Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence
I do see the analogy, but I don't think it's correct. I do understand your skepticism, but it is unwarranted in this case - we have a lot more information pertaining to evolution than you seem to believe - the conclusion is not the wild extrapolation that you seem to think it is. (Though I'll admit that this isn't always readily apparent to the layperson - it took quite a bit of reading on my part to become convinced that it is a solid theory.)
BTW Newton's Laws do technically contradict Einstein's; the most accurate way to put it is that Einstein's theory of gravity reduces to Newton's in the non-relativistic limit. My point was that Newton's Laws are still perfectly valid in all but the most extreme or sensitive circumstances.
Misapplication of the Cambrian explosion. Typical. People forget that this "sudden explosion" spans a time period of 10 million years in the fossil record, it is only an "explosion" in the relative sense, and only an "explosion" in the realm of macroscopic organisms, which make up only a tiny realm of genetic lineages. Additionally, many hypotheses about the origin of triploblastic organisms have been given confirmation via analysis and transplantation of proteins (Zimmer's book on Evolution gives an excellent description of this.) Our (albeit limited) knowledge of the Cambrian explosion hardly detracts from the validity of evolution.
Hah! I did that years ago.
Actually they do. It's just that you can't get enough time in school to teach it.
Instead Kansas now wants to teach kids about space aliens instead of evolution. Just what a technological society needs.
You stated you don't believe in common descent - why would you support ID, then?
Not a Christian Soldier of God:
John 15:26 (NIV) "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of TRUTH who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
In fairness, I believe our well-intentioned poster is being misled by good intentions, the lack of a technical background, and some impressive technical jargon from a VERY dishonest man.
We have corresponded by freepmail, and I do not believe him to be a liar.
I don't care so much about ID since no one seems to know what that actually means. I'll be happy to vote for anyone who says God is the creator of all life.
"8. Powered flight is not mentioned in the Bible."
Well, except for Elijah(sp? -- there's two and get the spellings mixed up) episode with the Chariot of Fire.
Maybe he lives underground.
So a theistic evolutionist (like CS Lewis was purported to be) is OK?
Basically -- God created the universe, God created the rules of nature (which include evolution), and He intentionall set it all up so that man would be created in His image, a bit like a baker who bakes a cake.
Not much of a basis for a science curriculum, is it?
I'll be happy to vote for anyone who says God is the creator of all life.
I believe that God is the Creator of all life. I also acknowledge that the facts and data strongly support evolution & common descent, and that you can't have complete and comprehensive biology curriculum without it. I know I am not alone in this perspective.
And I believe God created humans and animals and plants "after their own kind". And people are free to believe what they wish. Don't you find it strange that after generations being taught the TOE, the majority still aren't buying it? Wonder why?
Because a facile belief in mythology is intellectually easier than the hard work of understanding a fairly complex and challenging field of science, especially when that field of science makes them feel somehow less divinely exalted among the rest of the species?
I guess a baker doesn't bake a cake then, the oven does.
So you equate humans with mice?
What does a baker have to do with God? Oh, I get it. God created the baker!
But they are not free to dictate the results of science research.
Don't you find it strange that after generations being taught the TOE, the majority still aren't buying it? Wonder why?
The majority of Americans do accept common descent, they just don't accept an atheistic explanation of it. Either way, the fact that so many Americans don't is just a sad testament to the sorry state of science education in this country. Keep in mind also that roughly half of people think that lasers work by focusing sound waves, that electrons are smaller than atoms, and that antibiotics can kill viruses, according to a 2004 NSF survey. One quarter of people didn't know that the Earth orbits the sun. To answer your question, the public doesn't completely buy the theory because they don't understand it.
I honestly don't understand your adamant rejection of evolution, given that you have stated on these threads that you reject the less than 10,000 year-old earth that a literal reading of the Bible requires.
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.