Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
AiG ^ | February 13, 2009

Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

....

Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; mutations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-318 next last
To: metmom
So what do you call people who don't believe in the YEC literalist creation of the world and universe as put forth in Scripture

Sane?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Depends on what they do believe. It's hard to come up with a name for someone based on what they don't believe.

when you disparage creationists

I try not to disparage creationists as a class. I don't really care what kind of wacky stuff people choose to believe. I will disparage arguments based on deceit or falsehoods, though, and if it's accurate to refer to the person making the argument as a "creationist," I might do that.

241 posted on 02/16/2009 12:38:45 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do Creationists mean it as an epithet when they use the word?

This Creationist does not. What is your argument with me here? At this point you’re becoming somewhat incoherent and I can’t tell anymore.

242 posted on 02/16/2009 1:14:34 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Your argument was that I was misusing the word Creationist and/or using it as an epithet.

Seeings as how the accepted and dictionary definitions are identical to the meaning I wished to convey I would say it was you whose argument is incoherent.


243 posted on 02/16/2009 1:16:00 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; TXnMA; allmendream; YHAOS; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; ...
Who decided that science is the absolute standard of truth and reality anyway?

Certainly not Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Church. Indeed, methinks he resisted such an idea for the reason that science could deal only with secondary causes in nature; but cannot fathom the primary cause which makes science possible in the first place, which is moreover the logical, reasonable touchstone that must be invoked to validate (or invalidate) the findings from secondary causes.

Science does not give you "truth." It gives you descriptions of plausible accounts of reality as conjured up by human minds. Those truths are only as good as their measure against a universally obtaining, objective standard lets them to be. And that objective standard is not material, physical, nor developed by means of any evolutionary dynamics of nature. Methinks it is the Logos of God....

And Saint Thomas, I feel pretty sure, was definitely of that mind. I mean, probably it was from him that I got this idea in the first place — that is, from Aquinas, but also notably from two other great saints and doctors of the Church as well — i.e., Augustine and Anselm.

I can't recall anything that any of these great thinkers ever said that could be interpreted as even remotely disparaging of the natural sciences, or which sought to hinder their progress in any way.

One would like to think that "organized science" would have the sheer graciousness to return the favor, in the spirit in which it was intended....

Fortunately, I've decided not to "hold my breath" until this issue can be resolved. :^)

Thanks ever so much for your insightful and provocative essay-post, dear metmom!

244 posted on 02/16/2009 1:46:52 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Yes, it is allegorical. “Made” and “said” can be taken allegorically.


245 posted on 02/16/2009 3:07:07 PM PST by Buck W. (BHO: Selling hope, keeping the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I use the word Creationist because that is the word that its adherents use to describe themselves. They have, in effect “co opted” the word for their own; just as liberals have.

My philosophy is quite liberal (liberty loving) but when accused of being a “liberal” for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I don’t quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet.

OH MY! You've got it about as bad as it gets! It's just not the conservative position to side with the godless NEA, it's just not.

246 posted on 02/16/2009 3:07:37 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
There is also nothing conservative about denying reality and impugning the motives and beliefs of Christians who have confidence in the scientific method.
247 posted on 02/16/2009 3:09:56 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; allmendream; metmom
I think I chose the right word.[quibble]”

For your purpose, certainly.

I think you misread him.[allmendream]

I don’t think so.

belief in the Biblical God implies a belief in the act of creation, so there'd be no need for a special term for it.

Oh, it does more than implies. It downright specifies it (see Genesis and other books of the Bible). There are any number of ‘special’ terms for Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism; Day-Age Creationism; Gap Creationism; something called Evolution Creationism; Intelligent Design. When you attempt to stigmatize the generic term with your own array of implications, don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.

Yes they do. Some are just pretending they don't, for their own reasons.

No they don’t. Some are just pretending they do, for their own reasons. (huh. Seems to work just as well one way and it does the other)

I have no interest in political domination.

You don’t?! You’re indifferent to the amount of public funds that are allocated to Science and Science Education, and to the policy turbulence that naturally accompanies public support? Forgive me. I do not wish to be insulting, but I have a very difficult time granting your declaration credibility.

I just get annoyed when people disingenuously pretend that they don't know the common definition of a term.

Then you should understand my annoyance with people who pretend innocence when they corrupt the norms and conventions of meaning for ideological objectives. I have presented you with an assortment of instances where the generic term is modified by other terms (and I cannot claim the list to be exhaustive), making your intent very clear. You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like). I don’t propose to stop you from your scandalmongering, but I damn well can name it for what it is.

I will take your word that you haven't used that term, and I apologize for implying you did.

Apologies are not necessary. Since you have, I hope my recollection is accurate.

That particular part of my post was more about the other person it was addressed to.

That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214

248 posted on 02/16/2009 3:20:09 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Maybe they should call themselves the "Special Creationist Museum" lest they be accused of "hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of a term".

Maybe they should call themselves “Young Earth” Creationists, if I can rely on the picture you downloaded to provide me with enough info to know. The exhibits of the Museum should make it readily apparent enough that they are ‘Young Earth.’ If you have a quarrel with those folks, take it up with them.

Speaking of info, you have a number of outstanding items left unanswered:

You sent me a picture of Page 8 – Jesus and the Dinosaurs, from the Beginner’s Bible Coloring Book. So I can get a feel for what the book is like, do you have page 7 and page 9 you can send? (or a website where I can peruse the entire book)

Besides the above, do you have a source for the other fascinating pictures you sent to me (second request)?

