What, this voice?
Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
I thank God I am not mistaken but I can see your point of view because doubt is busy at work in all of us. I will find several scientist for you and it shouldn't matter what faith they are as long as they argue facts. If you are going to dismiss them due to their faith then you're not really being fair.
we all have a dark side whether we can see it or not.
I will evaluate their arguments based on their scientific merit.
If it helps, I think that the more that ANY scientist learns, the more he/she is in awe of the Glory of the Lord.
To see how God set in motion such astounding and elegant rules as everything from String Theory to The Big Bang to Quantum Singularities is a wonderful gift. This sometimes allows us mere mortals to feebly be able to see His Grandeur.
This is not about Science vs. Theology. This is about where Science fits in Man's life vs where Theology fits.
"What I am doing is exposing the problems with hubristic literalism."
Let me know if you are successful.
Buahahahahaha
You refer to quotes from the Bible as if they are scientific writ.
The Bible is very nice. Theologically, it is probably true. But as a scientific text it is bubkis.
It was written for a bunch of just post-savage people to whom science was a concept that was totally foreign. It had to be dumbed down so the target audience could understand it.
If you need proof. just look at the Islamofascists who continue to interpret texts of that same time as a set of Marching Orders.
The Bible says to sew the land of your enemies with salt. It also suggested it was perfectly OK to send she-bears to kill little children who made fun of the Prophets.
Is it to be taken literally? Got any she-Bears on retainer?
What, this voice?
Well there's something because I can't figure out how anyone can say that Gen-2 is not in chronological order
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (The Animals) for him.
it's clear as day he made man then felt man was alone and then God made the animals for him.
The link I posted in 480 explaines the writing style used by the Hebrew writers back then. I know its a long read but it really does a great job of explaining it.
53 pages, Yikes!!!!! That should tell you something right there, if you need 53 pages to explain away a few verses then something is obviously wrong.
I did actually read some of it, the author dodged this point
Quote "The text says nothing about God observing Adam's loneliness after some period of time. Rather, "[t]he narrative begins with the striking announcement by God that the man is not yet as God had planned [him] to be" (emphasis supplied). Mathews observes, "Whether the man felt his aloneness at first is not stated; only the divine viewpoint is given." Hamilton notes, "it is God who makes the judgment about the unsuitability of man's aloneness. Man is not consulted for his thoughts on the matter. At no point does man offer to God any grievance about his current circumstances. In naming the animals, Adam realized that none was a suitable helper, one "matching him," but that is different than suggesting that time beyond that exercise was needed for him to pine for companionship".
A non-answer
And the two verses before show man was already around
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
So unless God is making a tape to be played later, Adam is already there
Then comes the verse about the animals
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (The Animals) for him.
If this verse actually happened before the previous 2 then
a) It would have been written before them in the chapter
b) it wouldn't have started with "And", it would have started with something like "previously" or "but before the Lord created Adam"
I can see I missed some really great debate here. Just was checking to make sure you were still extant here!
im sorry that you read such an old translated text in the same way those liberal senators hang on every word that comes out of Alito's mouth looking for a gotcha. I told you how I interpreted it, your not going to change my mind.
Actually there are alot of reputable scientists that know evolution is not supported by facts, especially the fossil record. I could find the names of many if you would like. Your side doesn't have a monopoly on the truth as your dark side wants you to think.
--
Really? And how many of those scientists have published peer reviewed studies in science journals that suggest evolution did not happen?
Ohh... wait a minute "dark side". I see! You were joking all along. Sorry, I thought you were serious!
That's nice of you to offer but I really don't think Running Wolf wants a hug from you. BTW, which one are you?
Well, if every moral guideline fostered by universal religious principle were abandoned (which many of these same types are agitating and arguing for - people like me are equivalent to the Taliban etc), society would turn first into something reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies" followed by a horrible totalitarian clampdown based on the principle of Might Makes Right.
Funny they don't see that.
It would be worse than anything seen yet.
Living proof that people see what they want to see. Including truth. As long as we want to cling to our beliefs, we will be suffering from delusions. Only when someone wants to know the truth with a capital T, and is willing to have everything they think they know torn to shreds, can s/he see the truth.
In order to know the truth, one must be willing to serve the truth. As long as a person wants to stay in the position of all-knower and judge, they remain in darkness but think it's light. It's like the light produced by rotting logs in the forest compared to the beautiful light of dawn.
Hey here is an evo math problem for you.
If two trains leave Chicago traveling in opposite directions at 60 mph, one contains a carload of monkeys, and one contains a carload of evolutionists, what distance is it before both trains have occupants with the same IQ?
Well, calculating in for the variable=(evo cultist).., about a mile /sarc>
Screaming chimps doing head flips ,throwing crap around...,
eeh eeh ooh ooh, eeeh ooh oh!!
train sounds.., CHOO choo choo, CHOO choo choo choo choo, CHOO choo choo choo choo, WooWooohh! WooWooohh! WooWooohh!
They are all together now..
Wolf
---
Well, at least you have abandoned all pretence of wishing to talk about science. Thanks for making your actual position clear. I had thought you were someone who was some waht ignorant of science, but with an actual desire to learn (when you asked what an imperfect self replicator was), but with this post you showed that you are only interested in insults.
You take care and have a lovely day.
Well, if every moral guideline fostered by universal religious principle were abandoned (which many of these same types are agitating and arguing for - people like me are equivalent to the Taliban etc), society would turn first into something reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies" followed by a horrible totalitarian clampdown based on the principle of Might Makes Right.
Funny they don't see that.
---
Who is this "they"? Perhaps you could name someone who has suggested that "every moral guideline fostered by universal religious principle [be] abandoned"? And when you name them, perhaps you could offer evidence.
Good post, #17. Also, there is no possible way for all the information in the "blueprint" for a human being to be contained in the DNA in each human cell. It would take many hundreds of gigabytes of data to actually store all the molecular and macro level structual design for a human being. For example, there are some brain cells in humans that connect to 200,000 other brain cells, while other brain cells connect to far fewer brain cells.
for (number_of_brain_cells) {
}
Meanwhile we have about 15 billion brain cells. Think of the amount of data required to store blueprints for all the cells themselves and then all the connections between the cells. And that's just the beginning...there's the bone structure, muscular strucure, cardiovascular system, etc. You get the idea. There's no possible way for all this information to be stored in the DNA in each cell in the human body and there would be no way to precisely replicate all that data millions of times every week in cell division.
A well designed program can do all of this. One does not need that many rules to create great complexity, especially when you start with such a versatile base class like a cell. This is the part of the ID debate that I love. In good Object Oriented design you build usefull tools that don’t really care who is using them or why. So the issue that apes, chimpanzees, and humans share some useful bits that do similar things points me to great design. Why remake when you can reuse. This is both efficient and elegant.
Example I have an ape class, a chimpanzee class and a human class all of them use the breath() method as a programmer why would I re-code the breath method for each and every type of creature that would be very poor design.
I can take this much deeper but it would require you to understand more programmer nerd speak and definitions than most people can handle or tolerate. Clearly I have let my nerd flag fly. I hope you find this helpful.
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.