Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Praise to God and his glory.
1 posted on 07/05/2002 12:26:31 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
To: Khepera
Yeah.
And a shad is still a shad.
A fish is still a fish.
I've yet to have anybody show me, in the fossil record, where a species changed into a different species - even over "billions and billions" of years.
2 posted on 07/05/2002 12:29:49 PM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
What is the problem with evolutionists referring to "Mother Nature?"

I defy you to find the term "Mother Nature" in any of several tens of thousands of pee-reviewed articles in any scientific journal of evolutionary biology.

Talk about your straw-man argument.

3 posted on 07/05/2002 12:30:43 PM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
If you believe that God has something to do with the real world, then you can't be an evolutionist because evolution is run by chance, not by God, by definition.

Not necessarily true. Nothing (except the Bible, by some interpretations) says that God couldn't use evolution as his method of creation.

6 posted on 07/05/2002 12:32:34 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
Having a "purpose in the eco-system" is the same as saying a "role in the eco-system". Evolutionary features exist because they fill a niche, they serve a "purpose". Use of the word "purpose" certainly does NOT necessarily imply intent. Beyond that false argument, the other false argument is that the choice of words used in this context has any significance to the truth of evolution. They are just words, and common usage may not be totally accurate. So what?
11 posted on 07/05/2002 12:38:28 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
Evolution theories are:
" My guess is....."
"I assume that...."
"Maybe it's bacause....."
"Yoooohooooo. I have a guess!"

Funny. No proof or documantation about any of it. The Bible is 2000 years old, and the evolution minions are just getting started. I wonder how long it will take the Darwinites to catch up with reality?

12 posted on 07/05/2002 12:41:48 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
. . . we catch our fish for the sport of it and then let them go unharmed.

Could be just me, but I'd consider a big 'ol hole in my lip "harm."

15 posted on 07/05/2002 12:49:52 PM PDT by Andyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
Praise to God and his glory.

And his inventions of polio, syphilis, and mad cow disease. /satire

25 posted on 07/05/2002 1:03:07 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
You're setting up a straw man here. "In-Fisherman" is hardly an authoritative source for evolutionary theory.
29 posted on 07/05/2002 1:07:36 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
The evolution versus creation argument is mental masturbation. Who cares?

The only theological issue of importance for Christians is whether or not Jesus Christ redeemed us by dying on the cross for our sins and conquered death by rising from the grave three days later.

If He did, then all this other stuff is irrelevant.

If He didn't, then all this other stuff is irrelevant.

30 posted on 07/05/2002 1:07:44 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
Is this topic extinct yet?
39 posted on 07/05/2002 1:13:39 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
The use of "purpose" in the article is a recognized shorthand for a more complex argument about the likelihood of certain forms appearing or not appearing. It does not imply agency.

Any free-marketer understands this. The invisible hand of the economy is not a real invisible hand, it is merely an abstration to describe how the behavior of millions of disparate, self-interested agents can create ordered systems from their own separate actions. The market is not God, and the fact that some companies thrive and others fail, that some industries rise and others fall, is not a reflection that God has made a choice. The "invisible hand" of natural selection is no different. God chooses species no more than he chooses buggy whips and widgets.

46 posted on 07/05/2002 1:18:35 PM PDT by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
I gotta tell you, I read these threads often, but shun posting on them because it always turns into the same old battle (we win by the way, but you know that!)

If there were evolution, my dog would evolve to do some useful purpose, such as taking the trash out to the curb. The cats would figure out how to use the can opener by now AND humans would evolve so that we could scratch our own backs.

59 posted on 07/05/2002 1:29:42 PM PDT by Tourist Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
This thread, like the many others on different views of Creation and the ongoing nature of life and the observed changes through the generations, reminds me of some of the endless battles that different Conservatives engage in over their differing views of the history of the early 1860s. I realize that these issues are very important intellectually to many. Yet I wish here, as with the American history debates, Conservatives would minimize the acrimony.

The important thing to remember is that we have a common enemy, today, which seeks to force acceptance of an undifferentiated humanity; where all peoples will be equalized and homogenized in a Socialistic World Order, that denies even the existence of God. We have times for these intellectual debates, because the wise men who charted our course, a little over two centuries ago, did so fine a job. And those men would not have seen this debate as a question of whom is virtuous. They would have seen it rather as a skirmish in an ongoing pursuit of truth--in which the injection of acrimony has no place whatsoever.

As J.C. Nott, a pioneer American Anthropoligist wrote well over a century and a half ago, "Man can invent nothing in science or religion but falsehood; and all the truths which he discovers are but facts or laws which have emanated from the Creator." It is the pursuit of that truth that enobles--not the angry insistence of a particular explanation for a very complex pattern of data.

Men of good will and honest Faith can be on any of at least a thousand different sides of these questions--and at that I probably understate the virtual infinite variety of possible explanations for the same data. Have fun with the debate, but do not forget the more immediate worldly problems that face even your right to have that debate.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

74 posted on 07/05/2002 1:44:13 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
Wow. I keep trying not to get caught up in these threads, and this one is sure to be a long one, but I can't help it...
What is the problem with evolutionists referring to "Mother Nature?"
That term is a colloquialism and you will never find it in a scientific article/book/treatise.

