Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9
How so?
Now there's something to sink your teeth into! no hand-waving or simplifying assumptions there...
;^)
...too many darn leptons anyway...(grin)
Oops, that's just it right there - evolution DOESN'T have "massive quantities of evidence to support it." Evolutionists take observable data and interpret it a certain way. They then claim that this interpretation is itself evidence for their philosophical intepretation. In other words, it's all circular. There is nothing about the mechanism of genetics, or anything else in science for that matter, which independently confirms evolution. All we see is evolutionists latching onto observable data, applying their own interpretation to it based upon their theory, and then claiming this to be, in and of itself, evidence to support the theory. It's bogus nonsense.
Got it. You are right, it is sad to see Republicans out of touch with consensus of left wing intellectuals.
What bizarre logic!
Left-wing intellectuals also breathe. So should all Conservatives hold their breath?
At the same time we hope to find the flaw so we can make the epochal breakthrough. We're not trying to prove Einstein, we're trying to prove Einstein wrong. In the meantime let's take a few more measurements; we'll need an Atlas 5, a few technicians and hangar space for a couple years, some CPU time, and a Hughes chair at Columbia wouldn't hurt the career.
My liberal friends here in NYC all describe and dismiss the Republican Party the same way: a party overtaken by fundamentalist Christians.
Are you saying that Genesis 1:5 is therefore untrue?
No, it's plainly true. No evidence independently confirms evolution. No evidence actually shows that evolution is the only explanation. Evolution, in a sense, is merely the same "God in the gaps" that you're trying to accuse me of below. Evolution is a philosophy which INTERPRETS data, and which is misleadingly claimed to ITSELF be the data.
On the other hand, you want ID taught as a scientific theory even though it lacks any scientific evidence. Talk about a double standard.
Well, if your reading and retention skills were better, you'd remember that throughout all the past threads in which I've weighed in on the evolution-creation debate, I've never once said that ID/creationism were "scientific" theories. In fact, what I've said is that NEITHER these NOR evolution are scientific, specifically for the reason that none can be approached through the scientific method. BOTH sides rely upon interpretation of data and empirical evidences based upon philosophical predispositions, but for both, the appeals to the data are essentially circumstantial.
If we wish to abstain from teaching "unscientific" doctrines in the government schools, then let's just drop the matter of origins entirely, since neither can be reproduced experimentally, and both are precious difficult to use, in and of themselves, to make predictions that are experimentally testable. If we don't want unscientific dogma in the schools, then let's just stick to the 95% of science out there for which the question of origins is entirely irrelevant anywise.
You want critical thinking? Riddle me this. How many designers are/were there? When did the design occur? And please specify the evidence that you use to support your positions.
There was one Designer, it occurred about 10,000 years ago, and it's so because the Bible says so. Which is just as "scientific" as using circular reasoning, verifiably faulty radiometric dating methods, mathematical speculations which are not even testable in a lab, and reliance upon theories to explain the origin of life which are not only unlikely, but actually are IMPOSSIBLE using laws of science which are actually experimentally derived and which have withstood the test of time, to support evolution.
I wouldn't say that. Anyone who was in the College Republicans in school knows that being a Republican doesn't necessarily mean one is a fundamentalist Christian!
Science is seamless. Darwin's estimate of the age of the earth was orders of magnitude better than that of his contemporary physicists.
No. Genesis was obviously not originally written in English. The Hebrew word eventually translated to "day" in Genesis was the Hebrew word "yowm", which can mean either "day", "year" or "a period of time". Genesis 1:14 and 1:5 are in conflict, unless a "day", as in the six days, is meant to be an unspecified period of time.
Charles was a dilettante. Erasmus would have been, too, but he wrote only in Latin.
Yep, that's proof.
And the second part of the verse says, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
Since evening and morning only occur during a 24 hour period (a day), the Hebrew word is correctly translated as “day”.
Again I ask, is Genesis 1:5 untrue?
Maybe so, but he correctly estimated the amount of time needed to get from the Cambrian to today.
I guess it's just luck that the issues he pondered are still being investigated.
Apparently, my point was a bit too subtle....
Even a dilettant can be correct. Where they go wrong is to underestimate the difficulty of completing the project.
Absolutely. But if "days" in Genesis mean eons, then the rest of the language in Genesis is also descriptive of eons, which means that the phrase "each according to it's kind" (or "after his kind," depending upon which version you read) denotes a categorical lineage that is not compatible with common descent.
I believe in Evolution !!
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.