Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Various religions? There is ONLY One Creator. It's what HE says that is true, not 'various relgions'.
Noting that this is a News/Activism thread, what kind of political solution would you propose to implement this idea that people should only engage in discussion of the one, true Creator?
(Manipulating definitions and making arbitrary distinctions between theories just to prop one up is what's intellectually dishonest.)
Ironic you say this because that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are redefining evolution in your own mind. Let me try again:
First, you are getting your terms wrong. Abiogenesis is not in of itself a theory. It simply means the generation of life from non living matter. There really is no dispute that we are essentially made of Carbon and other assorted elements, which is non-living matter. There are many theories as to how these elements that we are made of were formed together. Those theories fall into the realm of CHEMISTRY, not BIOLOGY. None of them have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a biological theory and therefore does not deal with non-living matter.
Let me try this example:
Scientific evidence makes it more likely than not that OJ Simpson killed his wife. If we one day found out that OJ's father wasn't his REAL father, would that have any bearing on whether or not he killed Nicole Brown? THe only way that evidence could be thrown out is if we came to the conclusion that a man named Orenthal James SImpson never existed.
We have to stipulate that OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown were living existing humans before we can talk about the murders. How they they arrived on the planet earth is irrelevant.
So THe Theory of OJ killing Nicole has nothing to do with the ORIGIN OF OJ SIMPSON. If OJ were adopted, the Theory of OJ Killing Nicole still stands, if OJ was rocketed to earth from the planet krypton, HE STILL KILLED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. If Johnnie Cochran tried to introduce evidence of OJ's parentage, he would be laughed out of court.
Is that clear now?
Refer back to my original post. The faithful have faith despite evidence. They say that love makes you blind, and when you love God, you're blind to anything that might make Him less in your eyes. It's just too bad that literal readings of the Bible turn accepting the facts of science into a critique against God. There are plenty of confusing and unclear parts of the Bible and a great many Christians have concluded that Genesis is one of those and they still love God and accept the truth of evolution.
The sad thing is that if a creationist ever does begin to understand science, they're forced to reevaluate their faith in God. It didn't need to be that way.
Catholics once believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and it was a strain on their faith when they were forced by the truth to believe otherwise. Genesis literalists are in the same conundrum, and don't know it.
As for me, I'll put my credentials as an amateur paleozoologist up against yours any day of the week. You see, my hobby inclines me to keep abreast of the latest stuff coming down the pike. Heck, I even learned to use Google scholar to read some of the original works rather than rely on second-hand filtering by various outlets.
In other words, one can be an informed amateur provided one actually make an effort. Unfortunately, I have yet to see many people go that extra mile. They would rather someone else digest the data and feed them only that pablum that agrees with their particular inclinations.
"That's the biggest difference between science and faith. Science will admit what it does not know, while the faithful know everything."
Funny considering how scientists will stridently defend their pet theories even if proven wrong. Max Planck put it best:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
--Max Planck
How does that article refute any tenet of the Theory of Evolution?
"...because every complex system must be created by an even more complex system.."
I find it difficult to believe that Dawkins would use this premise as it implies an "intelligent designer" somewhere. Using this premise he essentially undermines evolution.
--Max Planck
If that's true, then there is no such thing as objecively verifiable scientific inquiry. It's all simply propaganda. You sure you want to run with that?
No, I'm not talking about any kind of numerology. I'm talking about divinely provided seals on the content of most of the masoretic text through messages encoded in "long equidistant letter sequences." Some of them are so long as to deconstruct the concept of probability.
"If that's true, then there is no such thing as objecively verifiable scientific inquiry. It's all simply propaganda. You sure you want to run with that?"
Why would I want to run with a false dilemma?
That stuff was debunked years ago. Equidistant letter sequences can be found in the text of just about any book, especially if it is written in Hebrew, where vowels are omitted making the text more open to interpretation.
No Christians I know would dream of putting their faith into such a dubious mechanism.
Are these "long equidistant letter sequences" based on numerical analysis of the text?
I'm not talking about various creators, I agree there's only one. I'm talking about debating the flaws in the theory of evolution, not proselytizing any particular religious sect or belief, no matter how worthy.
Every single discussion doesn't have to turn into trying to convince someone to convert. In fact, every discussion shouldn't turn into that. No better way to alienate people who might be otherwise interested in the debate. You gotta take people step by step, not hit them over the head with everything you've got all at once.
It is entirely possible to destroy Darwinist flaws without mentioning any religious concepts at all. Just destroying their arguments is a great service to humanity.
I've met a number of folks in the latter category. Honestly, though, a religion is known by the actions of its followers. Islam isn't considered a bloodthirsty and barbaric religion simply because Christians say so. When someone sees Christians gloating at the prospect of their enemies burning forever in Hell, or who preach loudly it s their way or the highway, it's bound to turn him or her off.
"By their fruits you'll know them" and all that...
As stated, there is no dilemma. All the terms appear to be unqualified absolutes. Scientific theory is advanced through the longevity of it's proponents, and has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.
Perhaps I might be able to articulate an answer to that question after I get through the book.
(It is entirely possible to destroy Darwinist flaws without mentioning any religious concepts at all. Just destroying their arguments is a great service to humanity.)
I would love to hear you "destroy Darwinist flaws". Please proceed, this should be interesting. I submit that it is even easier to destory biblical flaws.
I would only recommend Richard Dawkins awesome new book for people who are mentally ready to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to read it.
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.