Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
I love this question. The 3rd law of thermodynamics does not allow an electron to be at rest. I think this drives to my point about "proof" and "evidence". I can "prove" a characteristic about an object that can't exist, using science. Time for ice cream.
The state has not resolved the fallacy of induction either, yet it makes budgets as though the sun will rise tomorrow. I think the state is capable of drawing a few distinctions, and the one between "science" and evolution on the one hand and "religion" and creationism on the other is not a very subtle one.
‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)
If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately triumph over evil.
I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense.
The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it.
If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The... future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him.
I very well understand we are not make the USA a state religion...BUT an anti-God/Christ religion-->evolution(anti-theism)?
A better test is when science can no longer be disproven it has become a religion. The Evos here are always willing to modify the theory in light of new evidence. Indeed, it is easy to imagine evidence that would disprove evolution as currently formulated, such as fossils of humanoids that could be dated to more than 100 million years, or DNA results showing humans have more in common with trees than snakes. These results would call for major revisions in evolutionary theory.
However, the creationists will never admit of a fact that would disprove creation. It is hard to imagine what would disprove creationism - it is, in that respect, an untestable and empty idea, and is more religion than science.
Incomprehensible for the incomprehensible!
That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard on one of these threads. A 100 million yearold fossil of a human skeleton to disprove evolution? HELLO!
This is true of both. You are sadly in a state of denial. The only way to disprove creation is for it not to be true. I can't imagine how to disprove that 2+2=4 either. It is also impossible to disprove that God didn't just create me in the middle of typing this sentence. Science can only prove how things are now, not how they came to be.
If you sent your children to school questioning this hoax govt. religion what do you think would happen?
Examples, please.
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Well-known Journalist and philosopher
Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo
"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology
The Immense Journey
Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199
There is a huge huge difference between proof and most likely probably explanation. In a room full of clerics for all religions, the evolutionist is as without proof as every other one of them. He also has absolutely no explanation at all for the existance of space, time, and matter. He has to just say 'trust me' or 'I don't know'. He might as well trade in his suit and tie and PHD for a white robe because he is taking everything else on faith.
The bible says we can't even explain snow but the evo cleric thinks he knows all the workings of matter and how they self organize into life.
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.