Posted on 01/22/2005 8:47:40 AM PST by JCRoberts
Since material from this newspaper cannot be used here, follow the link to this editorial about how dumb the paper thinks "creationists" are.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050122/OPINION03/501220316/1110
I've bookmarked that site for future reference. Thanks.
All explanations have their problems, but "ID" makes at least as much sense as the now revered "SG*."
So it was Spontaneous Generation that started everything off?
And the reason we find it it the chapter on "Evolution" in the biology textbooks is ..............?
All? Even the species that haven't yet been discovered?
Well, there's your mistake. Phil Collins will lead you to the answer, and it ain't evolution.
"He seems to have an invisible touch?"
Those are not just song lyrics, my friend.
"Evolution -- as a description of how life began -- is a creationist strawman. Evolution does not cover the origin of life."
Really.
You'd better talk to all your liberal pals in the media, because that's what they think "evolution" means.
There are those like you who claim there are contradictions for the same reason. If you guys weren't so intent in criticizing, you might actually benefit from the study of scripture. Studying to criticize the Word of God is as old as Satan.
God said:
Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Satan said:
Gen 3:3-4
3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
He added to the Word of God, then he changed the Word of God. It is important not to make the same mistake that "evil incarnate" made in the first three chapters of the book.
JC, keep up the faith brother.
First off, I don't have any pals in the liberal media. Secondly, learn what the theory actually says instead of relying on the media to explain it to you.
Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them. – day 6.
Genesis 2:22 - And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. – after day 7.
The Theory of Evolution covers the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. It holds two propositions: descent with modification, and descent from a common ancestor. It does not cover the beginning of life, regardless what you might believe.
As I said, Chapter 2 gives more details of events on day 6. It is God saying (so to speak), "OK, that was the overview in Chapter 1, now let us get back to that 6th day so I can tell you a little more detail about what happened."
Recheck the text and you will see. The generations of Adam started with Adam on day 6, when he and Eve were created. Genesis 1 only calls them male and female, it isn't until Genesis 2 that we learn their names, and how Eve came about.
No, Pasteur did not do "quite a bit of work in debunking evolution". All he did was demonstrate that when a container is properly sealed and sterilized, modern bacteria do not re-appear spontaneously overnight. Obviously, this says little or nothing about what might be able to happen on a planet-wide scale over billions of years. However, that doesn't stop creationists from LYING ABOUT IT and declaring flat-out that Pasteur somehow "disproved" evolution. Here's just one example of that creationist lie (from freaking THOUSANDS of examples):
I would think that accepted scientific principle (namely spontaneous generation) is usable wherever it applies. If for instance Newton hadn't thought about the priciple of gravity as it would apply to say, strength training, does that mean that it does not apply there? Would the resistance of a simple barbell pull up, rather than down?
How exactly is the meaning of the word 'Abiogenesis' so different from spontaneous generation? The only difference I see is that the creatures created are more simple, and that there was more time. The nonexistence of living beings created from nonliving matter still applies, unless we throw it out and put something with a different name in its place. Check out this statement made by Pasteur himself. http://guava.phil.lehigh.edu/spon.htm
I also believe Fred Hoyles statements still make sense
http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm?tqskip1=1
Good point. All known species. One cannot rule out the possibility that we will discover a species that does not share common descent with all others. Such a species, however, has not been found to my knowledge, and I don't think it is likely that one will be found. But never say never.
"Thanks for responding to him Ichneumon, I've been away for a few days. I notice how he didn't address one of your points, nor did he explain what was "donkey dung," and why. Then when presented with scientific evidence, he stormed off... nice job."
Preening over a big smelly heap I see.
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.