Posted on 06/11/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
The questions were poorly worded. Those people were most likely trying to get through to the thick-headed pollsters that yes, humans developed over millions of years, but they were Created by God, not just arising out of nothing, or with God as just some guiding hand.
The respondents were never given the option of responding that God created Man and that Man evolved. The pollsters took the ignorant and idiotic position that evolution and creation are incompatible.
But, it looks like you're very familiar with the moths being an example of microevolution and the finches being an example of macroevolution.
Or, based on your tagline, do you contest both of these as evidence?
Also, with the definition that you use, please show that intelligent design either is religious in nature or is not religious in nature.
I'll have to bookmark it for future reference under "These are not worth responding to".
Otherwise, no comment, I know what I believe in.
I presume you're just joking, right? Those two are about as academic as that crazy psychic palm-reader lady they ran off TV a while back.
It's either true or it's false. If it's false, it doesn't belong anywhere.
I did a quick google search and found the following:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel05.htm
Consider the evidence. Don’t just attack the source because it challenges what you’ve been told.
That's true but irrelevant. I may disagree with you on many theological points, but I'm not going to enter your place of worship and tell you what you should believe, even if I think what you think is wrong. As it happens, my own religious denomination has found no conflict with evolution for over 100 years.
I’m not tracking what you’re saying. Are you saying that pastors who preach that the Lord brought about “all this” as Scripture says are “hucksters”? Or that pastors who say that Scripture isn’t really true and that frogs turned into princes over the course of a million, no a billion, no a trillion years are the hucksters?
I’m hoping you mean the latter, that it’s the anti-science hucksters who proclaim that bugs and monkeys and men all share the same rights and that God is either dead or impotent and that death didn’t *really* enter the world through sin, as Scripture says.
Sorry to hear you attend a church that preaches an impotent and aloof God, one who lies about how “all this” came about, one who “got it wrong” when he indicated that death came into the world through sin ... and life therefore through Jesus Christ.
But I agree — you’re free to believe that if you’d like.
How are we supposed to consider evidence that isn't there? So far I've only read the section on Darwin's Finches, but at least on that your link doesn't provide even the slightest shred of actual evidence, nor any reference thereto.
Darwin's Finches are still to this day considered to include at least 14 good species (13 in the Galapagos and 1 from Cocos Island), and even represent several genera, the next higher level of classification above species: the ground finches (Geospiza), the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch (Certhidea) and the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias). There's been no change on that front from taxonomists.
The only "evidence" provided in the link is a bald assertion from Walter Lammerts (an antievolutionist with no expertise in ornithology) that gee, these are really just subspecies of one "finch" species. No ornithologist or taxonomist accepts that position, and Lammerts gives no reason they should.
Just for the record frogs would not be found anywhere in the lineage leading to humans. Sure, there would be some amphibians in the human lineage, but they would be of a far more generic type.
Frogs are obviously a specialized and divergent line of amphibians, and certainly represent a "side branch" wrt to whatever line of amphibians led on to reptiles and then mammals.
When you mention "scripture", are you referring to some random ancient scrolls translated from the verbal campfire tales of various wandering tribes of bronze age goat herders? If so, is this the evidence you present to bolster your ridiculous counter argument against the status of 21st Century science?
So it’s not so much that you think pastors specifically are wrong for speaking about God’s creation, you ridicule anyone who believes in Jesus. Hm.
Your hatred is blinding you to the beauty and meaning of creation. I pray you find your heart warmed toward the Lord before your death.
Thank you for your reply. But my question remains: why have they repented? And why should they repent?
If you think that insulting me and mocking my God is the way to win me over, you've got another thing coming.
You could use a little more humility. Ultimately, you will receive some.
I add only that the website Theo mentioned once again demonstrates the difference between science and creationism.
Due to its religious background, creationism is based on authority as opposed to data. "X himself said so, therefore you're wrong" is a common response employed by many creationists.
They either forget or do not realize that dogma has no place in science. If an idea is not supported by data, it's discarded. Science changes. Creationism tries to change by redefining itself (e.g. intelligent design), but it in end, it's the same old arguments that don't hold up in the courtroom1, much less a peer-reviewed journal.
You never did answer the question.
we don’t understand enough about the “source code” of life to know what the trade offs are for not producing our own vitamin C.
The trade off is we get scurvy.
The source code for the vitamin C gene is very well known, and the copy in humans and apes is broken in an identical way. That fits evolution theory, because a critter that eats fruits doesn't need to manufacture vitamin C.
This common defect proves evolution in two ways. First, it demonstrates (along with several thousand other retro-virus genes that have been inserted into the common ape/human genome) that humans and apes are indeed related genetically. The technique is not unlike using DNA to test for parentage, except it requires a much deeper analysis of the sequences. Which has been done.
The second way this demonstrates evolution is what I mentioned above, that humans and apes don't require the gene, so individuals that inherit the defect don't die. Genes that are required for the survival of an individual don't have errors, because when they occur the individual doesn't survive to reproduce. But genes that aren't strictly required can accumulate errors, and so we find them.
I have thalessemia, an inherited blood disorder that won't kill me, but results in my inability to exercise for long time periods, such as distance running. It is known that this disorder occurs in people with a Mediterranean heritage, an area with relatively mild climate, and a history of civilization that could have supported individuals that had the gene. I can guess that it doesn't occur in more extreme climates because the likelihood of someone surviving in those places with this gene is much smaller. Again, in one more way out of millions, the evidence for evolution is in front of our faces.
As for theology, I think it's an insult to claim that God could not have designed evolution. As for a literal Bible, there are innumerable claims (the flood, for one) in the Bible that are not only physically impossible, but if they had happened would have left evidence that just cannot be found, even after Christian scientists spent careers looking for them.
The Bible is not a scientific text. Christians that insist that it is are what prevents me from accepting Jesus as my personal savior. Christians should leave science to scientists, and keep religion in their church, because it damages the faith in ways they will never know when they fail to do this.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
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.