Books - The Catholic Church & Science
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
and Darwin's DilemmaPosted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Creationism or Evolution?
by Sebastian R. Fama
Is it possible to know that God exists even though we cannot see or touch Him? Well, we believe that radio waves exist and we can’t see or touch them. And we believe it because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. We turn on a television and we see and hear someone who is many miles away. Adjusting the antenna changes the quality of the picture. Disconnect the antenna, and there is no picture. Obviously the television is receiving the pictures and sound from the air. Thus we can know that radio waves exist even if we cannot see or touch them.
Similarly, we can know that God exists because the evidence allows for no other conclusion. For instance, the fact that we exist is an indication that God exists. But, you might ask, what about the theory of evolution? Couldn’t that explain our existence? No, not at all. A look at the evidence will show us why.
Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process. Creationists claim that a look at the facts rules out the theory of evolution. Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses. Thus, this would exclude God. However, it would also exclude radio waves. As we saw earlier, radio waves are not observable by the senses - their effects are. Likewise, God is not observable by the senses, but His effects are. Thus we can know that God exists even if we cannot see or touch Him.
The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature. The mass exploded (the Big Bang) and over millions of years this mother of all chaotic events formed an orderly solar system with planets and stars. After our own planet cooled down, a variety of complex and delicately balanced ecosystems consisting of tens of thousands of species of animals, fish, plants, and bacteria were formed by chance. All of this supposedly evolved from a burnt rock, which is all the earth would have been after cooling down. Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory with deliberate actions, millions of dollars and the brightest minds?
But what about the fossil record, isn’t that evidence of evolution? Hardly! Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy. But more important is the fact that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution. No transitional forms means no evolution!
What is a transitional form? Imagine that you are watching a cartoon illustrate how a fish evolved into an amphibian. At the beginning you would see a fish. As the cartoon progresses, the fish’s fins begin to shrink and change shape until they have formed legs. Each frame of the cartoon would be a transitional form. If evolution takes millions of years, then there should be billions of transitional forms for each evolved group. But we find no such thing in the fossil record. Even in the earliest fossil layers we find completed, complex life forms, such as clams, snails, jellyfish, sponges, worms, etc. No one has been able to find fossilized ancestors for a single one of them.
Another problem arises when we realize that even the so-called "simple" life forms are not really simple. Today we know that a cell is one of the most complex structures known to man. In a book titled "The Evidence for Creation" by Dr. G.S. McLean, Roger Oakland and Larry McLean, we find the following on page 113:
"The cell has turned out to be a micro universe containing trillions of molecules. These molecules are the structural building blocks for countless complex structures performing chains of complex biochemical reactions with precision… a single cell surrounded by a cellular membrane exhibits the same degree of complexity as a city with all of its systems of operation, communication and government. There are power plants that generate the cell’s energy, factories that produce enzymes and hormones essential for life, complex transportation systems that guide specific chemicals from one location to another and membrane proteins that act as barricades controlling the import and export of materials across the cellular membrane."
In the nucleus of every cell is the DNA. DNA contains millions of bits of coded information – information necessary for the building and development of our bodies. The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s. Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?
Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems. That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler. One example is our digestive system. Microvilli, which line the intestines, are microscopic bristles that somewhat resemble the bristles of a hairbrush. The spaces between the bristles are wide enough to allow nutrients to pass through to be absorbed and digested. However, the spaces are narrow enough to block the passage of bacteria, bacteria that would kill you if they were allowed to pass. This in itself refutes the theory of evolution, which contends that when a need presents itself, the body adapts by gradually changing (evolving) over millions of years. In this case millions of years would be too long. As soon as the deadly bacteria appeared, the body would have minutes to hours to design and evolve a system to block them. Failure to do so would result in immediate extinction. Our continued existence rules out the evolutionary premise.
But, some may wonder, what about the alleged ape-men? The answer is simple: no one has ever found a fossil that indicates a link between man and ape-like ancestors. Fossils are either pure ape or pure man. Except for Neanderthal Man, the skulls of the alleged ape men were not found intact. They were pieced together from fragments and given the desired look.
Neanderthal Man had been traditionally portrayed as being chimp-like. However, in recent years he has been upgraded to human status. He had, on average, a larger brain size than modern man. He cared for his sick and elderly, buried his dead, employed art and religious rites, appreciated agriculture, clothing, and music. He is not that different from a number of cultures existing in recent centuries.
