Posted on 02/24/2008 4:18:12 PM PST by no nau
Just because you say so?
So how did you determine that this is a thread for those of little faith?
What scientific process did you use to discover that?
Or are you speaking outside your area of expertise, passing judgment on the level of faith of the participants on this thread?
[[The only reason that evolution ideas have become popular is because people do not understand the importance of the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments for verifying scientific facts. In other words, evolutionists long ago came to the realization that they could not substantiate their macroevolution ideas by proper scientific experimentation. This is for the simple reason that experiments that would conclusively verify that single cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility.]]
Precisely!
[[Also, to paraphrase another poster who was involved in experiments that simulated great periods of time in order to try to observe evolution processes in fast motion, the harmful mutations that were actually observed in the experiments cast doubt on the integrity of macroevolution ideas (corrections welcome).]]
No correction needed- that was spot on. Even intelligent design coupled with excellorated mutation via fallible man’s efforts couldn’t produce the desired results of Macroeovlution
[[The truth of the matter is that evolutionists long ago resorted to “scientifically verifying” their claims about evolution by putting on “lawyer’s hats, trying to “sell the “jury,” that’s people like you and me, their subjective conclusions about their inconclusive evolution evidence]]
Yup- precisely! To Na Nau- I would challenge the students to find one single example of Macroevolution- there of course will be none. What there will be however are copious examples of MICROEvolution that scientists try to pass off as MACROEvolution to the unsuspecting.. Notl ong ago, a scientist on TalkOrigins presented 29 of sciences BEST examples of supposed MACROEvolution, but upon close examination, they ALL turned out to be nothign more than MICROEvolution OR symbiotic relationships between dissimiliar species. Now, if that was their best evidence to support the hypothesis of MACROEvolution, then by golly MACROEvolution is in pretty bad shape.
We’re told that Time + an accumulation of Mutaations can lead to NEW information- but the sad truth is that #1 this has NEVER been shown to be the case and #2 it is as you said, a biological impossibility. A species can NOT gain NEW information necessary for MACROEvolution simply by altering their OWN genetic information- the only thing that can produce are mutants, freaks, and at best neutral results (although this is ongoing as to whether they truly are neutral- some beleive that even the so called neutrals are infact deleterious at sublevels somewhere in the system)
Bottom line is that MACROEvolution has NEVER been scientifically verified or produced- it’s nothing but an unscientific imaginary process that violates biological laws, natural laws, and statistical laws.
Scientists and those with faith (sometimes also scientists, the groups overlap) don’t belong here.
"Don't belong here?"
This article was posted in the News/Activism forum, not the Religion forum.
where is the anti-science in that Coyote? You’ve NEVER once showed how it is anti-science- everythign listed in those statements is scientifically sound. Getting a little tired of your unexplained accusations- If you haven’t the wherewithall to show that any of that is inconsistant with scientific investigations, then refrain from ignorantly posting ad nauseum.
Res ipsa loquitur.
C’mon, you know this is religion and not science.
So it’s been put in the wrong box.
No, that’s the basis for the interpretation of the physical evidence that exists in this universe.
It’s not different data, fossil record, physical laws, forces, chemical reactions, or any other data collected about the physical creation.
No, but the world of science does work within the guidelines set forth by science. This is called the scientific method.
>>>And yet scientists can’t even agree on THAT! I’ve seen too many occasions where scientists of equal degree claim the other wasn’t even using ‘scientific methods’ to get to their conclusions and vice-versa and so on.
You can follow some other set of rules if you want, but if you do you are not free to call what you do science.
>>>>>Sure I am! I can call whatever I want to do science...and somtimes I can even get approval from other like-minded people with similar, less than or equal to scientific degrees as mine, to boot!
Equal time? In science class? For each of the “various entities that define our realities?” I assume by “entities” you mean ideas or fields of belief. Well, here are a bunch of “realities” (each is real to some group):
>>>>>>So, by that logic, when the professor gets a question from a student at the beginning of science class...”Ummm, where is the closest restroom”...The science professor is obliged to reply...”Well that’s ummmm not SCIENCE, therefore you’ll have to wait until AFTER science class to learn that information”!
It never ceases to amaze me that the people most likely to assume they can somehow set the rules on what science is or isn’t are the ones that can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag! Not that such rules could ever HOPE to be set all along! Science, the scientific method...all of it, isn’t etched in stone or even defined SOLELY by today’s standards, no more so than they were in the 1st century!
Alchemists and midevel barbers were CONVINCED what they were doing was “real science” back then (just like some people are convinced that studying poltergeists and UFO’s are considered to be “REAL” science today) and who KNOWS what will be considered REAL science in the 30th century, (providing we make it that far)!
I know a group that thought if they wanted to snip their nuts off and catch a space ship in the tail of a comet to get to heaven after killing themslves...and this is considered a religion and there are actually people that climb on Christians for DARE saying this is a FALSE religion!
No ONE group gets to determine what religion is, no more than one group gets to determine what science, math or history “is”!
But I’ll stick to science.
>>>>>For however you decide to define it, accept it and so forth and so on, no doubt!
Good luck with THAT!
That’s a really good question. You should ask Him that when you are standing before His throne.”
Except that he will be naked and unable to speak.
A point worth pondering.
I happen to believe in God and creationism, but my beliefs are categorized by some as "fables" or "unsubstantiated by science."
These same people who denigrate my beliefs are perfectly comfortable telling me my coffee table is comprised of a kazillion little nuclei orbited by a kazillion more little electrons.
They can't show me, of course...but I'm sure they have faith in their theory.
ya think? We are made in Jis image and likeness.?
Follow the context.
read later
I disagree. Both science and religion rely on faith and facts.
As we go along, it seems that both tend to coexist much more easily than both sides want to admit.
Yeah, but it’s no fun when you can’t mock Christians because you’re so blinded by your obsession with the physical world that you reduce everything to simply it’s physical properties.
Being created in the image of God is not the same as being created AS God, or an exact duplicate, able to do everything He can. Photographs and paintings are images of the objects in them, they aren’t the objects themselves.
It’s beyond some people’s comprehension that not being able to speak when in front of a judge means that you have no answer for the charges brought against one. People get tongue-tied in front of mere humans and are *unable to speak*, IOW, just don’t know what to say.
Somehow, I don’t think questions about God’s origin will be foremost on their minds when standing before Him. They’ll be having much more serious things to worry about.
Except that he(uncbob) will be naked and unable to speak.
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.