Uh, ok...
Posted on 02/02/2013 9:30:30 AM PST by bray
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your Freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Cor 8:9
What if everything about evolution is a lie? This would mean everything built on the theory of evolution is a fraud too. One of the primary gaps evolutionists never want to discuss is where life began? They have two primary theories, it either randomly developed from the primordial soup of came from another universe on an asteroid. Neither of these theories is believable yet the entire theory of evolution is built on them even though the odds are around one in infinity.
There is a huge void in scientific explanation how life and evolution started so most scientists dismiss it as not important or in any need of explanation or proof. They say there was a Big Bang when nothing became something and then exploded into an explosion creating the universe according to all of their infallible models. After billions and billions of years, life magically, oops, scientifically appeared to begin the evolutionary chain. The only explanation the Darwinists have for life beginning is time rather than God. For evolutionists God is to be mocked while billions and billions of years is a serious explanation.
If you ask an evolutionist how life began they will immediately tell you that how life began is not a part of evolution. If you continue to ax the question they will either call you all types of names the worst of which is Christian or explain how only scientists understand how life began. It usually comes down to their ability to intimidate and bully people and even fellow scientists into backing down from the obvious black hole of life’s beginning. They will usually begin their virtual firing squad for anyone daring to question the beginning of life as subhuman and not part of academia’s Holy of Holies.
Their primary explanation is the primordial soup explanation. After the Big Bang and the earth formed with millions of years of volcanoes and flowing lava when the hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water and the cooling began. Randomly the earth just happened to circle the sun at exactly the right orbit and rotation to make the water the perfect temperature for life. Then a few million years ago the chemicals randomly formed amino acids turning into some type of primitive bacteria and billions of years later that bacteria is making laptops.
The problem with this theory is how complex that random event had to be. As scientists become more and more familiar with amino acids and DNA they are finding it is far more complex than they ever knew it was. The genetic codes are still ninety eight percent unexplained as they find more and more unexplainable pieces of the complexity it points less and less to a random act. They were dismissing the unexplained parts as Junk DNA pieces since they have only been able to identify less than 2% of DNA code and invented the term junk for the rest. This should be insulting to their intelligence and certainly to ours. As they get deeper and deeper into the DNA code they are finding that there is no junk in the code and more complexity making the randomness even less possible. Simply Google junk DNA and find out the lies are being exposed by those brave enough to question science. It would take trillions and trillions of years for a DNA helix to form randomly not simply billions. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Their second explanation which is not as universally accepted but basically a fallback theory is the amino acids and life source came from space. This was developed when they realized their primordial soup explanation really didn’t hold water. So they developed the asteroid explanation that a life seed came from a distant solar system billions of light years away and fell to the earth at just the right time and apparently into the ocean after it survived the billion year trip in a vacuum and thousand degree temps during entry into our atmosphere. The obvious questions are where did it come from and is the solar system it came from more or less superior than ours. It is ok to believe there are life forms on other planets but it is not ok to believe there is a God.
Simply because a scientist says over billions of years and billions of chances can make something happen does not make it so. This is only a theory but one that really does not withstand the smell test when you think about it. Fortunately for evolution, scientists generally refuse to question any of their theories and rely on consensus to verify and vilify their earth sized holes in their theories. They have had to fight for this theory so completely and ignore so many craters it has become more of a magic show than science. They use smoke and mirrors to keep people from asking the important questions or demanding an explanation of why those odds are looking more like infinity to one than the truth.
Imagine if scientists spent as much time, energy and money trying to find out if God is real than trying to disprove God. Science has become a religion based on an atheistic belief that we began as nothing and when we die we go back to nothing. It is a religion that places all of its faith in evolution with no explanation of how life arrived but when it came, random chance and mutations has got us to the point man can think, read and write. They have replaced God with billions and billions of years so time is the miracle of our creation. What is the difference between their faith in billions of years and faith in God?
Evolution became the first agenda driven junk science of the modern world. Science is basically following a 19th century idea which if they were true scientists would have been disproved millions of times over but the politics won’t allow it. They need to have people turn from God to force their hope and trust in the gummit. They need the people to believe gummit is their god where all of their hope exists.
If people would put their faith and hope in God they would not need the gummit and most of its controls. If people were saved by Jesus Christ and believed he is where all hope exists there would be a heaven beyond this earth, something the Darwinists can’t offer. If there is a heaven and hell and Jesus saves us sinners from that torture we deserve then we wouldn’t need gummit to regulate our lives as we would simply follow the rules set in the Bible. This is the communists’ greatest fear that people would be free to live their lives as they wish without their absolute control.
Imagine if science were to investigate the marvel of God’s creation and how it so miraculously relates together rather than attempting to use his design as proof there is no God? Science could actually be a positive to most lives rather than its need to be god and repeatedly use its power to control our lives with all of their junk science decrees. You can see all the failures of science everywhere you look so why do we continue to believe evolution with all of its massive gaps? It is time to evolve from evolution.