Nebraska Man was supposed to be half man and half ape. This was all based on the finding of a single tooth. Years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a wild pig. Piltdown Man was also supposed to be a great evolutionary find. The upper part of a skull was found in a quarry. Within the same quarry there was found, among many other types of bones, a broken lower jawbone. The two were put together and we had Piltdown Man. Decades later it was found that the skull was human and the jawbone was that of an ape. The teeth had been filed down to simulate human teeth. Piltdown Man was a hoax, an outright fraud.
Some propose the idea of theistic evolution. The idea that God created everything in a primitive state and then evolution took over. But there are no laws of nature to support this. However, we do have observable laws of nature, which refute such an idea. For instance, we can infer the following from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: (1) Natural processes always tend toward disorder, (2) the simple will never produce the complex and, (3) the universe is running down. Nothing has been observed to break this law. Evolution would have us believe that all the observable laws of nature are false. By the way, if the universe is running down (stars burning out), that would make the universe finite. Consequently, the elements that make up the universe could not have always been there. With time being eternal (there was always a yesterday and there will always be a tomorrow), all finite processes should have been completed in the past. This would be true no matter how far back in time that you went. So now we are left with two choices: Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing. Which do you suppose is more likely?
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
For Further Study
Early Church Fathers on Creation out of Nothing (Free)
Books - The Catholic Church & Science by Benjamin Wiker and Creation Rediscovered
by Gerard J Keane and Science and Evidence For Design in the Universe
by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.
DVD - Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution 1
You obviously don't understand what the term "organic chemical" means, or the fact that many organic chemicals are found in nature, not produced by living things.
Theistic evolution simply says that God designed and created everything we see, living things through evolutionary processes.
CofA: "Now, now. Don't be so deliberately obtuse."
CofA: "Just curious.
Is this what you usually do?
Once the discussion gets to a certain point, you put your hands over your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you missed everything that was said, LOL?"
CofA: "Mm-hmm. I'd say that's a big part of your problem."
CofA: "Well, listen up, Joe.
It's like this: science IS a religion to some of the atheistic scientists..."
Now I'm out of time, must run.
Will simply point out your noticeable increase in disrespectful language, and corresponding reduction in serious responses.
More later...
;-)
First, let me say that I completely reject the concept of abiogenesis so we are in agreement on that. However, the "chemicals of life" are a distinct subset of organic chemicals.
Carbon, with four valence electrons is able to form four covalent bonds, making it one of the more capable elements to form complex compounds. It also has a unique ability to the absorb or release energy in the form of a photon making photosynthesis possible. Carbon and its compounds are a magnificent creation of God.
Peace be with you.
>> “ or the fact that many organic chemicals are found in nature, not produced by living things.” <<
.
At this point, an unproven assertion, although many believe that methane may have occured inorganically. No proof of that has ever been presented.
“Theistic evolution” is simply nonsense from a double-minded person. God’s word states in over 100 places that all life reproduced after its own kind, thus no evolution. The discovery of the DNA code was the end of evolution babble from a scientific POV anyway. The DNA code specifically prevented evolution from spoiling God’s creation.
NL, several trillion dollars have been spent in laboratories, attempting to ‘urge’ carbon to form hydrocarbon chains from elemental carbon. So far, no dice.
"Precious bodily fluids..."
I am an Objectivist.
I will answer the rest of your points but right now I am cooking Thanksgiving dinner so it will be later this evening.
Scientifically speaking, you can't "completely reject the concept of abiogenesis" because abiogenesis is a valid scientific hypothesis which has, so far, been neither confirmed nor disproved, nor displaced by some solidly confirmed scientific theory.
Abiogenesis remains one of several more-or-less reasonable hypotheses concerning life's origins on Earth.
Of course, you can "completely reject" abiogenesis on theological or religious grounds, so long as you don't pretend that those have something to do with science.
All hydrocarbons, including methane, are organic compounds.
Any number of experiments have been conducted to produce organic compounds abiotically, from conditions believed similar to early earth.
Methane itself has been found on many planets, moons & comets in our Solar System, as well as a planet on another sun.
Any suggestion that all of this methane was produced by some life form is far-fetched and unsupported by physical evidence.
