150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin

ICR ^ | March 4, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[metmom]

"Polarization" is a common tactic on these threads, and there's no room for the uncommitted in those arguments.

That's right. The evos insist on cramming anyone who says *creation* into a *one size fits all YEC, 6,000 year old earth if they read the creation account of Genesis as factual, they demand that the whole Bible be taken literally* box.

[YHAOS]

"You’re not suggesting that there is something that God is not capable of, are you?"

How 'bout getting lost? Can God get lost?

[Longhair_and_Leather]

Can’t maintain a coherent thought? The question was if there was something God cannot do, and I answered.

[tacticalogic]

That's right. The evos insist on cramming anyone who says *creation* into a *one size fits all YEC, 6,000 year old earth if they read the creation account of Genesis as factual, they demand that the whole Bible be taken literally* box.

You, of course have never engaged in trying to polarize an argument.

[GodGunsGuts]

==In this case, the person came after me.

Don’t you just love it when a person claiming to be a “Christian” snuggles up to atheists and tells them “I’m with you, don’t listen to those evil, ignorant Christians.”

A house cannot be divided against itself...

[tpanther]

You’ve said my arguments are irrelvant, and that your responses are simply because it’s me. Isn’t that the essence of a personal attack?

---

You mentioned something about these threads ending in flame wars, but I’ve noticed alot of yours BEGIN that way.

When confronted you either offer a smart aleck answer or change the subject or project. Period.

It looks to me alot of the time you’re not interested in anything BUT projections and flame wars.

All right, we’ll play it your way, you’re still not off the hook with the questions posed to you about evolution and the puzzle pieces, and it’s not a “small detail” to identify by definition what is (or isn’t) evolution.

Not to mention squashing research?????? Well, that’s just a joke!

Apparently, you’re the only one that doesn’t “get it”.

[tacticalogic]

You mentioned something about these threads ending in flame wars, but I’ve noticed alot of yours BEGIN that way.

If I disagree with an argument, I'll say so and why I disagee with it. If I do, it will be about the argument, not the person that's making it.

[tacticalogic]

A house cannot be divided against itself...

Are you sure the end justifies the means?

[allmendream]

What place would you have for God in science class?

Can God be measured? Made to act replicably?

What would your “God included” science sound like? Would it be accepted worldwide as real science is? What barriers would your “God included” science encounter to world wide acceptance?

What experiments do you propose that would include God as a factor?

[whattajoke]

you’re the victim of a cult.

LOL. Okay. We differ on the definition of cult.

If creationism is taught or even mentioned, we’ll somehow morph into a theocracy, experience an inquistion and scientists will be burned at the stake.

I don't believe in a god and I don't believe that creationism being mentioned in public school will result in your strawman fantasy. I simply think that creationism is not remotely based on science and therefore should not be taught as such. You can teach it all day long in some other course, like Mythology or Comparative Religion if you'd like.

Uhhh don’t look now confucius but the creatues were a strawman contsruct of one of your fellow liberals!

Wait - didn't you just write that you never engage in personal attacks? Sarcastically calling me Confucius and then a liberal? Again, we differ on the definition of "personal" and "attack."

As far as scientific proof of God, do you have any scientific proof that you love your beautiful son?

Hm. Good one. Except I didn't ask for proof at all. I asked for evidence. I asked for testing parameters and predictions. There is plenty of evidence that I love my son, for which you can "test" (though please don't, that's creepy) and predict how I will treat him as he gets older. Big difference.

For that matter, I’d like to see the scientific evidence and proof behind string and membrane theory, not to mention multiverse theory and then there’s the science of studying the effectiveness of prayer, miracles, etc.

I don't know anything about string and membrane and multiverse theory. (You apparently forgot to put "theory" in quotation marks!) As for the science of studying the effectiveness of prayer, that kinda bombed didn't it? Conclusion, as I recall: Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery. Please point me to the "science of studying miracles." I'm intrigued.

