Posted on 04/15/2009 10:52:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]
Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.
Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
When a body totally malfunctions, it is not alive anymore..
The body is a space suit for the spirit(mechanical clothing)..
Without the spirit, the mechanics dont work correctly...
“Dear Lord,
I pray that You will be with Fichori, GGG and Filo tonight and that you would believe in Filo more than he believes in You.
I feel like if he just had a good Cheeseburger every once in a while he would see the wonders of Your creation like we do... or maybe a nice rotisserie pig.”
Seriously, Filo. I do pray that you take the time to look past your predisposed opinion and realize there’s only One true God and one true Faith. Darwin is not a true source for anything but the absence of truth. Blind faith in what passes for science and supposition do not lead you home. If you ever really want to seek the truth, ask any of us anytime. We’ll be glad to lend a hand.
GG
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
mm: If a creationist said, "The fact that there is life is proof that God created us", DC would shut down from the overload of traffic from you guys making fun of it.
cw: How do you know that life is a fact? Perhaps we are just players in some advanced computerized game?
That totally has NOTHING to do with the comments made in the previous posts. I was just responding to the absurdity of the argument that life existing is proof of abiogenesis. If you want to know the answer to your question, ask your fellow evo. He's the one that made the initial comment.
That was one of the most blatant topic shifts I've ever seen. Totally off the subject and totally addressed to the wrong person. But not unexpected when an evo gets backed into a corner or exposed as making a really stupid argument.
And just what has mankind done to warrant such devotion? You have faith that mankind is going to find the *truth* and the *answers* with the likes of the Obama administration in office?
If your faith is in mankind, the answer has already been found. It's 42. What's the question?
But just for kicks, addressing your comment....
It's when they push beyond those boundaries to defy logic and reason and to declare that clearly correct science is not correct just because it runs counter to what their pastor pounded into their malleable minds at age 8.
How is that any different than the evolution pounded into the malleable minds of 8 year olds in the public school system.
Clearly correct science? What would that be? What science hasn't adjusted, tweaked, revised, as *new data comes in*? Any changes that have been made are presumably made to change something that was wrong. So there never is, nor can there ever be, *clearly correct science*.
*Logic* and *reason* are constructs of the human mind and so subject to human failings. Believing that logic and reason can provide all the answers and result in reliable interpretation of the information about the world around us, is religious in nature. They have been elevated to the level of confidence that Christians have in Scripture, thus making faith in them quite a religious act.
Mankind can't even agree on evolution. And you think that another species would come to the same conclusion about evolution that you hold?
Thanks. I needed a good laugh today.
Then thoughts, emotions, morals, will, decision making, appreciation of beauty, are all unreal. Is that what you're saying?
Excellent.....
Jeepers, talk about "second realities" - that one's a classic.
Mathematics is not a discipline of science according to the modern definition of the term. And Information Theory is a branch of mathematics.
Truly, the proofs of mathematics are more trustworthy than the scientific method.
And science would be unintelligible without mathematics. Ask any physicist. Indeed, your "reality" would exclude on principle the Level IV cosmology of Tegmark which posits that the perceptible four dimensions are a manifestation of mathematical structures which really exist outside of space and time. Ditto for Wesson's theory of 5D/2T which posits that particles in the perceptible four dimensions are multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension. Jeepers, the Higgs field/boson has not yet been created or observed!
Logic itself is a branch of mathematics and philosophy - which would both be excluded by your definition of "reality." But what science could proceed without logic?
And then there is qualia - that which can be experienced but cannot be conveyed by any form of language, e.g. pain, love, good, etc. Science is not able to subject the love that a man feels for a woman to the scientific method. It can neither reproduce it nor measure it.
Modern science - reduced by the principle of "methodological naturalism" and the scientific method - is simply unable to address the concerns of philosophy, e.g. meaning.
The very concept of universals - which are invoked by the use of variables in mathematical formulae and which originate from philosophy - are crucial to the scientific method. If physical laws and physical constants were not universal, if physical causation were not universal, science would have nothing to do.
Science is neither separate from nor superior to other disciplines of knowledge:
The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the 1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." In a letter to the English chemist Joseph Priestley written in 1800, Thomas Jefferson lists the "sciences" that interest him as, "botany, chemistry, zoology, anatomy, surgery, medicine, natural philosophy [this probably means physics], agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, geography, politics, commerce, history, ethics, law, arts, fine arts." The list begins on familiar enough terms, but we hardly think of history, ethics, or the fine arts as "sciences" any more. Jefferson simply uses to the term to mean "disciplines of knowledge."
Most importantly, spiritual matters are untouchable by science. They can only be spiritually discerned.
God's Name is I AM.
Really... thats the logic of some blind people..
But evenually most/many blind people get beyond slavery to their senses..
Interesting, the thought, that "science" is the ability to function as a seeker of knowledge while blind... Because that is what you are proposing.. By limiting knowledge to what you can touch, feel or see.. is Raccoon Logic..
Raccoon logic tastes and washes logic throughly in clean or dirty water before facing it.. Some religions do that too.. OK.. ALL religions do that too..
Raccoon religion must include some/all scientists..
Hey this is fun...
Raccoon religion/science is Masked also... hiding qualia and agenda..
This metaphor is getting deeper and richer in content.. Thanks..
All of that metaphysical hokum is, therefore, just that.
The scientific method isn't real. Science can't touch it. It's a methodology which has it's roots in the philosophical realm. I guess that would make the scientific method metaphysical hokum as well.
Logic and reason are part of God's gift of intellect, the beginning of divinity that evolves us beyond common life and makes us in God's image.
In this day and age to be a creationist is to have rejected God's gift and thereby rejected God. Meanwhile evolutionists have embraced the intellect and accepted God's gift. Even those who accept evolution and are atheists are closer to God's desire for mankind than creationists.
Now that is an interesting point. “Heaven and Earth declare the glory of God”, why ignore it because we are hung up on our 18th century interpretation of what Genesis means?
If science can’t touch it then it’s not real.
Spirited: Science cannot ‘touch’ or in any way ‘sense’ thought, imagination, conscience, or memory. Hence, according to Filo, this ‘metaphysical hokum’ does not exist.
By his own admission, Filo does not think.
One immediately recalls The King’s New Clothes in times like these.
It’s always amusing the convoluted thought processes employed by an evo in trying to convince a creationist/Christian that God somehow approves of intellectualism and rationalization over faith in Him and that evos and evolution is right.
Evos are always so sure about how God did things (using evolution) all the while challenging creationists/Christians about how they can be sure about how God does things.
The creationist refers back to God’s Word where God tells us Himself what He did, what He thinks, and what He approves of.
The evos plays mind games to try to convince people that they are right about how God thinks and what He approves of and what honors Him.
So we are evolving into gods? Funny, God tells us in His word that HE created us in His image.
Or maybe a clear obvious reading of Scripture is too 18th century for you.
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.