Then doesn't this imply that "information" preceded life? Or at least the possibility?
This is close to the ID position. First the "word" then the "creation".
Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
[And many of those men based their ideas on men who believed in Alla, Jupiter and Zeus.]
True. Man has always had a predilection for belief in some form of deity. I can’t prove that any one religion is right, or that any is wrong. I simply know that I believe in a supreme being, who designed all that exists, and Christianity is my personal religious belief, though I am not a fundamentalist, or biblical literalist.
But like evolutionists, I understand that such unquestionable proof will probably never emerge. Unlike evolutionists, however, I will not force my beliefs on others.
Then doesn't this imply that "information" preceded life? Or at least the possibility?
This is close to the ID position. First the "word" then the "creation".
So what scientific field do you have your science degree in?
And in what area of science do you currently work?
Jim35, it’s pointless to argue with someone who has no grasp of basic science or the scientific principle. I have a PhD in chemistry with minors is physics and biology. I openly laugh at the caricature of being a ‘zealot’ simply because I have certain beliefs that are not inconsistent with actual science.
See, the problem with folks like him and other Darwinists is that, in fact, like it or not they belong to a religion as well—Darwinism—that cannot be scientifically supported and thus they have to turn to invective and hyperbole in order to subvert the argument, an argument they cannot win.
I’d suggest you not waste your time and breath in trying to wage a war of logic and reason with an unarmed man.
Speak for yourself, ndt. Your the one not getting it.
You (jim35) keep treating accepting God and accepting evolution as mutually exclusive. They aren't. Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was written on a scientific expedition he was undertaking in pursuit of a position in the Episcopal ministry.
The real problem is that until recently, men (and women) of God were required to also be men of science. Nowadays, you can become a "pastor" just by having a bad haircut and the ability to say "Lord" in three syllables. The veneration of ignorance in parts of America's religious subculture have given rise to the completely farcical idea that good science and good religion are incompatible. In fact, they are not.
“So what scientific field do you have your science degree in?
And in what area of science do you currently work?”
Is that kind of like if I’m not a soldier in Iraq, I haven’t got a right to support the war? What are you, a liberal bible thumper?
“Theistic evolution” is for intellectual cowards. Make up your mind — either believe Scripture is irrelevant or believe it is relevant. Science is certainly compatible with a belief that the Scriptural account of creation is accurate, as many scientists have shown.
As for me, if it’s good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me. Will He fault me for believing Him rather than Darwin? Doubt it.
Sadly, around here, if one doesn’t toe the party line concerning the ToE, then one is labeled as not being a *real* scientist. It’s become a litmus test of sorts.
If one does accept the ToE, then it appears to give one the right to pass judgment on all scientists regardless of whether the one doing so has ANY kind of background in science at all, either by education or job experience.
It’s simply the acceptance of the ToE that makes the difference.
And God Says No To Science!!! Gimme your money...Gimme your money.... Gimme your money!!!
These are their prophets.
That’s what I thought.....
Hey, at least I can read.
I realize you're trying to cover a complicated subject in a short post, but you lost me here. Morals are the realm of right and wrong. Truth is just true. There are no morals in that. I don't know if there are absolute truths, but there are certainly irrefutable truths (electrons have a negative charge — live with it). Is it good or evil that electrons have a negative charge? I guess you could debate that (if you have nothing better to do), but it doesn't change the truth.
You are correct. ToE is essentially Darwin's theory with ad hoc adjustments and refinements.
But it doesn't answer the $64 thousand dollar question "what caused the creation and how"?
Information precedes specified complex creations. e.g. DNA first followed by new organism.
And in a broader sense even unspecified complexity, e.g. physical symmetry, requires specific physical laws.
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.