I’d point out that “proof or evidence of God” isn’t something remotely to be gained by man’s designs or demands through his narrow understanding or tools, but if you genuinely ask God to reveal himself and come into your heart, you’ll get all the proof you’ll ever need, unquestionably.

Bold statement - and one central to your faith which I respect. I had faith for years, but it revealed itself to be empty at some point. I haven't missed it, I haven't much thought about it, and I won't be going back to it. I retain my morals and my values, and that's good enough for me. (And SHOULD be good enough for you, as I WOULD walk into a burning building for you.)

[Gordon Greene]

“God did give us allegory”

That was kind of the point... I don’t think any Christian who has spent time in the word is doubting there is some parable or allegory there, but when there is it is usually labeled as such. The Buckster just arbitrarily tags anything he doesn’t believe as allegory.

[tpanther]

And yet, you consistently come out on the side of defending the NEA, liberalism...

[tacticalogic]

And yet, you consistently come out on the side of defending the NEA, liberalism...

Only in a polarized universe.

[Gordon Greene]

“Except where, you know, Gordon Greene accepts it as allegory.

Hence, the problem.”

The last thread of hope you guys have is taking folks out of context. The point, my friend is that the bible is generally clear when something is a parable or a story for the point of teaching. Where your side has the problem is that you must assume allegory or assume that it is implied.

Unlike you and B, I don’t possess the intelligence to rubber stamp the acceptable passages of the Bible and rule out those too fantastic to believe as truth.

Congratulations on your personal enlightenment. May we all be blessed with such revelation knowledge.

[Gordon Greene]

“How do they chose what’s allegorical and what’s not?”

That’s easy... Bucky tells ‘em!

Didn’t this post teach you anything???

[whattajoke]

My “side?” Didn’t know I had one.

Listen, the Bible is nice and all and of COURSE much of the allegorical passages are obviously so. And of COURSE the boring history and frightening OT Laws were factual as best as they could be.

But there is plenty of stuff that will never and can never be agreed upon. And that’s FINE. I don’t have the answers and nor do you.

My problem with the bible is when so called literalists (which can’t possibly exist in reality) use it as a science text, which it is not.

I could help you with the “ruling out the fantastical” stuff though. Basically, anything impossible (miracles, resurrections, virgin births, man living in whale, woman from rib, worldwide flood) can be ruled out as fact. It’s not too hard to do, actually. Just go back and read my paranthetical - sounds pretty silly now, doesn’t it?

[Old Landmarks]

The Free Republic hardcore evolutionists (by default) will automatically side with the Democrat Left in matters such as Biblical Christianity and their worship of the far left Big Government Public School monopoly.

[Gordon Greene]

“Just go back and read my paranthetical - sounds pretty silly now, doesn’t it?”

Your parenthetical statements? Yes, in the context you framed them in you do sound pretty silly.

Let me be serious for a moment... if you look at strictly human wisdom there are some things it takes a lot of faith to believe. Did you really think I would agree with you that those things are silly?

Crazy boy... Compliments on your chosen name...

[DallasMike]

I accept that as a compliment from someone who posts from AIG and CRI.

I'll only comment on AIG and CRI. They are both laughable. I've been told plenty of times on these threads that Dr. Russell Humphreys is a genius ahead of his time and that I'm not a real scientist or a real Christian because I point out the huge logical and factual errors in his articles. I'm the one who is stupid, yet this amazingly brilliant Dr. Humpreys believes that the universe was created from a giant ball of water:

But the Bible implies that the real universe indeed has a center! Appendix B of Starlight and Time details much of what follows. After creating a light-years-size ball of water (Genesis 1:2, "the deep ... the waters"), God said, "Let there be an expanse |or "firmament"| in the midst of the waters" (Genesis 1:6, italics mine). So the expanse started near the center of the large ball of water as a thin spherical layer separating a planet-size ball of water inside it from the much larger amount of water outside it.

AIG and CRI sicken me. They provide militant atheists with fodder to paint all Christians as ignorant, toothless hillbillies.

[GodGunsGuts]

This coming from a guy who doesn’t even know the difference between expansion and inflation. LOL