The more likely sources are abiotic processes.
editor-surveyor: "“Theistic evolution” is simply nonsense from a double-minded person."
That would include many devout church leaders (Pope John Paul comes to mind), who likely would not appreciate your casting aspersions on their faithfulness.
editor-surveyor: "God’s word states in over 100 places that all life reproduced after its own kind, thus no evolution."
The simple facts are that no individual ever naturally produced a viable offspring of some other species (laboratory cross-breading possibly excepted), or "kind".
However: every offspring from every parent is different in some small respects from its ancestors and descendants.
These small differences accumulate every generation, and over very long periods can lead to sub-populations which no longer interbreed.
Then scientists call them separate "species".
editor-surveyor: "The discovery of the DNA code was the end of evolution babble from a scientific POV anyway.
The DNA code specifically prevented evolution from spoiling God’s creation."
In fact, scientific studies have shown that every generation inherits a small number of more-or-less random genetic DNA mutations.
Over many generations, these "small numbers" accumulate and become "large numbers" -- many weeded out by natural selection, but a few contributing to evolutionary adaptations.
First, only in your own little parallel universe has evolution been "progressively disproven."
In the real world basic evolution theory (descent with modifications, natural selection) has been repeatedly confirmed, in every way imaginable.
It has never been scientifically falsified in any way.
Second, the dictionary's definition of evolution is simply:
Practically speaking: any successful, natural biological modifications resulting from DNA mutations are classified "evolution" -- regardless of how great or small the DNA modifications were.
Of course, the natural cause of any particular DNA mutation might be debated, but regardless of the cause, the resulting modification -- if successfully reproduced -- is called "evolution".
Finally, I suspect your problem is that, having never actually studied the science of evolution, your mind is chock full of misinformation about it.
Typical emotional response by evolution zealots when they have no rational argument.
So, let’s see just how much you have studied the “science” of evolution.
First, a very simple question: Where are the transitional remains of the woodpeckers that hadn’t evolved enough to survive the tremendous force of hammering their beaks against a tree? And, this question ignores the fact that they had to mate very quickly before they tested the first tree.
Now, a test (I’ll provide the answers if you make even a small attempt to learn from this exercise, although, given your initial response, I’m not very optimistic):
1. How many nucleotides are in the human genome?
2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee?
3. How many natural DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?
4. How many years would it take for a chimpanzee to evolve into a human if the changes were in the exact right sequence and there were no “dead ends”?
5. How many years ago did evolved man supposedly “branch off” from chimpanzees?
6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to “evolve” from chimpanzees?
7. How many fossil records show the 25 million year “evolution” of chimpanzees into man.
8. Finally, to see if you’re paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren’t we considered half banana and to have “evolved” from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???
No, No, NO! God says "Get your own dirt!" :P
Typical emotional response by anti-evolution zealot when they have no rational argument. ;-)
jda: "So, let’s see just how much you have studied the “science” of evolution."
So, let's see just how much you have studied the "science" of anti-evolution. ;-)
jda: "First, a very simple question: Where are the transitional remains of the woodpeckers that hadn’t evolved enough to survive the tremendous force of hammering their beaks against a tree?"
First, a very simple question: Do you know anything whatever about woodpeckers -- have you ever actually studied them scientifically?
I thought not. So here are some basics:
The fossil record is somewhat sparse, however...
Woodpeckers are classified scientifically in the Family of Picidaes, of which today there are hundreds of species of worldwide, grouped into dozens of genera, tribes and sub-families.
The earliest discovered woodpecker fossil is dated to 25 million years ago, though other evidence suggest perhaps 50 million years since the first woodpecker-like bird appeared.
A Piculet and Wryneck:
All Picidaes are omnivorous and opportunistic eaters, meaning they will eat whatever small insects or seeds they can find.
But each is adapted to its particular ecological niche, some of which require more heavy-duty pecking than others.
So, it is those hundreds of different species, and the ranges of "degrees of difficulty" in extracting their meals which can help explain woodpecker evolution.
Some birds even today simply reach into the crevices of plants to extract insects or seeds, while others hammer away to remove the wood.
Indeed, some species live in treeless areas such as deserts, where their pecking skills are less necessary to survival.
