Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
There is also the case of old earth creationists, who generally believe in the Big Bang theory but reject the theory of macroevolution of life forms. Hugh Ross would be an advocate of such a position.
As for young earth creationists, it is a distortion to state that they disbelieve the entire base of scientific knowledge. Most have no problem with most of the observations and hypotheses of modern science. But in specific areas, such as macroevolution and the age of the universe, they reject the conclusions of mainstream science because it contradicts the propositions of Scripture: that the universe is of limited age and that the species of life were created by fiat. Granted, young earth creationists have a lot of explaining to do in the area of the physical sciences. However, the fact that they hold a certain body of statements founded in the Bible, to be truer than the theories and laws of scientists does not make them anti-science. Would we say that policemen are anti-gun just because they oppose the use of guns by criminals?
There is no just or reasonable cause to presume that one set of presuppositions are superior to another based on whether or not a particular theory is accepted or rejected.
Actually there are entire sects of Christianity with millions of followers that believe diseases are not caused by germs, at least not in any sense that would indicate prevention or treatement based on germ theory.
What precisely is a species?
No havoc did not respond in that fashion. Havoc rejected your premise and noted that Science is often Wrong.. which flew right past you because you'd rather not dwell on the obvious. How often have we turned on the news to find out that what caused cancer yesterday is good for us today and cancer causing again tomorrow. How many times have we heard the reports of some new recommendation to diet that is later shown to be hazerdous to our health. O-rings on the shuttle costing lives. Foam in another instant (oh gee, we didn't realize the impact of a bunch of foam impacting a wing at high speeds.. Doh. One by one I can tick down my arm a list a mile long of where science has been consistantly and at this point predictably wrong. We all stopped listening to science's latest opinion of what's good for us - cause bottom line is, they're more clueless than we are as everyday human beings - belief systems aside. I can further tick down another list as long as my arm of people who proved scientific theories who for all intents and purposes may as well have done so on another planet for all the naysaying and badmouthing they recieved at the hands of the scientific community. All that said, the conclusion is opposite of your premise. One need not be smarter than anyone else in the community. All they need is dedication to task and method - something the community has largely lost. Einstein would have been an insignificant grease spot were it not for escaping the Germans. He did what most thought impossible and left most of the community scratching their heads trying to figure out what he said. That level of intelligence isn't common. That's the fun of science to some extent - watching the naysayers gain in volume with their rebukes right up till their butts are handed to them by the guy too stupid to be as smart as all of them. You might need a few history classes for some perspective on things.
Why do they go extinct?
OOOh, ooh, I know! Money?
I followed up with a list of specific questions, to which havoc has not responded. Give it a go if you like, post #565.
You've got it. When he can't answer, I must then detail the volumes of everything written in the system since adam and yay or nay it one by one - an utter absurdity that he's well aware of. And basically a duck and run move relying on rhetoric rather than evidence or science. Begging the question in the largest possible way IMO. Tawdry, isn't it lol
Why not? What precisely is the problem?
Then your eyes are as bad as your responses. Post 568
Simple. Why don't they get a clue, after all, that's apparently what evolution (Evolution, what's it good for?...Elaine Bennis) is all about. Why doesn't the spotted owl evolve into an eagle or better yet, a flying monkey and get the heck out of the redwoods? Surely it must notice that the tree isn't there anymore
And you might read 568 where I answered, for the second or thrid time depending on perspective.
No big leap, The speed of light from my understanding has been slowed to 1mph in the lab recently. That pretty much destroys much of science's guessing about distance to stars.
:)
Ah, you liked that one did you. I'm sure somebody here is ouching pretty bad from it.. and probably cursing under their breath as no one has dared touch it till you did.
OK, try the questions in #631.
"Professor Collins accepts the miracle of the creation of physical laws. Creation of time and light are not much different. The miraculous nature of it all wears off when one is born into it."
JFK_Lib - Why would it wear off? Jadedness?
I'm sure Physicst and Radio Astronomer are quaking in their boots from the blow you have struck. Are you of the opinion that the speed of light has been modified in the laboratory?
Agreed. Nor do yours or anyone else's opinion, etc., affect God or the universe.
As for "equal time in the schools," that is your problem, not mine. Education should be handled entirely in the private sector. But I digress.
You also err when it can be inferred that you believe that macroevolution is physical, observable reality. Many persons have observed caterpillars metamorphizing into butterflies. No one has observed a land mammal evolving into a whale. There is evidence that would support such a theory in the fossil record and even in DNA analysis, but there are also some problems with the theory, as the intelligent design advocates have pointed out. Scientific consensus changes over the years. Newtonian physics was the standard until the late 19th Century; since that time, certain propositions of that school have been refuted and are no longer accepted. Additionally, no one entirely "understands" God or the universe: conservative Christian or otherwise. This means you as well.
The fact that I accept the propositions of the Bible, in their historical and grammatical context and in light of authorial intent, as the ultimate truth has no bearing on my concept of God or the physical universe. I am sorry if your presuppositions give you consternation, however.
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.