Posted on 02/23/2009 9:11:59 PM PST by andrew2527
It's been two hundred years since the birth of Charles Darwin, a man much maligned by many in my own American evangelical tribe. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
I was curious to hear the opinions of anyone willing to discuss this small town op-ed piece. Thanks!
True. But the unscientific darwinists sure try to be.
Read this before knee-jerk posting.
There is no conflict between understanding TToE and my love and faith in God and Jesus. My faith is based in the Bible, which God provided me as a theological text. My understanding of science, including TToE, is based on my ability to analyze, discern and learn, which God bestowed upon me and I humbly accept and use to His glory.
The more science learns of this consistent Universe He provided, the more men of science Wonder at His works.
You once again assert that TToE is not science? That note rings a bit dull since it has been flattened so many times. "Cause pissant says so" just doesn't get 'er done over billions of data points across hundreds of years and millions of scientists.
But I am open to seeing how you make this scientific conclusion. Using science terms.
“Darwin’s science no threat to faith”
that’s because it requires a lot of faith to believe that chemicals can somehow turn into living things with souls through a stochastic process.
Sure its scientific study. Called a theory at this point, for very good reason.
>>Sir David said “oh so very many but the one most often mentioned was the apes in Nairobi” the interviewer said “Oh yes, one of my favorites, with the ape hugging you and the other playing with your shoe string - were you not scared?”; Sir David said “no not at all, IT WAS A BIT LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN!”
There were two or three seconds of dead air, as both gentlemen had realized what he said, he then added, “well, you know what I mean”. The interviewer said, “yes of course, thank you Sir David.”
<<
I am a bit obtuse tonight — what was the point? The idea that he thought the literal Garden Of Eden was populated by apes?
And of course, you can tell us what makes up a Scientific Theory and how TToE doesn't fit.
While you are at it, please feel free to explain The Theory Of Gravity and why it is does fit the known effects of Gravity.
As a final sop to your knowledge in this area, please explain why we all didn't fly off the Earth when the Eisenstein Theory replaced Newtonian. Please, also, explain where they differed and why the basis of Newtonian still holds sway.
We all wait with both bated and baited breath.
Against my better judgment (these threads tend to become epic flame wars), I’ll weigh in and say “good work” to the author. It’s worth reading.
Or an understanding of what the stochastic process is -- and how it applies.
I assume you require detailed proof of abiogenesis to believe in geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and all the physical sciences, right? How can a bunch of chemicals create a planet? A galaxy? A black hole?
Or are you just selective on how far back you go and to what scientific area to believe that "faith" in a process kicks in?
I’ll save my superior knowledge of physics for another day.
We are talking darwinist evolution. You know, the theory that you evolved from a monkey that evolved from a fish that evolved from a random collection of molecules that evolved from a random collection of atoms.
“I assume you require detailed proof of abiogenesis to believe in geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and all the physical sciences, right? How can a bunch of chemicals create a planet? A galaxy? A black hole?”
No, but I would if you said that such a process could explain the origin of a computer or the post that I am responding to.
The personalization of Darwin is great.
I have learned that flaming people is not proper. I will attack arguments and ask people to apply their arguments but will NOT attack the poster, no matter how much I want to wrong their... hehehe... I mean no matter how under-knowledgeable their attempts at arguments are.
That is why I ask the questions I ask. If one doesn't know what a "Scientific Theory" is, one cannot say "It Is Just a Theory" now, can one?
a real theory, such as Newton’s, can be expressed in terms of well-defined mathematical equations. TToE is really a vacuous conjecture.
Yup. At this point anyway.
I am afraid you really must answer the questions put to you, since they are very much on point. The relationships I have outlined must be understood before one can understand compex ideas like TToE.
We are talking darwinist evolution. You know, the theory that you evolved from a monkey that evolved from a fish that evolved from a random collection of molecules that evolved from a random collection of atoms.
Again, you misconstrue the process and thus, your proposed progression is flawed. In logic circles, this is known as a "non sequitur" which is one of many "logical fallacies." Should you wish to learn more about "logical fallacies" I can direct you to many sites. I suggest you take me up on my offer as it would pain me to see you embarrass yourself on a site like FR, where logic and knowledge are the coin of the realm.
I ask my question again, do you apply the same "random collection of atoms" analogy to astrophysics? Chemistry? Or do you target a single branch of the Life Sciences?
The onus is now on you to explain why a full understanding of abiogenesis is a prerequisite to one branch of science but not another. I suggest limit your response to the Physical Sciences.
Link?
“Should you wish to learn more about “logical fallacies” I can direct you to many sites. I suggest you take me up on my offer as it would pain me to see you embarrass yourself on a site like FR, where logic and knowledge are the coin of the realm.”
here’s one:
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm
:)
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.