In-Fisherman does not qualify. What you are doing is using a laymen's article for your own purposes. Not unlike scientologists using a hack sci-fi writer to "prove" their religion. This whole argument, therefore, is kinda odd, sorry.

I'm sure someone will discuss the eye-spot conundrum at length but I have to point out that ONCE AGAIN, a creationist has used scietific principals to debunk itself. Science tests itself. It must conform to the most rigorous testing ever. Perhaps we currently don't have a definitive answer on eyespots. Or perhaps one species evolved eye spots as a means of singular predator avoidance with the tail spot b/c that species of shad doesn't school as much as the other with the body spot. Each species has evolved their own distinct form of predator evasion. It's really not that uncommon, despite your predictable response of, "another satanic evolutionist twisting truth to fit his lies," or whatever.

Btw, I agree, mother nature should not be worshipped and this non-theist is as critical of those pagan/gaia/witch goofballs as christians are. I find all worship of the supernatural unworthy of my time.

Mouths were made for eating. as well as defecating as many, many species do. Hands were made for grasping. except for the many,many species who use them solely for digging, or walking, or flying, or swimming... Legs were made for walking See above

A Creator we see quite obviously ah yes, a layman writer for a fishing magazine uses colloquialisms and THAT, dear friends, makes the creator readily obvious. Cheers!
79 posted on 07/05/2002 1:49:00 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
The Blind Atheist
80 posted on 07/05/2002 1:49:15 PM PDT by Raymond Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
If you are an evolutionist, you are not a theist in the sense that your theism has anything to do with the real world. If you want to believe in God and believe in evolution, fine, go ahead and do that, but don't act like your belief in God has anything to do with the real world. It doesn't.

Of all the arrogant, conceited, self-important #*@()@(*#@#()@s, to tell me that my theism has "nothing to do with the real world," if my theism doesn't agree in the "how" with his theism.

84 posted on 07/05/2002 1:58:54 PM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
This reminds me of the reasoning behind the turtles that hold up earth. Something about there must be some big turtle holding up earth, because otherwise it would have fallen into something by now. And apparently there must be a bigger turtle holding up the first. Turtles all the way down.

Later on Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and such completely surplanted that explanation with our current model of celestial mechanics.

Just because we dont understand something, be it spots on a fish or Good versus Evil, doesn't mean that we have to invent a distinct, separate, pre-existing, intelligent sentient being who thought it all up and brought it into being -- the cycle us engineers know as design and develop.

So who designed and created God?

My take is that what we call God is essentially the anthromorphization of some principles of organization of the universe that we don't understand yet, and may never understand.

And just because something is based on elementary principles doesn't mean it has to remain trivial. I see that in computers, in a simplified way. I've worked or studied from the level of electrodynamics and quantum mechanics, up through solder and transistors, integrated circuits, operating systems, system libraries, and applications. Something I think that is often overlooked in these discussions is the way that systems layer complexity, with each layer forming on the previous, taking the previous layer as the atoms, and forming new structures which become the atoms of another layer organized along entirely new principles.

Each layer isn't (usually) rocket science. But the end result is far far from the lowest level atom. You won't get anywhere understanding Diablo II Expansion Pack by thinking of it as a bunch of 1's and 0's. And even the 1's and 0's are an intermediate layer, formed on transistor gates and magnetic blips, which in turn require a couple layers of physics to understand.

This view seems to qualify for the usual definition of "atheism", in that it denies the existing of a distinct sentient Being and Creator, or God. But it's closer to Deism, if you bend its notion of a "supernatural" deity to mean "outside nature as we understand it". And it reaches conclusions for morality and the proper role of government much closer to what Christians, not Atheists, usually reach.

Weren't one or two of our founding fathers Deists? Ah yes. A little searching on Google yields: THE DEIST ROOTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by Robert L. Johnson .

I think I will read that. Thank-you very much for posting this -- it led me to what might be a good find.

87 posted on 07/05/2002 2:02:50 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
I'd say that the original author is having to go pretty far afield if he has to find articles in fishing magazines with that sort of loose, teleological language that he can use as a strawman.
103 posted on 07/05/2002 2:21:18 PM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
If you believe that God has something to do with the real world, then you can't be an evolutionist because evolution is run by chance, not by God, by definition.

This might be the way you guys want it to be, but its not how many people see it. I'm a Catholic, the Pope tells us that its ok to accept evolution, as long as the soul is left to God i.e. the soul did not arise out of an evolutionary process, but is instilled by God. The way I see it, God started the whole thing off, perhaps even actively created the cell, like Behe says, then let evolution take its course. I see no conflict, but you guys want to force it into it an either/or choice because of your interpretation of religion. Believe what you want, the "real world" will keep moving regardless.

109 posted on 07/05/2002 2:27:52 PM PDT by Youngblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Khepera
FIRST IT WAS MONKEYS,NOW IT'S FISH!Must be terrible to be educated and still can't make up their da*n minds.
144 posted on 07/05/2002 3:06:28 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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