bat.
Let scientists look for God. If He exists, scientists should be able to prove He does, shouldn't they? And just because people reject Darwin hardly takes us back to the dark ages. LOL
Rate? That wasn't in your original assertion. Even so, this new assertion remains nothing but an assertion.
There are approximately 1.5 million known species (leaving aside those we have not yet found or cataloged). We simply don't know whether the cognitive capacities of some of those species have increased since speciation. Placing a rudimentary (and fictive) numerical value on cognitive capacity, assume that humans started 150,000 years ago with a capacity of 5, and that has since increased to 7. How do you know that non-human species "x" didn't start out 150,000 years ago with capacity .01, and has since increased to .07 (a comparable rate of increase)?
What we don't know about the cognitive abilities and capacities of non-human species is, well, a lot.
It isn't their place to teach religion. That is a private matter. If they teach Christianity, then the Muslims, Satanists, Wiccans, etc.etc. are going to sue. Put yourself in their shoes.
I suppose teaching them free market capitalisn in economics class is discrimination against socialists.
Whoaaa, don't repeat this, the ACLU will take up the cause.
Who says? They teach Art, Music, Athletics, isn't that a private, personal matter as well? Why do these have a place in our Public Schools?
A very Merry Christmas to you also!
Your threat, albeit wind-baggish in nature, is smack-filled with religious zealotry...sort of like "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"
There is no "day" length problem to ignore.
The funny thing is...you have repeatedly shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of Biblical Truth on these threads via your posts relating to the subject...yet you keep posting like you know something about it.
It has also been previously mentioned on these threads that the "Dark Ages" were in the public absence of Biblical Truth and Christianity, not because of it! Why are you so willing to revise history (that is not very scientific of you)?
Isn't it ironic that you consistently behave in a manner in which you allege, and then berate, creationists/IDers for behaving in?
You, as an individual, have made science an issue of faith by publicly announcing, on these threads, that you have given up your " Christian faith" as a result of "scientific truth" of, and "evidence" for, evolution.
By doing so, you have done the very wrongful thing that you claim IDers do...you have taken science to a level that it can not go...and you have "mixed" the two (science and faith) together.
You, documented via previous posts, now have evolutionary faith that science has proven, or will prove, that God, Jesus, the Bible and Christian doctrine are either inaccurate and/or non-existent.
To you and all the Darwin Fundies at Darwin Central...give the baseless threats and faith-like evolutionary assumed- conclusions a rest and just stick to real/orthodox science.
Of course now that it doesn't take so much cleverness to reproduce we'll probably just devolve from now on.
No. And if someone wanted proof of Gods existence, shouldn't it be religious people, not science?
And just because people reject Darwin hardly takes us back to the dark ages.
It's no wonder you don't understand evolution, you didn't even comprehend my post.
On the small possibility you might understand if I explain it again, the problem is the re-definition of "science" to include the acceptance of supernatural causes. Once something is accepted as being caused by the supernatural, it becomes blasphemous to look for a natural cause. See my explanation above, where if the sun was explained as getting it's energy from God, then exploring the nuclear nature of solar energy would be out-of-bounds.
Pushing ID into the field of science is dangerous from many different perspectives.
You have been explaining to all of us for many months now. Thanks just the same. And why don't you think scientists should look for God? Imagine the fame and glory of any scientist that could actually prove God's existence. It would be way better than finding a bunch of old bones!
Yes, I've made that point lots of times. But theoretically it shouldn't be possible to detect God, if He exists. So why should a scientist try?
On the other hand, it should be very much in the interest of religion to prove the existence of God in a scientific manner. Why aren't they trying? Unless they're afraid of discovering that He is merely a figment of their faithful mind.
My own opinion is that most religious people understand fully that they're worshiping a nonentity, but they're to scared to find out the truth.
Concluding that God doesn't exist is mighty unsettling. I know from experience. It's just that I found it impossible to fool myself any longer.
Just because you lost your belief in God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. He just doesn't exist to you. You don't think any scientist who could demonstrate the existence of God wouldn't want to? Science is all about discovery. That's what makes it so interesting - discovering something new, something no one else has been able to demonstrate. You'd be a boring scientist.
Did the judge say that this couldn't be taught in any school, or just public schools?
What prevents this from being taught in private schools?
How come January 1st doesn't correspond to this??
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.