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 ...
“It never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists jump to conclusions about those who oppose their opinions”
Well they’re only being consistant in their methodology.. after all.. what is the ToE other than an incredibly ignorant conclusion jumped to before there was even knoweldge of microbiology or DNA.
It is usually a direct result of some statement which displays a lack of science eduction, or that the poster has turned his back on the scientific method. Statements like, "Its only a theory" are a real clue.
Others:
"Most mutations are harmful"
"No new species have been observed"
"If humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"
"There are no transitional fossils"
"The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly"
And one of my personal favorites, seen on this very thread in this form:
"Second law of thermodynamics says that all tends toward disorder—that entropy is constantly increasing. Evolution flat-out contradicts science!"
But my all time favorite was a poster who referred to the "second law of thermal documents!"
And scientists are supposed to take these types of statements seriously?
Your exchange with ROTB is highly illustrative of the central issue.
Given the same facts, two different conclusions are derived.
In ROTB’s case, the conclusion is that evolution is false, while in your case the Bible is flawed.
The only way that can be accomplished is through the use of two differing presuppositional axioms. In ROTB’s case the unpsoken axiom: The Bible is Truth. In as far as a literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic allows for interpretation of the inherently flawed existing documents that are considered to be the authoritative Word of God. I’m not referring to various translations of the Bible, but the source documents themselves (the original manuscripts no longer being in existance).
If one examines internal, external and bibliographical proofs for the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, one finds that the errors that have been transmitted through time amount to that of a drop of DI water into the Pacific Ocean. If the Bible is utilized as a standard, then there exists no other manuscripts of antiquity that could be considered to be the least authentic or having any semplence of integrity. If the next best manuscripts of antiquity would be used as a standard however, then the Bible would blaze as an arc furnace in comparision (and the benchmark document would appear as a firefly).
You on the otherhand perceive yourself as a man of science. And so given ROTB evidneces, your conclusion is that the Bible must be flawed (taking no position on the integrity or authority of the Bible itself). How the Bible fits into your worldview (if it even can), I have no clue, nor is that even material, and for very good reason too:
“The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 [sic Vol. 124] (1929), p. 233).
By definition science has nothing to say about the supernatural. In all actuality, I’d have to say that the supernatural is anathema to science. Its not that scientists despise supernatural, its that supernatural explanations are an afront to science (and an impediment to it).
Can it be logically concluded by scientists that the supernatural doesn’t exist? That would be one irrational sophistry to say the least.
But that being said, two guys in lab coats that sprinkle some white poweder on a petri dish of germs and conclude after all the germs are dead that the germ-faieries were responsable shoud in all actuality be occupying a wack-a-mole box at some carnival somewhere.
If I was able to make things dissappear and reappear at will, would I possess supernatural power? Well, maybe as far as you know, but in all actuality that may not be true. There may be some heretofor undiscovered natural law, or princople of nature that I’m exploiting. Does it cease to be supernatural once you figure out how I did it, or was it ever supernatural?
So what actually is supernatural then? If I was standing before you and you exclaim with dinner plate eyes: “But you’re dead!”, “no I’m not.” “Yes you ARE. You have a massive hole that goes clean through your head!” “So.” “Well, you have no heartbeat, no BP, no respiration, look the mirror doesn’t fog up, you are dead dead dead-dead, you are a corpse, you haven’t eaten in 10 years, your body temp is akin to last weeks leftover dinner that’s been sitting on the counter. As far as I can tell, you’re dead.” “Really. And suppose you’re wrong?” “But your DEAD duuuuude! Dead. You just don’t get it: no EEG, no EKG, blood chemistry is off the charts, PO2 sat level is virtually non-existant. I’ve never seen a person as dead as you (until now).” “O.k., then, that pretty much settles it: prove to me that I’m dead, and I’ll believe you.”
Kind of a little bit extreme of an example, but it really goes to exemplify the issue of defining what supernatural is.
Reminds of the case a while back of this guy who thought he was dead. No doctor could convince him otherwise. After losing his job, his family, friends - nobody could handle is crap (always doing dead things - he gets hooked up with this shrink that’s confident that he can convince the man he’s not dead.
He takes the guy to the morgue every day for 5 weeks, and shows him the cadaevers and points out how dead they are. The guy nodds in agreement, and says, “Yep, just like me.” “no, no, no, not like you. Lookit here...” and pricks the cadaever’s finger: no blood oozes out. (Jn 8:38)
All the while he’s working with the guy to recite the mantra “Dead people don’t bleed.” He does this for five weeks, and he asks the guy if he’s learned anything. “Well, I’ve seen that dead people don’t bleed.” “That’s right. No lets do a little experiment.” and he pricks the guys finger and blood oozes out. The guy exclaims, “Holy Smokes Doc! You really had me going there for a while, but lookit that! DEAD PEOPLE DO BLEED!”
