Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Stuart Smalley is a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but not a licensed therapist...
>>What is our 'purpose'?<<Ummmm... squash it like a bug?
To please God. Why does a man make a motorcycle or a teddy bear? Does the bible not say we are made in God'd image? It makes it easy to understand the concept of making us - with a free will - to choose to have a relationship with him. And those of us that refuse? Well, if you made some self willed creature to have a relationship with you and after you created it it said "bug off" and walked away, what would you do with it?
Look - the analogy simply does not hold up when the thing you create is a sentient being, with a mind of their own. When two parents intentionally produce a baby because they wanted a baby to love and to love them back and eventually care for them in their old age, and the baby grows up to be an adult who (for whatever reason) rejects their parents, do the parents have the right to kill their child?
How about ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny for a big one.
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Depending on your age, most of us will know with utter clarity in less than 50 yrs or so what the correct answer is. Until then, you have your conviction and I have mine -- but that makes neither one of us more or less intelligent.
If you want to call all creationists luddites of flat earth types, how about my husband who graduated first in his class from MIT - he's neither dumb or ingnorant. My biggest problem with the evolutionary debates is that if you don't agree with the evolutionists on the board, you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal with the sophistication of a 3 yr old. Simply not true.
And by the way -- I believe I have remained civil, not called any one names, etc, which is more than I can say for the way I've been treated in the last few hours.
Your quotes were from 1974 and 1925. You do realize, of course, that biological science has progressed a long way in the last 32 years?
You could always pull the old "sic the villagers on it while it's holed up in a windmill" ploy.
That was an observation, not a theory. And it's not completely wrong. The fetal stages of many animals resemble one another; mammals start with gill arches, for instance.
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Do you have any POSITIVE evidence for any of these, or does your "faith" in them rest simply upon a critique of evolution?
Origin is a matter of faith.
Hebrews 1:
"10": And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
"11": They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
"12": And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
"Evolution cannot be "proved." Nothing in science can be "proved." Science is pretty much based on statistical probabilities, and those are based on evidence."(Junior)
"We rely upon evidence and theories are built and tested to explain the totality of that evidence." (Junior)
"No view, dealing strictly with the concept of origins (which is beyond the purview of empirical investigation) can be classified as “science.” Science is based upon observation, experimentation, etc. From the nature of the case, that which cannot be examined and tested cannot be called “science” legitimately." (Wayne Jackson @ Christian Courier)
Dr. Francisco J. Ayala (University of California – Irvine), a supporter of the N.C.S.E., whose name is listed on their letterhead: “A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience….A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science” (American Scientist, Nov/Dec, 1974, p. 700; emp. WJ).
Dr. Robert Jastrow, Professor of Astronomy and Geology at Columbia University (an agnostic), in discussing the evolutionary view of the spontaneous origin of life on earth has said this: “The [evolutionary view of life’s origin] is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52; emp. WJ).
Dr. Louis More of Princeton wrote: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone…” (The Dogma of Evolution, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1925, p. 160; emp. WJ)."
If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
None of these are 'scientific' theories.
"It is important to know whether I should start ignoring you now, or wait till later."
Start ignoring me now. It will be better for both of us.
Besides, if you read the WHOLE article, you'll see she got her numbers of cancers and birth defects egregiously wrong. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your worship of the goddess.
Quote mining statements dated no later than 1977 does not show that the theory of evolution is false.
>>Yes, he was. Unfortunately, your ignorance of history is not exactly shocking.<<
No, he wasn't. Judge a tree by it's fruit. ANYONE can CLAIM to be Christian. It does not make it so.
And judging Christ and His teachings by the actions of some deranged man that CLAIMS Christ is not an effective intellectual course of action.
Sheesh. Snap out of it man.
>>That's awful selfish of the Almighty, don't you think? Is God so shallow He has to be given His props by mere mortals?<<
You presume to judge God based on some moral standard you got from...where?
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Many of us are not yet at the "beginning" stage.
>>Name one.<<
Name one what?
>>If nothing has changed, then why has the bible undergone thousands of changes?<<
Do you have examples not translationally related?
>>hmmm. The Church has accepted heliocentricity over geocentricity. The Church has accepted evolution or instant creation.<<
What you seem to see as "The Church" used to also teach that the sun revolved around the earth, even though the Bible does not teach that. I don't have a lot of respect for "the Church" to which you refer. The Church, as described in the bible however, is a completely different "Church".
Judge a tree by it's fruit. His remarks go counter to Christianity. He was as much a Christian as the lead character in Clockwork Orange turned to Christianity in prison.
Many claim to be Christians. It does not make it so.
Please see my posts on the various additions and deletions of whole sections of the bible.
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.