Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Darwin was the algorejr. of his generation, nothing more.
God is much more than your dogmatic insistence about the use of evolution in creation of all species.
And unlike creationism, it is a useful endeavor that produces things of value.
The idea of a special creation is an intellectual dead end and leads no further in knowledge.
The concept of the interrelatedness of species furthers knowledge and creates value.
And of course God is much more than any person's dogma, you make an absurd argument. And lest you respond that you were aping me, my response was in reply to an absurd argument.
I dont have to insist anything. I am just pointing out that there us a choice to be made and it cant be avoided. To a man its obvious that all of you evolutionists ardor your own intellects, but your arguments are weak so you resort to derision and vitriol every time.
Me, I have read the Bible, and parts of the Bhagavad Gita, the Diamond Sutra and much more. And when you place those works up against the works of Charles Darwin or any other evolutionist, the choice is absolutely clear for me and there is no way I would ever put my faith in the tiny minds and shifting sands of evolutionary beliefs.
You want to go there no one can stop you.
The kids understand it. Rather than present it as established concrete fact you tell them evolution theory and then take them to the park, observe some pond scum and algae, a few other creatures and then a chimp and then ask them to think about what evolutionary beliefs are saying to them.
Well I’ll ask you, do you really believe that you are the descendant of some ape creature? I know the answer, I just want you to say it.
Humans and chimps are more like each other in DNA than either is to any other ape.
That is a concrete fact. A theory is better than a simple fact because is explains the facts in context and allows you to predict other facts.
That is your interpretation, kosta; not mine. There's nothing in what Swenson wrote that indicates anything to me about whether the system he describes is "self-sufficient." JMHO
You wrote:
Natural (adjective of nature) is that which pertains and is part of this material world.
Supernatural is "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." (see dictionary.com)
[Jeepers, kosta, rather than dictionary.com, couldn't you at least have consulted the Oxford??? Which gives the etymology and history of English words???]
I simply disagree with your definitions. You say the supernatural is not and cannot be in nature; nature and supernature are mutually-exclusive, "ontologically," as you say.
But tell me this: Is a physical law (a universal) a part of nature, or not? We know a physical law is not "material." It is not made up of "matter." You never see physical laws running around on all fours; they cannot be seen/heard/smelled/tasted/or touched, etc.
So, is a physical law "natural" — or "unnatural" (or "supernatural" by your definition)?
Some of your other comments seemed a tad tendentious, my friend; please forgive me if I take a pass on those.
Good night!
Both Wesson (5 dimensions, 2 times) and Vafa (f-theory) theorize the existence of more than one dimension of time in which case time is not a line, but a plane or a volume. In that view, past, present and future exist concurrently and physical causality could also be effect>cause and not only cause>effect.
It is also compatible to Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe because whatever exists "in" space/time, under that model, is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time.
So, is a physical law "natural" — or "unnatural" (or "supernatural" by your definition)?
BTW, the etymology of the word "natural" from dictionary.reference.com includes this:
Seems to me that people tend to torture words to suit their ideological or political objectives and so it is important to consider the original terms or accurate descriptions.
For instance, journalists do not dare use the term "unborn child" - they must say "fetus" so they do not offend the feminists. But as long as people still use the term "unborn child" it is accurate - not PC, but accurate.
Earlier on the thread, posters were arguing over the term "Creationist." Some want the term narrowly construed to match their seemingly favorite target, the Young Earth Creationists. But there are many different theological views of Creation among Christians. YEC is not a majority doctrine among Christians.
Yet all we Christians recognize God as the Creator. Indeed, many non-Christians recognize God as the Creator.
God's Name is I AM.
It's not a matter of "want." Young Earth Creationists named themselves that. From CreationWiki:
In 1929 a book by one of [flood geologist] George McCready Price's former students, Harold W. Clark described Price's catastrophism as "creationism" in Back to Creationism. Previously anti-evolutionists had described themselves as being "Christian fundamentalists" "Anti-evolution" or "Anti-false science".I call them that because that's what they call themselves. And I have yet to see a modern cite for the use of "creationist" to mean something else, outside of these discussions.