Coyoteman, you find the evidence for ToE to be not just compelling, but so convincing, that it casts doubt in your mind concerning the veracity of the Bible. ROTB on the other hand is completely convinced of the Bible’s veracity, authenticity and integrity, and may even find a lot of the evidence pertaining to ToE extremely compelling, but absolutely can NOT be convinced regarding its integrity.
Precisely my point, and you’ve done a good job of refuting your own original point.
[You say you have training, I’ll take you at your word, so lets talk about your evidence.]
Evidence. OK.
We exist, therefore we were created. It is therefore reasonable to deduce the existence of a creator.
Life is too complex to have simply sprung up from random forces, therefore it’s path must have been guided.
Life fits its environment in extremely complicated ways, far too well for it to have been the result of random mutations. It therefore must have been guided by some hand.
Aside from life, we have an entire universe of wondrous complexity, guided by inexorable laws which never change. All of these wonders cannot have emerged from nothingness, unless you believe in miracles. Such miracles engender the logical existence of God.
There is no other possible explanation for the origin of life. Only spontaneous creation could explain it.
And those are just the high points. I do not have the inclination to once again go into all of the multitude of evidence for creation, or all the refutations of evolution. If you stick around long enough on these posts, you are bound to be educated on them over time. God knows I’ve tried to explain these sensible conclusions many, many times, and I’m just plain tired of beating my head against the brick wall of evo devotion.
It is also obvious to the casual observer that the Earth is flat, and yes, you do need to be educated into NIT believing that.
Einstein never said there was scientific evidence of God or intelligent design. Like many scientists, he was inspired by the beauty of the universe as revealed by science. Science is a study of God's work inasmuch as it is a study of the universe He created, but science is a creation of man and it only needs to be consistent with itself and the truth revealed in natural phenomena.
Citing Newton is a little dicey here. Newton did his work at a time when boundaries of natural science were just being worked out. Newton was a scientist, and a Christian, but he was also an astrologer. Astrology is not compatible with Christianity as it is based on dodecatheistism.
Interesting tag line, how about this one
consensus does not equal science.
If Evo is the truth I want a “scientist” to create life from a pool of amino acids.
Yeah, well, I deal with zealots everyday.... and funny enough they are just like spoiled little teenagers.
An incredibly ignorant conclusion?
How about a very accurate correlation of early data and an extremely prescient synthesis of that data into a theory that has withstood the test of time, including the new fields of microbiology and genetics, as well as the huge increases in knowledge in geology, paleontology, and related fields?
Not bad for 1859, eh?
You wrote that "accepting God and accepting evolution [aren't] mutually exclusive."
If you think there are two separate and incompatible accounts of creation in Scripture, then it's clear you've got a low estimation of Scripture, and therefore of Truth. I know that some "intellectuals" say that Scripture is self-contradictory, but if you dare to look deeper and trust the God of Scripture, you'll find that they are completely compatible.
Have you ever heard of the "Gap Theory"? Probably not, judging from your ignorance of both Scripture and creationism. Maybe look it up if you care; it does provide a reasonable explanation for the age of the universe and earth. I just get tired of people who exalt Science over Scripture, and are ignorant of both. May you some day come to trust the Lord of Scripture, that He doesn't lie.
The ToE is the “grasping at straws” theory.
Oh look! This goo in a jar hit electricity proves it! oh never mind.
Oh look! These moths prove it! oh never mind
Oh look! Neanderthals! That proves it! oh never mind
Oh look! A thigh bone.. That proves! oh never mind, that was dinner.
You are a zealot, and act like a spoiled teenager.
Yeah, well, I deal with zealots everyday.... and funny enough they are just like spoiled little teenagers.
Sort of like calling people zealots? Actually I would equate that with being called a poopy head. Please could you raise the level of your insults to at least Freshman level?
what do you think of my post 22?
oh look.. a fossil here.. a fossil there.. another here..
therefore i conclude they are the result of molecular software mutating in synch but only partially
That’s not an argument from ignorance? LOL
You are an ignorant zealot... read a book
I don’t know how to me more clear.
The theory of evolution is not "TRVTH" -- it is the best current explanation for a wide range of facts concerning changes in genomes over time. And, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life even though creationists very often (and incorrectly) claim it does.
Here is a good definition of the role of "truth" in science (from a CalTech professor):
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
This and many other definitions are on my FR homepage.
I think you’re exactly right. There are variations of the Gap Theory, though, where there were no creatures during that “gap,” only the planet.
To tell you the truth, I’m not entirely sure what to think, other than that if I have to choose between believing the popular “science” of 2007 or believing Scripture, I’ll believe Scripture.
But you’re right — the “death” issue is extremely significant and “troublesome” for theistic evolutionists.
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.