Posted on 12/04/2009 8:07:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In May 2009, a remarkably well-preserved extinct primate, nicknamed “Ida,” was hailed as one of the most important fossil finds ever. It had features that some interpreted as a link between two primate body forms. At the time, ICR News suggested that its evolutionary significance was far overblown, predicting that the scientific consensus would offer retractions. Those retractions came three months later, confirming that the fossil―called Darwinius―was really just an extinct lemur variety...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Clear enough. Anyone that does not believe exactly like you believe is an adversery. That includes Catholics, old earth creationists and heliocentrists.
>> I see that you are one of them.
Your god is limited by your need to have a small, fallible god with all the foibles of a human born in sin.
God did it like he said he did. He is incapable of deception.<<
If God is incapable of deception, why did he bury Uranium in the ground with a 1/2 life of 4 Billion years? Why did he bury all of those darned fossils to confuse us, why did he put the earth in a Universe with stars and Galaxies that are further out that 6,000LY? Why did he leave plenty of Thermodynamic evidence that the planet many thousands of times older than 6,000 years only to tell us that it is 6,000 years old....?
Why is going to usher in the “End Times” before we humans even have a chance to spread out among the many other worlds he placed amongst the cosmos. If humans get to Mars and the Rapture occurs what happens to good Christian Astronauts on Mars? Did the Bible predict the moon landing? Can YOU predict the future based on the Bible?
To them, that’s God.
Which versions?
Christianity - Belief in God
Scientology - Belief you can BE a God
You have no basis.
But if you insist, trot down to your Church and draw that analogy
On the contrary, if you read the article, it's about the fossil that was classified as being a missing link not being such after all.
If it makes the news and is classified as science news but not religion when the discovery and conclusions were first made, then it should be classified as science news and not religion when the conclusions were changed.
I wasn't aware that changing the classification of a fossil was a religious decision. I thought that the scientists more closely examining the fossil were the ones to reclassify it.
I don't understand why the source of the article dealing with this fact is such an issue with the evolutionists.
Hmmm. That is all there is to Christianity?
According to creationists, fossils are simply stones that fell from the moon.
In recent years they’ve decided that fossils are the remains of animals from Noah’s flood that managed to die, then sort themselves in rock strata in an orderly fashion.
I think the moon stones story is more interesting but that’s just me.
Oh, so you’re contesting my basis for comparison—good! Now do the same for your own comparison between evolution and AGW. If you’re honest, you’ll come to the same conclusion.
Please do....c/p all you want. My not having a belief in your God is not the same as calling your God into question. Me not believing that Man walked the Earth with 100+ species of dinosaurs 4,352 years ago is not the same as me calling your God a liar, liar.
Run along now...
No, lying agitators like you are though.
“There is no such thing as science without assumptions.”
Your liberal professors have failed you. You’ve picked up a Kantian fallacy somehow from someone, namely, the idea that all science is theory-laden.
Supposedly since all observation requires concepts, we can’t make objective observations because any observation is theory-laden. Since background assumptions are arbitrary, we arrive at theoretical egalitarianism— one theory is just as good as another. So the story goes.
This is just as silly as saying that if I need to join a union in order to make observations in the laboratory, my observations are union-laden. The problem is that we’re confusing temporal priority with epistemic priority. In other words, it isn’t that needing concepts to make observations is false. It is true, and trivially true.
I’m firmly committed to an inductivist philosophy of science— David Stove’s The Rationality of Induction is a great read, along with his Scientific Irrationalism.
Science is about evidence, not assumptions, not ideology, not class, not gender, or any other foolish postmodern lunacy professors peddle these days.
Yes, trot out the heliocentrist tripe.
God describes Creation. Read it, believe it! Or don’t, believe you are being lied to, your call. But in any case, your fetish with jumping into threads that do not have beliefs you find credible just to spread lies does make you adversarial.
And you accept that as a version of the ‘Truth’?
“No, lying agitators like you are though. “
That sounds like a statement from George Wallace directed at, well, you know...
No.
Pretty crass response there, mate.
Okay, what does that have to do with religious freedom or someone attempting to deprive us of it?
AGW and evolution are BOTH man-made theories based on non-fact.
That is not so for Christianity and Scientology.
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.