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
Yes, Jastrow, atheist, is an honest atheist. Hoyle, Eddington, even Einstein (though he said he became a theist, his was a pantheistic worldview) were honest about their analysis of their findings. The newer neodarwinists are more militant in their presuppositional beliefs than those scientists of previous years. Gould created the fiction of punctuated equilibrium. Hoyle proffered panspermia. Einstein proffered what he came to declare was the biggest scientific blunder of his life with his conjoured cosmological constant. He later recanted to Edwin Hubble when he visited him at Mt. Wilson observatory, just outside of Los Angeles. Many other fictions, in the name of promulgating darwinism, have been offered. The twentieth century was largely an era in science of trying to prove Big Bang Cosmology (moment of creation) was not the case. All of the scientific evidence pointed toward a beginning despite their deep seated desire that that not be the case.
So, if I call their beginning, and raise with a young earth.
Where will your chips fall?
I do not subscribe to the young earth notion. But clearly it is a created universe by a timeless, incredibly powerful, nonspatial, personal ( to have decided to create the universe creatio ex nihlo), superintelligent, (to have ordered the universe of this complexity), immaterial (spirit). These characteristics are those which are proven by science (via induction). But one does not come to the Christian faith by sight. These characteristics are the same as those spoken of in the Bible regarding our theistic description of God...the transcendent agency who is what Leibnz described as the greatest conceivable Being. But, if one comes to Christ he must come as a little child...by faith in the finished work of Jesus on the Cross, the death, burial, resurrection of the one and only Man, God who became a man to pay a price which I never could.
I can’t express how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness and honesty.
My greatest hurdle, after many years of exploration was that of the age of the earth.
I had always viewed the young earth creationists as a bit crazy.
Maybe, I’m crazy now.
I found Christ through the process of elimination.
And I was crazy then.
I can’t help but to use my God given talent to figure things out.
For myself.
In addition,
The question of Free will and if Satan is real.
These where the final barriers for me.
Well, wherever it is you're sitting, you will do it without me. I cannot adopt or embrace your conclusions because I cannot fathom the semantics of the resoning you're using to arrive at them.
Just evolution? There's also general biology, chemistry, physics and geology. I'm guessing the Religion moderators may not care for the idea, but you could ask.
Nice cliche for a dodge. How many times have you sued that not so clever line. Guess you have no answer or explanation why dating is so subjective so back to the old smoke and mirrors.
Whatever - you certainly haven’t contributed anything but the standard creationist BS.
Ah- the old dismiss it as not worthy of your answer cliche. You are become a list of cliches in search of a coherent thought. Typical Darwinist clinging to his dead religion.
As you asked regarding the quote from Darwin, he said expressing his doubts of darwinism: "With me," he said, "the horrid doubt always arises whether teh onvictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" This is found in Darwins own pen, in a letter to William Graham, Down, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London, John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887),1:315-316. It is widely quoted by Darwinists and Theists alike in serious discussions of this kind of debate. Alvin Plantinga has written extensively on the subject. I can give you other references which site the quote, but I see no need in it.
The rhetorical device which you employ is a common stylistic method for evasion of addressing the content of the question. It is mostly evasive prose. Deriding the theist by involking the 'heroic age of science' maneuver. The device, rhetorically speaking, is to make the skeptic reader or debater feel if you do not 'believe' the oppositions appeal to scientific 'advancement' you have been left behind the scientific magesteriums pronouncements and are illiterate and uninformed. To be dismissive in the face of legitimate epistemological questions is a form of a self-imposed defeater of your position. Most serious-minded people who choose to engage in making their arguement are simply expressing what they believe are logical incoherencies in the Darwinists worldview.
I am willing to learn from you and am willing to teach you. But people who talk past the other offer no good will to learn and are stuck in their untenable position from which their logic and reason cannot extricate them from their selfimposed ignorance on the subject. That, by the way, is a two-way street. It is not just the Darwinists but also the theist who limits himself with presuppositional hinderences.
Thank you for your correspondence.
Thank you, I have been told there is no link that can be shown definitively between Pre-Cambrian life forms and Cambrian fully formed animals...is that true?
I have seen your tactic for 20 years. It’s the same one the Global Warmists use and universally the liberals also. You dismiss anyone who is not in your group as you are the determiner of serious science and deniers or as you call them “creationists” and will not engage a debate since you know you would lose.
Like I have said numerous times, answer the question. This is not DU, it is a Conservative board and you are acting like a braindead lib. It looks like there are a number of people brighter than you here.
Pray for America
You did exactly what I expected you to do. I am aware of question begging and circular reasoning. I used a short "loose definition" to see if you would "major on the minors", and of course, you did. You refused to address my questions (which were not begging any question), you built a straw man, as you do now declaring a focus on semantic qualities, declare I addressed only semantic content, and now define the parameters of the discussion...you will take a question on the quality of science that has developed the Theory of Evolution?....that is what you define as the acceptible parameters of the discussion which you will allow.
Now, answer the question I first put to you...Do you know it is true that evolution accounts for life on earth? It is a yes/no answer. Then if you wish to address the epistemology and ontology of your answer, if it is yes. You have evaded my little question once with a nonresponsive answer. It has everything to do with the validity of TOE, which is consistent with the parameters you laid down. I asked you if the cognitive function of the brain was required to have developed and function normatively to trust the beliefs and convictions....for example does your noetic apparatus need to function normatively to develope for you to believe in the theory of evolution? You have yet to address that question which is intimately related to your demand of the parameters of discussion only of the theory of evolution.
I will be glad to discuss, at length, you devotion to the scientific method (so called). Do I have any comment to make on the quality of science that has developed the Theory of Evolution, or....
Please quote my question begging .... please use my exact words....then explain how my comments begged the question.
If you wish to discuss the laws of logic I am happy to discuss that with you. These tools have meaning and are used by everyone...just not properly. Logic is the tool of scientist. He even declares himself the keeper of those tools. He simply cannot account for them in a materialists worldview. So, just to cut through the fog which you declare, I admit to being all things bad and ignorant and deficient.....so NOW, please answer my first questions. Your honest answer is fine. I stipulate I am all of those bad things you ascribe to me so we can go on to answer the question. Perhaps you do not think logic is the tool of the scientist? If that is the case that is fine. In fact it would be consistent with the materialists , darwinists worldview. If yes, I am simply asking how logic developed in a darwinists world. It is a simple question, it has to do with the theory of evolution, and does not beg any question...all paramenters which you require to move the discussion.
No.
Answer - Stormer -I know that the best explaination for the diversity of life on earth is found in evolutionary theory.
All of your other comments do not explicate the epistemology of your belief in the theory. Therefore, I ask again, How do you know the above assertion? Why is Darwins question pertinent to your belief? Asserting natural selection over time of the strongest, the fittest,(or as you opined earlier survival of the least unfit), your convictions are derivitive of a simian. Why, then, do you believe what you believe regarding "KNOWING" and "BELIEVING"?
Your other commments are misdirection and I see no benefit to respond to assertions of conspiracy, scientific consensus (although that is a very interesting subject, but not on this thread). I will keep it simple for my simplistic manner of thinking.
I would love to comment on paleontological discoveries, especially in regards to homologies and the fact that selection is claimed to have supported this but as you know 'evolution', if you will, occurs at the chemical nucleotide base level. Homologies are interesting anatomical observations, but offer no proof. I will not go into that for now...perhaps later. For now, I ask how you have come to know what you believe and why? Questions of thee ages.
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.