Seems to me that all who believe in Creation could be accurately called "Creationist."
Could be; just aren't.
“And I have yet to see a modern cite for the use of “creationist” to mean something else, outside of these discussions.”
Yet you just did, in the post to which you responded.
You’re telling us with a straight face that you’ve never heard of the term *old earth creationist*?
OECs are virtually NEVER addressed by the evos, even on these threads. There seems to be a tacit denial of even the existence of them by the evos. Demanding that the term *creationist* be forced to fit your narrowly defined parameters when even the dictionary definition doesn’t require it is disingenuous.
It’s especially ironic that evos demand that the definition of the word *creationist* mean the 6 day, 6,000 year old earth YECer view of creation due to what they perceive as the current common, everyday usage of the word, when they reject that very thing for the word *theory*. When people use the current common, everyday usage of the word *theory*, evos pitch a fit about the meaning of that as well, insisting that that is NOT the proper definition to be used.
So on one hand, they insist on the current common, everyday usage of one word, and on the other deny the current common, everyday usage of another word, apparently for no valid reason.
Ironic is not the correct term. Hypocritical is.
Perhaps you could explain the *reasoning* (or rather justification) for such an inconsistency.
//Humans are an ape creature//
Well look and see here, I am not an ‘ape creature’
You say that and now you might have to own it. As long as you are still breathing its not to late to turn away bro, just said a prayer for you.
There ya go . . . trying to be reasonable again . . .
with the irrational notions of pseudo-super rationalists.
LOL.
I once had a series of tapes by an 80 year old missionary to the Amazon. He claimed to have spent 7 years praying to be able to go to Heaven and come back and tell about it. Claimed to have spent 5 earth days in Heaven.
One of the interesting things he claimed was that in the Throne Roome of The Father was a
‘window looking at where God came from.’
And that
‘at some future point/time, God would wrap all this up and take it back to where He came from.’
For some reason that always struck me as a fascinating idea.
He also claimed that Heaven was a sphere a million miles in diameter—with life on the inside surface.
I don’t know if old age had struck him hard or it was all quite objectively real. It was fascinating. Don’t know what happened to the tapes. Have often wanted to listen to them again.
I still believe that time is ‘merely’
one (or a handful?)
of the ‘things’ that God likes to play with.
I think we can say that God is
—THE Japanese Time-flower Arranger,
—THE Time Arranger, Orchestrator,
—THE Time Artist,
—THE Time Birther,
—THE Time Bubbler,
—THE Time Builder, Contractor,
—THE Time Carpenter,
—THE Time Chef,
—THE Time Craftsman,
—THE Time Engineer,
—THE Time Faceter,
—THE Time Farmer,
—THE Time Fisherman,
—THE Time Flinger—recreational and occupational,
—THE Time Fountain-er,
—THE Time Gift-Wrapper,
—THE Time Harvester,
—THE Time Jeweler,
—THE Time Mechanic,
—THE Time Painter,
—THE Time Potter,
—THE Time Puzzle Master,
—THE Time Singer,
—THE Time Spinner,
—THE Time Swimmer, & Time Swimming Coach,
—THE Time Tool-Maker, Shaper, Administrator-User,
—THE Time Traveler—a time multi-singular Be-er,
—THE Time Tunneler,
—THE Time Weaver,
—THE Time Whistler,
—. . .
And likely, MORE, MUCH MORE . . .
WELL PUT.
VERY WELL PUT.
THX.
Kudos, Mom, I happen to be an OEC and so is the astrophysicist, Dr. Ross, who is also a Pastor. Reasons.org is an excellent source of material for OEC.
Among the apes the two apes closest in DNA are the human and chimpanzee.
That is a fact.
As long as you are still thinking it is not to late to turn away from ignorance. I just said a prayer for you.
Hey well now we are getting down to the ni & grrittyy here.
I want to hear you say ‘I am a ape’ and then much more importantly, then really think about what you are saying to your self.
‘Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them’
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.