So, even though the fossil record is somewhat sparse, you can still see today in hundreds of Picidae species, a wide range of pecking evolution, which suggests how some of those Picidaes became nature's avian jackhammers.
The answer is: baby-steps.
jda: "Now, a test (I’ll provide the answers..."
Questions 1-7 all refer to human evolution.
Yes, I am familiar with the issues involved in your little "test".
The basic answer is that work is ongoing to discover explanations, some of which I'll mention below.
jda: "2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee?..."
3. How many natural DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?..."
First, the percentage of divergence depends on precisely what and how you measure.
Recent results using different methods range from 87% to 95% to 98.5% identical DNA between humans and chimpanzees.
Second, in post #49 above, I showed some of the "transitional forms" separating modern humans from more ape-like predecessors.
Here it is again:
Third, there is no known "lethal" DNA mutation rate -- since everything depends on which exact base-pairs mutate: some are lethal, most harmless.
But studies have shown that every generation experiences some DNA mutations, that these accumulate over time, and can actually be used to track back family histories over dozens, hundreds and more generations.
These studies also show that DNA mutation rates vary all over the board, by orders of magnitude, when comparing the least mutations to the most.
This alone suggests that under conditions of extreme environmental stress, a population's mutation rates could increase enough to speed-up normally slower evolution.
jda: "6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to “evolve” from chimpanzees?"
Questions like this display your collosal ignorance, since no scientist ever claimed humans evolved from chimpanzees.
Rather, humans and chimps share common ancestors, who may even have been more human-like, and from which chimps somewhat devolved.
This idea comes from recent studies showing more chimp DNA mutations than human.
Finally, if you were in the least interested in what actual science has to say about genetic divergence between humans and chimps -- which of course, you are not -- but if you were, you might start by studying this article.
jda: "Finally, to see if you’re paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren’t we considered half banana and to have “evolved” from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???"
Sorry, FRiend, but your question here is less than honest.
Yes, I know, you think it's all a big joke, so yuk it up!
The fact is that all DNA based life on earth -- which is to say, everything that scientists classify as "living" -- shares some DNA elements.
Indeed partial studies suggested up to 35% common DNA between humans and green algae.
This would represent those basic life functions of cells.
More thorough studies, counting in "junk DNA" suggest numbers in the 2% range for E Coli to 15% for, say rice.
The fact remains that all life on earth, from algae to plants & animals share some key DNA, and this suggests divergent descent from common ancestors.
CofA: "I would suggest you look up the word "beginning" to get its definition."
So the word "beginning" refers to a time period during which something is brought into being.
CofA: "Scripture has quite a few examples of His love and caring for the animals He created, and admonitions on treating them well."
Sure, but that doesn't suggest God did not intend for humans to eat them, or that plants and animals didn't normally eat or get eaten before Adam's sin.
Nowhere does the Bible suggests such extraordinary things.
CofA: "Of course it does.
The two are completely contradictory, as has been illustrated repeatedly."
Sorry, but there comes a time in some of these exchanges where posters simply disagree for sake of disagreement, and this appears to be your time.
Even though you quoted my words verbatim, you obviously still did not understand them.
So here they are again:
BJK: "Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations."
Think about it a moment and you'll realize that my words are exactly right, and yours are, well, a bit confused.
CofA: "It's like this: science IS a religion to some of the atheistic scientists who believe in nothing else, and who have to make evolution "fit" somehow."
While I agree that atheism is, in some sense, "a religion", I don't agree that science necessarily is.
In technical terms, the distinction is between methodological naturalism -- which all scientists, in order to be scientists, must practice in their work -- versus atheistic philosophical naturalism, which claims, yes, "religiously" you might say, that nothing else exists outside or beyond the natural realm.
Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of God or "higher truths" or virtually anything else that a scientist can not see, touch and measure.
But philosophical naturalism is absolutely not necessary to be a working scientist, and indeed, as we discussed in previous posts (i.e., #74 above), depending on how you ask the questions, from one third to two thirds of scientists claim to believe in God.
Their belief in God rules out possible acceptance of atheistic philosophical naturalism.
CofA referring to Christ Jesus: "He is God in flesh, and His Scriptures, which are God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant.
He has given us freedom to believe or not believe..."
More important, the Bible simply cannot be understood without first translation, and second interpretation.
