Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Strength For The Journey New Creation People Part 1 August 4, 2005 Is Evolution A Fact?
READ: Genesis 2:1-7, Hebrews 11:1-3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. —Hebrews 11:3The theory of evolution is not without its problems. One scientist says this about life starting on its own: "Amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein . . . just like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of chemistry and physics cannot do that. The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!"
Many people assume the theory of evolution to be true. But can it be scientifically proven? Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions. The claim that life sprang up on its own out of a long impersonal process cannot pass this test of truth. That is why evolution remains only a theory.
So if you're ever tempted to doubt the Genesis account of the creation story, consider the alternative. The odds against even a simple protein creating itself are astronomical. How much more reasonable to believe God and His Word: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Isn't it more reasonable to believe that God designed and created the universe? (Genesis 1:1). — Dennis Fisher
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful— The Lord God made them all. —Alexander
All creation points to the almighty Creator.
“Just in case you are not aware of it, if you are Catholic and you deny what is de fide, you would be denying the Catholic Faith.”
Nothing that I’ve said denies what is de fide, nor is what I’ve posted deist. I could just as easily accuse you of being an Inquisionist. And I would (I assume) be just as wrong.
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Is accusing me of “missing the point” an attempt to read my mind?
So you’re dodging the question. The answer is no. There is no other scientific theory that’s been hijacked by anti-God cultists.
Also, it’s one thing to disagree with others, but it’s an entirely different thing to have to rely on the courts to enforce your views on everyone else.
And frankly, we’re not talking about faith; scientists from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton and many others DO use their God-given reasoning abilities to understand the world He created. That’s the entire point! You’re helping me make it!
And most of us have enough common sense to understand that it’s YOU that is in the minority. Have you seen the FR poll on this issue?
I don't think so, in fact, I see more people waking up to the fraud of evolution.
I was referring to the logical reach for something to grasp that can be twisted into an insult.
“So you’re dodging the question. The answer is no. There is no other scientific theory that’s been hijacked by anti-God cultists.”
No, I simply reject your assertion. The fact that you refer to “anti-God cultists” speaks volumes about your position. Are you saying that I am an “anti-God cultist”?
Also, I have no objection to religion being discussed or even taught as such in public schools. I’m with you on that. However, it’s not science and shouldn’t be presented as an alternative.
Of course...
Dang!
Who knows??
--AdminModWannabe(#331 However, unless YOU can tell which is figurative and which isn’t, you’re misguided.)
No, it’s a legitimate question. I don’t wear my faith out on my sleeve and practice competitive Christianity. So, what exactly were you asking?
In response to an accustion of being disingenuous, apropos, I believe.
EXACTLY?
This --> “What do they think, as a whole, about JESUS?”
EVO's can talk GOD all day long - JESUS claims are something else. So...
“What do they think, as a whole, about JESUS?”
you are lost in the thought world and cannot see commonsense right now...or not much of it.
OK. Thank you.
“EVO’s can talk GOD all day long - JESUS claims are something else. So...
“What do they think, as a whole, about JESUS?” “
Oh, I guess I passed up an opportunity to be as visible as possible regarding my faith. Perhaps I’ll do it this way: I’ll take my family to lunch after church this Sunday, and go to the same cafe that all the other attendees frequent. I’ll be sure to speak really LOUDLY about Jesus; in fact, I’ll utter the name of Jesus at least twice in every sentence. I’ll make sure that my fellow parishoners know that I’m more saved than they’ll ever be! All throughout, I’ll run my waitress ragged, and then after two hours, leave her a bible tract instead of a tip because, after all, I’ve already given my money to God today.
Care to join me?
Not you: they!!
“What do they think, as a whole, about JESUS?”
That's a question only you can answer.
Are you denyng that anti-God cultists exist?
How about the liberal NEA?
For all the talk of evidence, you seem to be ignoring the vast piles of evidence before you.
Also, I have no objection to religion being discussed or even taught as such in public schools. I’m with you on that. However, it’s not science and shouldn’t be presented as an alternative.
Maybe you can show us what's particularly religious about this chemists observations:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
If the odds are that unfavorable, then I guess no one will ever win the lottery.
But this discussion began on evolution, not origin. Perhaps God inserted his spoon into the pot to set things in motion—after all, I do agree that there was a creation event. Where we disagree is on post-creation evolution.
That's odd. I could swear that Geology is tied rather strongly to evolution, and that physics and chemistry produce ages for the earth and universe that are incompatibly with a 6000 year old earth.
Ive seen all the sciences accused of being anti-God. On this very forum.
How very curious...because for several threads I've been told how evolution only address the natural selection of species and has nothing to do with origins, earth age and so on.
And you can show us where stickers were placed on textbooks reminding students that theories related to geology, physics and chemistry were theory and not fact?
I didn't think so.
See evolution is a theory, not fact.
When it's accepted as fact, stomping out all dissent, it becomes a cult.
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.