Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
True, but not a particularly useful statement. Evolutionists believe in the process of variation and selection. First causes are not addressed.
There are science buildings at famous universities with inscriptions going back to the 1890's saying "The laws of nature are the thoughts of God".
I guess the majority of scientists believe in a single act of creation rather than a continual tweaking of natural law.
Indeed not.
There is a 'small' difference: as far as I know nobody questions nature's existence. Regards.
You use the words science--evolution--reason--observation too loosely--subjectively?
Do you think science evolves?
I asked you 2 mos ago if science existed prior to darwin...twice---never got an answer!
Well said. I, as a believing Jew, accept evolution as supported by the preponderance of the scientific evidence, and I do not find this inconsistent with my faith. The laws of nature are God's laws; God made them. If something happens in a natural way, it doesn't mean that it isn't also a miracle: God created the laws of nature, and those laws are thus fully capable of carrying out God's purposes.
One example: There is an ancient Jewish prayer, dating back to at least the first century BCE, and still included in Jewish prayer books (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform), which praises God for creating the sun and moon. That prayer says that, with each morning's sunrise, God "in His goodness, constantly renews each day the work of Creation." When Copernicus found that the sun rises because of the earth's rotation, and not because an angel is pushing it, Jews neither attacked Copernican theory nor abandoned this prayer.
Similarly, Darwinian theory is, to me, in no way inconsistent with the Bible's teaching that God created man. One Orthodox rabbi, writing in the 1930s, reconciled Darwin and Judaism by pointing out that, according to the Torah, God formed man from "the dust of the earth"; this rabbi wrote, "it is utterly insignificant to my faith where that dust came from. If God chose to use apes, so what?"
History of the Grand Canyon (scroll down to see stratigraphic sequence)
That's an awful lot of sandstone, wouldn't you agree? Also, wouldn't you agree that with that much sandstone, a massive electrical discharge just might leave some traces of fulgarites? I mean, glass is made of sandstone...
(Waving hand) Fugeduboudit. These threads can get pretty hectic. Forgiven (as if there was ever a need) and forgotten.
I don't recall the question. Frankly, I rarely read your posts. I'm sure you're not asking just to learn the answer; you have a motive here. I won't play until I know the game. Please explain the purpose for what appears on its face to be an absurdly simple question, to which you assuredly already know the answer.
I am in your debt for your detailed account of the many layers the Grand Canyon. And yes, there sure is plenty of sandstone there to fuse into glassy fulgurites when zapped by Cosmic lighning bolts that "medved" asserts were the cause of the Canyon.
So, we are back to "where are the fulgurites?" IOW, absent fulgurites in the sandstone formations making up the Grand Canyon, one would have to reject the Cosmic Lightning Bolt hypothesis for the formation of the Grand Canyon, wouldn't we?
Not if the electrical discharge in question is the wrong kind (anode vs cathode scarring). The other thing I could mention is that lightning strikes which leave fulgarites are on a much smaller scale than the thing I am describing and that could easily have something to do with it.
Yes, it's called DNA.
It blasted this big trench in the sediments but didn't heat anything up enough to fuse sand to glass?
You exhibit a curious mix of mathematical philosophies - in one sentence platonist and constructivist tendencies.
Taking "exists" in the sense that even and odd numbers can be computed/exhibited, fitness values to a very good approximation are computed by nature.
True. Any time I see a computer program I infer that a mind created it.
Fine. All I asked, then, were for them to be produced. They have not been.
Highly likely.
The Colorado empties into the Gulf of California. (Hope I'm not doing another Romania here.)
Where are all the sediments that have washed down the Mississippi? Why, all of Louisiana isn't that big!
When the Grand Canyon had just got started, the coastlines were very different. Very, very, different. Plate tectonics and all that. The continents we know now were barely recognizeable.
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.