Both processes provide lots of room for human error, opinions and disputes.
Just one small example of this we've already seen in your post #79 and my response #81 regarding declarations from the Council of Nicea in 325 AD -- confirmed and expanded in later councils, none of which can be found in precise language in the Bible itself.
To arrive at those creeds, you have to interpret the Bible, and where there is interpretation, there also are opinions, errors and disputes.
And, for whatever my opinion might be worth on this, I think that's God's intent.
These matters act like the proverbial piece of sand in an oyster, irritating and driving the poor creature to produce some of nature's small miracles -- pearls.
By analogy, possibly, pearls of wisdom?
"Has no one ever explained to you that science does not deal in "truth"?"
"Please. Don't make yourself angry"
"As for your obvious alarm over some alleged "subjectivist" notion"
"You obviously don't understand what the term "organic chemical" means"
"First, only in your own little parallel universe has evolution been "progressively disproven."
"I suspect your problem is that, having never actually studied the science of evolution, your mind is chock full of misinformation about it.
"First, a very simple question: Do you know anything whatever about woodpeckers -- have you ever actually studied them scientifically?
I thought not. So here are some basics:"
"Yes, I am familiar with the issues involved in your little "test".
"Questions like this display your collosal ignorance"
"Even though you quoted my words verbatim, you obviously still did not understand them."
"Think about it a moment and you'll realize that my words are exactly right, and yours are, well, a bit confused."
These are some examples of your posts to people on this thread. The tone of your remarks is consistently patronizing and condescending. You are hardly in a position to play the scold.
"Sure, but that doesn't suggest God did not intend for humans to eat them, or that plants and animals didn't normally eat or get eaten before Adam's sin. Nowhere does the Bible suggests such extraordinary things.
The Bible suggests all sorts of extraordinary things--by our standards, that is. Not God's. Regardless of that, this is more Alice in Wonderland down-the-rabbit-hole thinking. Do you know of a way that humans can eat animals without shedding their blood and killing them?
You DID have to look up "beginning?" Really?
"More important, the Bible simply cannot be understood without first translation, and second interpretation.
Both processes provide lots of room for human error, opinions and disputes.
Just one small example of this we've already seen in your post #79 and my response #81 regarding declarations from the Council of Nicea in 325 AD -- confirmed and expanded in later councils, none of which can be found in precise language in the Bible itself.
To arrive at those creeds, you have to interpret the Bible, and where there is interpretation, there also are opinions, errors and disputes."
When interpreting what a text says, one should logically interpret it the way someone would interpret what you or I would write. We wouldn't want others trying to read all sorts of things into our writings; neither should we do that with Scripture.
BJK, the Bible is God's love letter to us---His invaluable message of salvation, and His manual for the way we should conduct our lives. We need to approach the text with humility, with His intended meaning in mind----not with intellectual pride, believing that we're so enlightened we must know what He "really" means. As Jesus said, "I have spoken openly to the world … I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20).
If your friend sends you an email which says, "Can you drive me to work tomorrow?", what do you assume it means? Well, just what it says. You don't sit and think about it, and twist it around in your mind until you decide, "Maybe he's saying he's going to get a divorce."
Well....maybe you do, BJK. You've already debated whether we're really washing machines, and whether another Freeper is a banana. Do you see what you get out of that kind of thinking? Nothing concrete, nothing logical, nothing even remotely sensible. Approaching Scripture in such a manner is very unwise.
“The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130)" See? Nothing esoteric or complicated there. Jesus was always saying, "Have you not read?" Why would He say that if the meaning of Scripture wasn't plain?
As for the evolution mess, I believe there are many folks---not necessarily you, but I don't know you----who think they MUST tout evolution or be counted among the toothless, snake-charming hillbillies who believe in a literal creation. The only thing that matters to me is what Scripture says. Anything which can be shown to contradict it, such as evolution, is by definition false.
I'm going to have to leave it here...you're right in that we're never going to agree, so we're using up bandwidth for nothing. Also, I don't have the time for these long posts!
If you're not done, I give you the last word. :) Peace, friend.
LOL.....
Of the 12 lines you quoted, two are directed at albionin, a self-professed atheist "objectivist".
One quoted line is a simple factual statement directed at editor-surveyor -- editor-surveyor is confused by certain scientific terms.
