Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwins natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. Thats what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
The whole argument was just a stack of “guilt by association” ploys to start with. Bad data, bad logic, bad conclusions.
I didn’t say anything about what regimes they came from. I said Pape was able to determine that the vast majority of the Hezbollah suicide bombers were affiliated with secular leftist political groups such as the “Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union.” And while Pape did everyone a great service by gathering this data, his interpretation of the same leaves much to be desired. Making sense of that data is better left to competent conservatives IMHO.
You are unclear on the relationship between a theory and a law. Perhaps this will help:
Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory.
You said, “liberal mayor in Montgomery county Maryland who DIS-invited santa to come and light the town Christmas tree because he might somehow offend the handful of non-American children there.” The clear implication was that anyone who wouldn’t want Santa lighting the Christmas tree was non-American. I know some Jewish people who do not celebrate Christmas and are uncomfortable with having Santa shoved in their faces for a month each winter, so the obvious conclusion was that you would call them non-American.
From the information I’ve read the dispute was because of TWO foreign families. And I’d also be willing to bet just like Michael Newdow hijacking his daughter...they probably had no problem with santa in the first place.
Of course your agenda requires you drag Jewish Americans into the discussion. Jumping to conclusions.
Again, I saw right through it.
(Frankly, I’m uncomfortable with having Santa shoved in my face for a month every winter, too. I would not miss him at a tree-lighting ceremony—I wish we didn’t have to inject the present-bringer into every other Christmas ritual.)
LOL....shoved in your face? Ummmm normal American children aren’t concerned with your “discomfort”!
Geee get over yourself already!
But I do not believe that the “intelligence” is dead, AWOL, in suspended animation, or has returned to the Mother Ship! Rather, my faith (note: small “f”) compels me to choose that the design was conceived and implimented by the eternal, living God.
OK, I’ll capitulate, since you actually seem to be seeking some answers instead of sniping.
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
Now, to explain “why I think it’s authoritative” - the BIBLE is Authoritative, it is the axiom. I start with that assumption.
I do NOT start with the assumption that man’s logic is infallible,\; that if the Bible “contradicts” man’s reason, the Bible must be wrong. The logical conclusion of this starting point - the explanation that shows the authoritativeness of the bible is the correct one.
The New Zealanders will eat up what this cosmically haughty, galactically narcissistic “astrobiologist” has to offer. That country has become so secular, I do believe that the name of Christchurch will be changed to Devilden.
The New Zealanders will eat up what this cosmically haughty, galactically narcissistic “astrobiologist” has to offer. That country has become so secular, I do believe that the name of Christchurch will be changed to Devilden.
Which bible? We have already established by your research that the English versions are inadequate.
But I am God’s servant, not His slave. Big difference!
Servant, slave, it matters not which you prefer to call yourself. I am still your Master.
Yeah, if we want to know what the bible says, we HAVE to learn the original languages.
Heck, why don’t we just OUTLAW printing them in English? They outlaw Chinese language bibles in China! Sounds like a great idea.
That’s what your ideal would be, wouldn’t it?
Seriously, let’s just boil it down to your goals - NO BIBLES, NO RELIGION, NO MENTION OF GOD, NO MENTION OF ABSOLUTE MORALITY -
because it bothers your conscience.
“I think I see a light into your view. ‘Materialistic’ is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.”
I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.
This whole thing got started when your fellow evo Cold Water tried to associate Christianity with Radical Islam:
I think I see a light into your view. Materialistic is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.
I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.
This whole thing got started when your fellow evo Cold Water tried to associate Christianity with Radical Islam:
I think I see a light into your view. Materialistic is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.
I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.
Why would you believe in a movement that has a leader that says the Designer may be dead since there was no evidence of his interaction in evolution for the last few hundred million years?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s odd... If I were looking for outside intervention in evolutionary history, the branching of the human and chimpanzee lines just a few million years ago would seem like an obvious possibility. The basic similarity between humans and chimps is screamingly obvious and denying it is where Creationist arguments are at their weakest, but there are also some serious differences in the fine tuning that make us what we are, like greater intelligence and walking completely upright. Explaining the divergence has led to theories ranging from the wacky (von Däniken-esque space aliens guiding human evolution) to the plausible if not generally accepted (the Aquatic Ape Theory). Someone trying to bring religion in line with science would just about have to assume divine intervention at that branching with the intent of producing a being with enough intelligence for free will, I would think.
In your dreams, ColdDrinkOfWater! Last time I looked in my handy-dandy, unscientific dictionary, sophistry is not mastery.
Yes. That goes back you your earlier posts citing how the English versions were inadequate and subject to literal misinterpretation.
If you need clarification of any passages that you read in English, the original language and extended translations are available,
but that’s not what you’re getting at, is it?
Seriously, what’s your point?
What would be your ultimate solution to the “translation problem”?
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.