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 Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s 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 ...
What makes you think there is a solution?
Much of the Bible was only oral and therefore the original languages is not available.
Please, keep such ignorance to yourself.
The only thing more dangerous to understanding than total ignorance is partial knowledge.
So you have total knowledge?
No it’s that his knowledge is so much more complete than yours.
Which isn’t surprising, as most folks do! ;)
Ignorance of what? Are you asserting that the earliest versions of bible stories were written down as originals?
Actually, I messed up the quote.
“the only thing more dangerous than total ignorance is a LITTLE knowledge.”
As Voddie Baucham says, you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss philosophy if you’ve taken one semester of it.
No classes - OK, one class NO, several classes - OK.
Thanks. As a matter of fact, that site is the source of the second excerpt I posted. In case you're interested, the source of the first one that seemingly contradicts it is
I get that you think the Bible is authoritative--but why must it be literally authoritative in the realm of science and history, such that it requires elaborate semantic parsing to address seeming contradictions? Some believe the two Creation accounts were written by different authors to communicate different things, without regard for getting their stories aligned--what difference does it make if that's so? Would that really shake your faith in the essential truth of book and its message? (Serious question.)
If that were an rule, there would be no creationists here.
Going further, I see nothing in science or evolutionary theory that should threaten one's faith. Quite the opposite. The more we learn about the complexities of life, the more one should have their faith strengthened. Of course that assumes that one has an open mind not corrupted by years of brainwashing that their church is the only church that has the correct answer.
Sadly I think you are another poser who hasn’t even read any prophecies : ( Not that I blame you, because there aren’t any true prophecies.
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/nationhood.htm
One that immediately comes to mind is the nation of Israel circa 1948.
As Voddie Baucham says, you shouldn’t be allowed to discuss philosophy if you’ve taken one semester of it.
If that were an rule, there would be no creationists here.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Going further, I see nothing in science or evolutionary theory that should threaten one’s faith. Quite the opposite. The more we learn about the complexities of life, the more one should have their faith strengthened. Of course that assumes that one has an open mind not corrupted by years of brainwashing that their church is the only church that has the correct answer.
SO why is it evolutionists need to sue dissenters into silence again? Speaking of brainwashing?
Going back to your posts related to how the English version of the Bible is inadequate, why don't we go back to the original names for "Jesus" and "God"? Why are we using the 'westernized' versions of their names?
Got a source for that? All I can find is that it was because of two "residents" of the town. I can find no indication that they were "foreign."
LOL....shoved in your face? Ummmm normal American children aren’t concerned with your “discomfort”!
What the heck is the matter with you? Did I say they were? Your bitterness and rage is making you see even statements you probably agree with as some kind of attack. My discomfort is with the fact that "normal" American children are led to think Christmas is just about presents, and it's not because of the "godless liberals," it's because of the nominal Christians who insist on making everything about Santa because that's where the money is. I think it's a shame that people want to use a perfectly good noncommercial, community-oriented Christmas tradition like lighting the town tree as another opportunity to remind kids to ask for stuff. So yeah, I wouldn't miss him.
I was going to write similar thoughts but never got around to it. It IS interesting that Ole St. Nick has had more prominance through out modern western Christmas than Christ has ever had.
Speaking of brainwashing?
Going back to your posts related to how the English version of the Bible is inadequate, why don’t we go back to the original names for “Jesus” and “God”? Why are we using the ‘westernized’ versions of their names?
Because we’re in the west?
Why do we currently use and recognize the year 2008 all over the globe?
Interesting. You believe that the western corruption of the use of the word "Jesus" is ok since we are in the west. However, when western translations are in conflict, you insist that the western translations are inadequate and we must go back to the original.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic so I an not of the sola scriptura (sp?) persuasion. My belief is rooted in the teachings of the Church, but in the evidence provided by my senses as well. I see the infinite complexity of the universe as incapable of random, accidental incarnation whether by “Big Bang” or in tidal pools. There is no amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo that can deter me from this position.
I do have a question for you. Is this wealth of research and analysis meant to increase human understanding or simply to disprove the existence of God? If it is the latter, which I suspect, where is the good in stripping from
people the solace, certaintude and the moral compass drawn from their beliefs in God? Science and secular humanism will not replace these fundamental human wants. Despair, disorder and moral relativism will creep into the holes left and civilzation will suely collapse, but with the imprimatur of the scientific community (which will make it all peachy-keen).
I know, more than one question. I must endeavor to become more precise.
“If we’re going to teach evolution, are we going to teach punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?Well, Berkeley University has "From soup to cells — the origin of life" on their website...
Are we going to teach pre-Cambrium explosion or that life evolved slowly from simpler forms?
Are we going to teach that life arose from non-living matter or that spontaneous generation is impossible?”
“However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” [excerpt]
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.