Six quoted lines are directed at jda, whose own posts epitomize, in your description: "consistently patronizing and condescending."
Three quoted lines are directed at you, CofA, and they are accurate, specific and appropriate to your posts.
By contrast, the lines I quoted from you lack content, specificity and appropriateness, in addition to being disrespectful.
So let me suggest there's a difference between being blunt and just insulting.
I've occasionally been the former, and you more frequently the latter, FRiend. ;-)
CofA: "You are hardly in a position to play the scold."
I have not "scolded" anyone for anything, merely pointed out some errors in their or your posts.
CofA: "Do you know of a way that humans can eat animals without shedding their blood and killing them?"
Sorry for pointing this out, but yet again, you sound confused.
Remember, it is you who suggests there was "no death" of any kind before Adam's sin.
It is you who claims this implies that even animals and plants did not naturally eat or were eaten.
I merely point out that such extraordinary claims are not, in fact, made anywhere in the Bible, and that they are necessarily a matter of your unique interpretations -- interpretations that many believers do not necessarily agree with.
Indeed, Genesis 1 specifically says God gave mankind "dominion" to "subdue" animals and plants for food.
So your suggestion there was "no death" before Adam's sin is a bit far-fetched, I'd say.
CofA: "You DID have to look up "beginning?" Really?"
Again, sorry, but you sound confused.
First you argued that I somehow don't understand the word "beginning", and suggested I look it up.
So when I proved to you that it means exactly what I said it means, and not what you think, your response here is, well, incomprehensible.
CofA: "If your friend sends you an email which says, "Can you drive me to work tomorrow?", what do you assume it means?
Well, just what it says."
Or not, depending on unspecified details, it could mean a variety of things -- details like: what time, what vehicle, what route, which passengers, what pick-up point, which work site, etc.?
Since, in your hypothetical example, these are not specified, the email must be analyzed and interpreted according to some criteria -- interpretations which are naturally subject to human error.
And that, again, is my point on this subject: regardless of how divinely inspired the Bible is, it's words were first translated through Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin to Old or Modern English -- a process in which much could be lost.
Indeed, how many dozens of different translations are available today, each claiming to be more accurate than the others?
And what objective criteria can a layman use to decide which is the "best" translation?
Second, again, even after you (or your church) decide on the "best" translation, you must still interpret the words according to your best understandings of what they might mean.
CofA: "The only thing that matters to me is what Scripture says.
Anything which can be shown to contradict it, such as evolution, is by definition false."
The facts of science (not just evolution theory) contradict your interpretations of what Scripture means.
That does not necessarily mean Scripture is wrong, it could instead mean your interpretations are wrong, or, it even might mean God created scientific facts at odds with scripture in order to challenge and provoke us into thinking more deeply about what we see in the Universe.
As we all can see, BroJoe is deeply confused about all things, especially ‘scientific’ terms.
The word Science surely doesn’t belong in any discussion of evolution, the religion of the willfully ignorant.
BroJoe’s arrogance and ignorance (a pair that never seem to part) are now well known in this forum, and no longer need be noted. We shall save bandwidth henceforth by simply assuming their consstant presence.
Well, as has been noted, I am just totally cornfused. I’m going to sit here and chew a little tobaccy and let the cityfolk have at it. Later on I’ll handle a rattlesnake, brush my tooth, and head off to bed.
Sorry FRiend, but you are deluded by thinking that scientific terms mean whatever you wish they might have meant, instead of what real scientists intend.
editor-surveyor: "The word Science surely doesn’t belong in any discussion of evolution, the religion of the willfully ignorant."
Sorry, but basic evolution is a confirmed scientific theory, supported by many valid observations and predictions.
Along side basic evolution theory (descent with modifications and natural selection) are many as yet unconfirmed scientific hypotheses, for example, about the origin of life itself on earth.
Yes, some of these hypotheses have been weakly confirmed (i.e., abiotic formation of organic chemicals), but none has yet achieved the status of confirmed theory.
And that's exactly how science is supposed to work, which makes science the opposite of religion.
editor-surveyor: "BroJoe’s arrogance and ignorance (a pair that never seem to part) are now well known..."
Your own arrogance and ignorance would need no comment, if you didn't strut it so blatantly, FRiend.
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.