You cite a single home page as ‘proof’ that Creationists “almost invariably” reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Is that all there is?

I’ve asked you before and not received a response: “Has anyone ever done a representative sampling of these two billion or so Christians, and in that sampling queried them on Christ riding a dinosaur, UFOs, Geocentricism, HIV/AIDS, who was responsible for 9/11, or any of your other etc, etc?”

All of the above are natural inquiries generated by your posts. A response would be appreciated.

249 posted on 02/16/2009 3:39:43 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Maybe you can tell the “Creationist Museum” that they are hijacking the lexicon and arbitrarily altering the meaning of the term “Creationist”.

Proof? Now you are just inventing things. I cited no such thing as “proof” and now you are trying to say I did; it doesn’t say much for your honesty.

Obviously a look at your posting history shows that you are presently engaged in more than one “I am an aggrieved Christian being bullied” thread.

Maybe you should grow thicker skin or refrain from engaging in debate that could so easily bruise your tender feelings.


250 posted on 02/16/2009 3:46:20 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Moreover Christian and Creationist are not synonymous. Once again you are attempting to misquote me. I did not say that CHRISTIANS often have other kooky beliefs not supported by evidence, I said that CREATIONISTS do.

My observation was about Creationists and their grab bag of kooky beliefs apparent just from FReepers who post on this board, not in reference to any “worldwide” polling, and not of Christians, many of whom are not “Creationists” by the most widely used definition.

Here on Free Republic we have Creationists who believe that...

Humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Islamic Jihadists are actually in love with Darwin.

UFO’s are somehow involved with God and Angels and such.

The Sun circles the Earth.

I didn't need a poll to find this out, all I need do is read the postings of FReeper Creationists.

251 posted on 02/16/2009 3:52:22 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

[[Science does not give you “truth.” It gives you descriptions of plausible accounts of reality as conjured up by human minds.]]

I might add that it gives you evidences that establish ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusions Especially when the evidences are followed and examined objectively.


252 posted on 02/16/2009 3:56:18 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Perhaps you are new to these discussions, or new to this country altogether.

A brief check on my posting history should answer your question. There’s no reason for you to be lost in a fog of confusion.

Just letting you know what most people mean when they use the term in the U.S. today, and what most people will think you mean when you use it.

And this is one time-traveler who really appreciates all your help. So much time spent assisting a stranger in a strange land goes far beyond the line of duty. Admirable.

I think I’ll just keep on letting you talk. The more you say, the closer you come to my understanding of the term Creationist. The emphasis seems to be more and more that there exists a generic meaning and then several variations that seem to require further specification (such as you quoted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks for your reply.

253 posted on 02/16/2009 4:24:24 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Well mom, I’m swimming in a sea of definitions, but they do seem to becoming a little more standardized as we go along here.


254 posted on 02/16/2009 4:29:14 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"So what do you call people who don't believe in the YEC literalist creation of the world and universe as put forth in Scripture and how do you expect someone reading your posts to know which definition you are using when you disparage creationists?"

Mystery piled upon mystery. Where, oh where, will it all end?

255 posted on 02/16/2009 4:32:09 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; metmom
it does more than implies. It downright specifies it

Yes, specifies without saying. That's what "imply" means: "to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated...to involve as a necessary circumstance." The point is, if someone claims to be an adherent of one of the Biblical religions, it can be assumed that they mean they believe in a God responsible in some way for creation. You don't need another term to specify that belief.

don’t pretend you aren’t destroying the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny and malicious aspersions.

I've shown with several sources that "the norms and conventions of meaning" for the word "creationist" are as I've said. You haven't given any contemporary examples of the word being used in a more general sense. Can you find a popular use of the term to mean, say, someone who believes God created a universe 13 billion years ago that through the inexorable operation of physical laws led to the evolution of human beings? If not, I don't think you have much support for your claim that there is such a generic use; the fact that the term is sometimes modified with adjectives does not prove there is such a use.

Besides, as has been pointed out several times, CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!

You wish to stigmatize all Creationists in the public mind by attempting to associate them with undesirable traits (‘Kook’, ‘fanatic’ and the like).

Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history. I think you'll have a hard time finding a place where I called creationists kooks or fanatics. I have called some of their ideas wacky, but I try to avoid characterizing the person.

That being the case, I guess you should have also pinged her to #214

Yeah, maybe. I wasn't sure what the etiquette called for, since I didn't actually mention her name. You pinged her to your post, and I'll ping her to this, and I hope the bases are covered.

256 posted on 02/16/2009 4:42:16 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
The emphasis seems to be more and more that there exists a generic meaning and then several variations that seem to require further specification (such as you quoted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I thought I bolded the part of the quote that read

The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth.
Are we talking about the sense one usually finds in America today, or some theoretical sense one rarely encounters?
257 posted on 02/16/2009 4:45:58 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Yes, it is allegorical. “Made” and “said” can be taken allegorically.


Or not.


258 posted on 02/16/2009 4:49:19 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Precisely!


259 posted on 02/16/2009 4:56:16 PM PST by Buck W. (BHO: Selling hope, keeping the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Maybe nailing jello to a wall can occur. You will at least get little bits of the jello stuck under the nail.

I guess *creationist* means whatever an evo feels like it means at the moment and it’s up to us to guess what the evo had in mind for the particular use of the word at that particular moment in time.


260 posted on 02/16/2009 5:26:46 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-318 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson