Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.
No, (some) evolutionists just gas Jews for being, well, Jews.
No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.
Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
I would say you only think you know, actually you only believe in your theory, no more, because you have no proof only the beliefs of like thinking individuals.
Saying that there are holes in the fossil record to justify the complete lack of intermediary fossil structures is like arguing that a few welfare pimps are the reason why the whole welfare system is broken.
if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.
So, instead you'll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn't even actually support the philosophy?
YOU'RE faith is strong, my friend....
yes and physicists put their faith in a man who failed high school math. and rocket scientists put their faith in a man who built terror weapons for the Nazi's....
the man you deride, was a scientist who went on a voyage of discovery and yes he had nothing better to do.....whats your point?
So, instead you’ll put your faith in a pseudo-scientific philosophy like evolution which rests on partial evidence which doesn’t even actually support the philosophy?
Actually they put their faith in the belief that a rock came to life. And accuse us of believing in a myth!
Are you making the argument that none of those philosophies would exist without being able to rely on having the ToE to abuse, and that America cannot deal with those philosophies or survive if they exist at all?
bump o’rama
Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?
What you’re ignoring. Discrediting the Bible because it was written by a *bunch of bronze age goat herders* (which by the way is not true) and then basing a whole theory on the writings of one man is inconsistent. If the Bible lacks credibility because it was authored by men, then anything else authored by men deserves the same consideration.
BTW, you should check up on who it was that wrote the books of the Bible. Perhaps you could then identify for us the goat-herders who wrote it because I’m coming up short on goat herder authors.
You can't very well maintain that the philosophy "gave them their basis for existence", while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."
-- that guy you're talking about (who also lauded Martin Luther as a great German for having translated the Bible)
Don't try to tie him to us. He's one of your'n.
Guess you’ve never heard of “metaphor”, hunh?
They put their faith in a science that demonstrates that spontaneous generation is impossible and yet expect us to believe that somehow life came into existence out of some chemical soup, in defiance of spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation is impossible but life came from non-life.
That takes faith as well, to believe that something happened in direct contradiction to what evidence the scientific method provides and they teach.
OK.
And when did I claim either of those things?
So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
Do you believe (or expect me to believe) that saying the philosophy is their basis for existence doesn't imply that they would not have existed without it?
The "abyss of naturalism" is the hole that eventually swallows science itself.
I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.
Evolutionists, for instance, will point to genetics, and say, "There ya go", as if the mere existence of genetics was, in and of itself, proof of evolution. But it's not. Genetics is merely the empirical observation that organisms pass on heredity to their descendants, and the subsequent determination through empirical experimentation of the mechanism by which this takes place. However, the fact of heredity and intraspeciation is not, itself, proof for macroevolution, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame that relies on speculations not supported by either laboratory experimentation, nor from substantiating evidences from other fields (i.e. no fossil intermediates, no increase in information-carrying capacity through mutation, etc.)
And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?
Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.
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.