Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science
--snip--
Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“I do believe John did see a beast with 7 heads though, as if it were really there. “
Agreed. There would be no purpose and probably less effectiveness in showing John a photo album listing the actual faces of future characters he’d never personally see and never be able to relay to us. Perhaps if they’d had facebook access on Patmos...
As the title of the article is evolution retreating from science not science retreating, I wonder if you even read the article.
Maybe you were busy with profanity in the keywords?
I have—many times. Both contain allegory. Genesis is not history.
Yes, horns are used as symbols of power more than once in His word.
“What I think is not in question here, and frankly none of your business.”
What you think is in question here.
The reason I asked you that last question was to see if you did in fact believe that the Bible is in fact a Truth Statement - and it most certainly is - allegories, parables and all.
Jesus is the Saviour of Mankind - and He loves you - this is true.
“...I do not ask how, and I do not create a whole pseudo-science, which twists and spins the current state of knowledge to explain the biochemistry of Christ’s blood after resurrection...”
I’m with you on that for sure.
The question was asked and answered many times; rather than the question challenging my assumptions; it confirmed my assumption that Creationists are ignorant by their own volition; as the information is out there, and even when provided to them; they do not learn.
Again, you are posting out of ignorance. The word I posted was "bullsh*t". It is not profane by anyone's definition of profane and was highly accurate by everyone's definition. (Note: you can find the word Merriam-Websters, American Heritage, and Cambridge and even FR's spell checker didn't flag it).
I'll wait. Go ahead.
The admin moderator and I already discussed this. It is not profane, but I have agreed not to use that word again because it offends those like you who can't handle grown-up language. I have instead begun using "bovinescat" because it is a little gentler. Yipeee-Skipeee indeed!
Bovinescat! Come on—that’s BS!
BenKenobi: "How does speciation explain ‘drug resistance’?"
"Speciation" does not explain drug resistance.
Evolutionary processes like random mutations and natural selection (or in this example, human activity) do explain drug resistance.
A "species" is an artificial scientific construct -- falling between a breed or race, and a genus -- to help us understand how different biological groups relate to each other.
Typically, scientists define a "new species" as one that has changed so much it can no longer interbreed with its parent populations. Thus even vastly different dogs fall into just one species, while similar seeming horses, zebras and donkeys have multiple species.
For example, the biological classifications for humans are:
Drug resistence in bacteria is not known to have risen to the level of speciation, since genetically mutated bacteria resistant to drugs are assumed capable of interbreeding with original strands.
But the processes which cause drug resistance are the same processes which over long enough times can lead to a new species, genus, family, order, etc.
Examples of speciation witnessed in historical times have been linked to by other posters.
Evidences for past speciations are abundant in both the fossil records and DNA comparisons of similar living species.
To cite just one example, it is said that human and chimp DNA is something like 98% identical.
The fossil record shows a common ancestor around five million years ago.
I suppose I shouldn't expect a cogent or logical answer from you, but I gotta ask - why is it OK to spew BS, but not to say BS? Makes you go Hmmmmmmm.........
Another question; Would the use of the word chickensh*t be "fowl" language?
Indeed it is. There is so much of it on GGGs posts you really have to be careful where you step.
Mommy, he touched me!
Consider the purported remains of orrorin tugenensis. From a couple of pieces of a leg bone and a few teeth a whole creature of some kind is constructed and conclusions drawn from that construction.
I invite anyone to go and actually see what was found and explore the story of the finding and squirreling away of these remains.
From the Piltdown Man to Ida, Ardi and Lucy, finding “a new and older human ancestor” is the gold ring to be grasped.
But few of the Darwinists here seem to really look too closely at the iron pyrite of these fossils.
Partly yes, and partly no.
First, nuclear energy, electricity, physics, and mathematics do not in any way challenge our spiritual knowledge, so they are not relevant to the question.
When you get into cancer, and antibiotics, its a very different story. Antibiotics are shortening lives every day, and their use is in defiance of God's word, which tells us the "herbs of the field" and "every green leaf" are provided for our health, and they definitely do a good job. Cancer 'cures' do the same as all the other drugs. Sometimes there is remission during treatment, but in the long run the treatments shorten life, even in those that experience remission. The real cure for cancer is to remove the original cause, which in the preponderance of cases is a spiritual issue. (bitternewss, hatred, unforgiveness, blaming God, or any other form of 'toxic' thought) Some illness is due to use of chemicals without regard for the effect on the body, and some cancers fall into this category, but the main rule still applies: remove the cause.
What you call "mailstream Christianity" bears little resemblance to what is described in God's word. I don't mean to attack any particular denomination; they're all in deep do-do, and we are at the point announced in Revelation where we are told to "come out of her" referring to the "harlot" that organized religion has become.
But hey, thanks for the laugh :o)
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.