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 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-318 next last
To: allmendream; YHAOS
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.

So when you say in post 40 , "I have long maintained that if you look at the belief set of creationists they will almost invariably also believe in many other equally unsupportable beliefs (UFO’s, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc).",you really didn't mean what you said?

You now claim that you meant that it was just gleaned from FReepers who are creationists. But you took that and painted all creationists with a broad brush to make all of them out to look like kooks, right?

261 posted on 02/16/2009 5:35:49 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I feel that FR creationists are representative of the beliefs of creationists. Do you maintain that they are more likely to be a bit off that your “average” creationist?


262 posted on 02/16/2009 5:39:48 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: metmom

It means what it says in the dictionary.

cre·a·tion·ism (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible


263 posted on 02/16/2009 5:41:22 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I was stating my opinion from a lifetime of observation, which I don't think I need a poll to back up my own opinion, but nevertheless......

There is this poll...

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982

Not exactly the question we want, but among those who never go to church, among whom belief in evolution is most common (67%) and creationism the least common (13%); we find they believe in UFO’s MORE often than average (44% to 36%), Ghosts less often than average (39% to 44%), Witches less often than average(27% to 31%), and Astrology less than average (27% to 31%). But we would have to ask Harris polls for their raw numbers to separate out the 67% from the 13% and see if those differences grow or shrink, and if they are statistically significant.

264 posted on 02/16/2009 5:55:33 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

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

I believe you introduced the idea of an epithet.

”. . . 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.” – post # 202

I take your argument here to be that I shouldn’t ‘quibble’ over Creationist being used as an epithet. Is that what you meant? Or, were you just feeling sorry for yourself?

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.

I’m having a little trouble reconciling your different statements about the term:

“A Creationist is shorthand for a “Special creation”ist, i.e. someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis and denies the evidence for evolution; not just anyone who believes that God was responsible for creation.” – see post # 155

Which definition are you using when you discuss UFO’s, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc – post # 40

cre·a·tion·ism : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b — cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective – post # 213

How ever you parse the term, it’s obvious this discussion isn’t over the sacred integrity of a definition. It’s about the use of a rhetorical shotgun allowing you to clear the room with a single blast. When you use the term ‘Creationist’ what you want smuggled into the minds of your readers is the concept ‘kook,’ or perhaps ‘dangerous fanatic.’

265 posted on 02/16/2009 6:08:37 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

I guess you would know better than I.


266 posted on 02/16/2009 6:09:38 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
cre·a·tion·ism : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b — cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective –
267 posted on 02/16/2009 6:11:11 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Right — and “everyone” understands that “Gay” no longer means “happy” or “brightly-colored”, but, instead means “queer” or “homosexual” or “perverted” or “abomination” nowadays...


268 posted on 02/16/2009 6:11:39 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom
"The early scientists (and even modern scientists) based their research on biblical/Christian truths and made many discoveries from these foundational assumptions."

This long-time scientist -- who is also a devout believer in our Creator, the works of His hands, and in His Son, our Lord and Saviour -- calls that statement pure

baloney!

... and obviously made by someone who has absolutely no idea of how scientific investigation is done.
269 posted on 02/16/2009 6:23:54 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: metmom; allmendream; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback
So you're now elevating *scientific scrutiny* above the level of Scripture

Not what one would expect from Aquinas. We would have to think, rather, that Aquinas is being quoted out of context. You might ask your poster to cite his source so you may go and see for yourself.

270 posted on 02/16/2009 6:27:43 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

The entirety of your argumentative style seems to be putting words in peoples mouths (misquoting me saying ‘proof’, conflating creationists with Christians, telling me what I mean when I say creationist); so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said...

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”


271 posted on 02/16/2009 6:56:51 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

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

Tell them yourself if you think it’s all that important.

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.

I take it this means you have no intention of supporting any of your allegations or any of the pics you spammed me with. On top of that you enter specious innuendos regarding my honesty. You’re acting more and more like Barney Frank, and less and less like the scientist you represent yourself to be.

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.

The shin kicking getting a little tough for you is it? Hoping to set up a little sidetrack I’ll go galloping down?

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

You should follow your own advice. Maybe you’ll feel a little better then.

272 posted on 02/16/2009 7:47:23 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; YHAOS; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ..
Scripture is not in conflict with Science, just the cockamamie interpretation of Scripture that has the world only a few thousand years old and starlight as a testament of lies rather than a testament to the glory of God.

You've got it backwards there. It's a matter of whether science is in conflict with Scripture.

You're setting the wrong thing up as the absolute standard against which to measure things.

If anything needs adjustment, it's the subjective interpretation of the imperfect and incomplete observations made by man about only a part of the world around them.

Comparing the whole (all of reality) to only a part of the whole (that which scientific methodology deals with) is no way to make any valid determination of the whole. It is based on faulty and incomplete information.

273 posted on 02/16/2009 8:19:56 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; metmom
Yes, specifies without saying.

”In the beginning” is pretty dadgumed specific. But I guess you have to parse things to maintain your Boyarin reputation.

I've shown with several sources . . .

Yeah, and I’ve responded with several sources that show a generic use and a more specialized use. You don’t have a leg up on anything except a quantity of brass that permits you to breezily dismiss anything that runs counter to what you want.

CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!

I’ll take that as emphasis and not an instance of yelling. Yeah, Creationists call themselves that. What do you expect them to call themselves? Creotards?

Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history.

Now its’ my turn to take your word for it. Of course, you don’t have to lower yourself to calling people kooks or fanatics if you can gain a general acceptance that ‘Creationist’ means the same thing. Which has the added advantage of plausible deniability.

274 posted on 02/16/2009 8:33:33 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

:)


275 posted on 02/16/2009 8:40:16 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: metmom; betty boop; YHAOS
Thank you all so much for sharing your insights in the fascinating sidebar!

betty boop: 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...

Indeed. Very well said, dearest sister in Christ!

276 posted on 02/16/2009 8:40:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I thought I bolded the part of the quote that read . . .

Yeah, and I was talking about the part that begins, “Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants was created by God or some other supreme being . . .” and then goes on to discuss some of the modifiers creating less general meanings of the term.

277 posted on 02/16/2009 8:41:56 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: metmom

So how, using your philosophy of never giving way in Biblical interpretation to data gathered using the scientific method, would one reconcile...

Prov 104:5 HE set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

as an interpretation that the Earth didn’t move, with the data that it does move?

Similarly when data shows a scriptural interpretation to be in error, it is not the message of scripture that is diminished, it is seen in the light of what the writer meant, rather than the interpretation people have made of it.


278 posted on 02/16/2009 8:47:24 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; MrB
This long-time scientist -- who is also a devout believer in our Creator, the works of His hands, and in His Son, our Lord and Saviour -- calls that statement pure baloney! ... and obviously made by someone who has absolutely no idea of how scientific investigation is done.

Not so much baloney.

Newton's conclusion that the universe was orderly and could be studied in a systematic, orderly fashion, was because of the Scriptural teaching that God is a God of order, not of disorder. That enabled him to develop the scientific method.

Then there was Murray who used Scripture as inspiration to investigate ocean currents and meteorology.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i3/maury.asp

279 posted on 02/16/2009 8:56:21 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; MrB
Scripture is not in conflict with Science, just the cockamamie interpretation of Scripture that has the world only a few thousand years old and starlight as a testament of lies rather than a testament to the glory of God.

So, you do place science above Scripture after all.

If you feel that Scripture needs to be adjusted to fit current scientific pronouncements, then you have demonstrated what it is that you put your faith in as being most correct.

280 posted on 02/16/2009 8:59:42 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-318 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