Pray for America
More cow-bell...
What do you own?
is there any truth?
Or is it all relative?
Dude - put down the bong and back away from the computer. Go watch TeeVee for a while or maybe get something to eat...
That's the so-called scientific method -- which is a terrible name, not because it doesn't work but because it encourages the mistaken belief that anything that does not use it is not a science. The intro to the wikipedia article says the following:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).This is indicative of either (a) what linguistics would call drift, or (b) the same systematic redefinition of words to control thoughts that the liberal/progressive/asshats employ: "winning the battlefield by controlling the language."
There is no real reason to discard the older definition [underlined] should be discarded in favor of the new [italicized]; and, indeed, a lot of damage can be done by trying to do so -- if mathematics is not a science then how can science use its branches (logic) or techniques (deduction, induction, etc)... indeed how can something be falsifiable [by science] when you reject from 'science' the mechanisms of reasoning?
Also, as a counter-example of math not having predictability and (and even falsifiability) I would submit the very computer you are using -- for the very software it runs bridges the gap of mathematics's specifications to the program which is the implementation. -- I am a Computer Scientist, and I can reason about a program proving and disproving attributes and situations [debugging].
Uh, ok...
No.
unlike you, I can actually understand what I read.
It’s called “Comprehension”
I, unlike you, will not be told what to believe.
I have no peer pressure.
Words actually have meaning.
Whether they appear in a scientific journal or on this website.
Please, help me out, use your scientific materialism to find logic.
Can you find it without logic?
Dang. It was pretty cool...
turns everything upside down
What guarantee can you give us that there are no guarantees?
Do you have proof that there are no proofs?
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
Can you more clearly explicate the scientific method as it relates to science? Some of the scientific historical sciences (geology, anthropology, even biology) are abductive in their pronouncements. Given your pronouncements of no guarantees, no proofs, and no absolutes, your a priori certitude and your devotion to methodological naturalism there are several concepts you must struggle (in vain) with, such as abstract invarient universal entities, consciousness, mathemathics, reason, logic, rational thought and first offer an epistemilogical explaination in a physicalists' worldview.
For example I would ask you if you believe the brain and our noetic faculties must operate normatively in order to in order for homo sapien to truthfully analyze the observations of the universe. Darwin asked this in a different way when he said, "Why would anyone believe a chimpanzee would give rise to a brain (noetic apparatus) with convictions that are true?"
A simple question which I would ask you is this: Do you know it is true that evolution accounts for life on earth?
really ?
are you for real on any level?
WTF?
Very well stated.
What is astounding to me is the extents at which folks go to deny there our nature.
Well done. That one is going to be hard to dismiss with some two bit cliche.
Pray for America
Please forgive my very poorly written comment.
While awaiting stormers reply
I’d like to tell about Texas Radio and the Big Beat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MbXcef8JQY
If naturalism (methodological, metaphysical) is true, there is no God, it becomes impossible to account for any invarient, abstract, universal entity. What shall stormer answer,...No, the brain does not have operate normatively in order for cognitive functions to be reliable. If yes, then the physicalist must explain how that might occur. If, no, then there is an admission that normative cognitive function is not required to analyze for truth, the observations of the universe....and therefore we have no reason to rely on any observation and analyze for truth. Darwin said natural selection only selects for behaviors, not beliefs. If that is true, can any belief held, such as, 'we rely on logic and reason to implement scientific method'. Under those circumstances, any finding by scientific method are arbitrary and caprcious and there is no reason be believe that the applied logic can be trusted. No, the scientist has presuppositional committments just as the theist does. The difference is the theist can account for those metaphysical entities and those abstract entities which have a sort of metaphysical quality about it. The physicalist, naturalist, Darwinist can not begin to offer an epistemic explaination for anything. He must rely on his faith in his presuppositional committements to explain himself. When pressed, he claims the highest road of what Gould called the 'scientific magisterium' and said a theistic magesterium would be allowed to exist,but never shall the twain meet. It was sort of a claim of leaving the left-overs to the theists world. And having made such claims, they close the door, proclaim ignorance of the theist and declare victory. But, these questions still hang in the air unanswered, and we keep asking for their explaination and explain themselves regarding these questions. As I read the thread the explaination, when asked the abiotic origin of life, make a declarative statement that origin of life has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Of course, the second organism would never have evolved if the first had not, they say. So making a claim of that subject being off limits, they set their sights on homogies, embryological similarities, biogeographical distribution, the declarations of rudimentary organs, they then set out to make their case, having gerrymandered uncomfortable juxaposed subject matter. Once their ground rules are declared they proceed to try to make their case using logic, reason, and rational thought, even though they cannot account for logic, reason, and rational thought. These volitional declarations are unscientific presuppositions and boil down to opinion, not science.
Naturalism is dead. We simply need to give time to the metaphysical naturalist to come to terms with its defeat. Or, defend it.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow.
The next honest, transitional questions are that of free will and Satan.
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.