Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
I think people survived for a long time without philosophers and professional pundits to explain the meaning of life.
The only thing that makes a noticable difference in ordinary people's well being is medicine and dentistry -- both products of science, and both resisted by luddites.
"The only evidence suggests all life, both flora and fauna, has DNA. DNA is the singularity of all life. "
Do you believe Influenza viruses are alive (RNA), polio? (RNA)
What do you think of viroids? (RNA)
What about prions (proteins) What about Mad Cow?
Debatable questions, but there really is a "smear" of "living" entities.
E-VO-LU-SHUN.....NEEDZ.....HAP-PY.....CON-DI-SHUNZ,.....
BUT.....IT.....DON'T.....MAT-TER.....TU.....E-VO-LU-SHUN.....HOW.....HAP-PY.....CON-DI-SHUNZ.....GOT.....THERE:
BIG-BANG.....OR.....
MEM-BRANE-BLEED-THROUGH.....OR.....
SKY-PIX-IE.....WA-VING.....PHAL-LUS.....
IT.....ALL.....GOOD
The Klingon Home World.
One day I guarantee you will understand these verses:
1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
"...science, not just evolution, is undermined..."
Undermining evolution, as you say, is not undermining science. There are many technological advances that have originated here, in the minds of many of our technologically overachieving citizens. Let evolution stand on its own feet, if it has feet, and do not imply that if a person does not accept the evolutionary theory that true science is dependent on 'a fact of evolution'.
What exactly do you mean by non-life? Are the atoms comprising your body non-life?
Based on historical observation, that probability would be one.
Is the short answer "Science doesn't know and can't prove how life began?"
More importantly, who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop? Or, for that matter, the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
What does that have to do with a 90 million year old fossil?
The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
One could argue that there is a ‘scientific priesthood’ such as; Richard Dawkins, William Provine, David Barash, Stephen Pinker, Jacob Weisberg, Sam Harris, and a many other people who use evolution to tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace them with atheistic beliefs from science. Even philosopher Michael Ruse is ‘accusing atheistic scientists Richard Dawkins of being as religious as a born-again Bible thumper’.
“I do think its true that cosmologists are slightly more likely to be theists than biologists. In earlier times biology was the thing that provided the most powerful apparent evidence for the existence of a Creator – Darwin solved all that. I think, in a way, cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. However, I would add this, that biology is supremely complicated. Complexity is the really difficult thing that you might think you need a designer for – Darwin solved that. The universe actually, is not very complicated.”I could go on to quote Dawkins and others where they apply science to religion, but do we really need to look to scientists who promote this type of thinking when we can readily see many of the posters here on FR that hold an atheistic view, at least partially from Darwinism, in science forums and then continue their barrage in religious forums (This is obviously a rhetorical question). I realize this is a public forum in a free country and people should exchange ideas – but if these scientists and freepers are against mixing religion and science, why do ‘they’ do it and why do ‘they’ allow the National Center for Science Education to do it ?
-Dawkins
Now, I’m sure we’ve all heard the mantra that; ‘ID is creationism', ‘ID-creationists are hell-bent on taking our society back to the stone age’ and ‘ID is destroying conservatism’. Our President has advocated teaching ID in public schools which is something that the Discovery Institute is even against. Is our President a creationist? He is a Christian advocating the teaching of ID in a political forum. Is he all of the things that science now hates? Is he destroying the conservative platform even though a majority of people in the US believe in some intelligent cause intervening somewhere in our existence (71%)? (Even a majority of doctors in the US believe this) If ID is a religious belief and if science states that the ID designer must be God, than what is science stating when it proclaims it has no ID… that ID does not exist.
Ask an atheistic evolutionist where they get their ethics and Judeo-Christian ethics will more than likely be attacked to justify their belief. Mention ID to an atheistic evolutionist and God is invoked as a stupid designer while evolution is ingenious and resourceful. The creationist label is applied loosely to anyone who sees anything other than nature involved with our existence. I agree that the current ID theory is not ready to be taught but the Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Neo-Darwinism is random wrt fitness; it has no goal, and lacks any intelligence. This sums up the Democratic platform.
One day I guarantee you will understand these verses:
Don't put any money on it. I long, long ago addressed all this and concluded I cannot know the unknowable until at least until after I die. And neither can you or anyone else.
The vanity and feigned wisdom is yours, because you are incapable of just admitting you don't know and getting on with your life. You seek all the answers and cannot have them yet claim you've got them by proxy and feel free to condemn. Don't bother responding. I won't reply.
" Is the short answer "Science doesn't know and can't prove how life began?"
No. In short, evolution isn't concerned with how life began, only how it has changed over time. Those who claim evolution is about the origins of life are either ignorant or liars. I know you have been told about the limits of evolutionary theory. That doesn't put you in the ignorant camp.
Even the DNA retrovirus is not considered a living thing...
Even the DNA retrovirus is not considered a living thing...
Just because something has DNA, does not make it a living thing, but all living things do have DNA, without exception.
Life springs from one source: God. The eternal nature of God is the only true life there is. The physical world is matter on its way to death. As for life in the physical, I'll stick with the standard biological definition from Wikipedia:
In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:
Growth - Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.
I think you're over-simplifying just a little... the only (or at least only one I've heard of...) guy making the statistical arguments is William Dembski, who has a masters in statistics and doctorate in mathematics. You may disagree with his reasoning, but I think he understands math. Regardless of whether you adhere to ID, creationism or modern TOE, the origin of life is quite a remakable and, yes, improbable thing, don't you think?
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.