All of that is out of date.
For results of recent ideas & experiments on origin of life, I recommend these books:
Posted on 04/12/2016 7:52:06 AM PDT by fishtank
Yet another old-earther accuses a creationist of believing in evolution
by Nick Sabato
Published: 12 April 2016 (GMT+10)
On a 28 March 2016 blog post, Professor Ken Keathley made the allegation that Ken Ham now embraces evolution. He bases this unfounded assertion on a recent article where Ham discusses how the diversity of species present today can be traced back to their respective “kinds” represented on the Ark. For Keathley, it is “big news” that a prominent creationist “has embraced macro-evolution.” However, as will be seen, creationists in general embraced speciation for decades; it is not just a property of evolutionists.
First, the article in question has done no such thing, and secondly, variation within a kind is not “big news”, nor is it “macro-evolution”.
The same day that this fallacious post appeared, CMI’s Calvin Smith (and others) rebutted Keathley’s assertions in the comments section and pointed out his equivocation of speciation and evolution. And they further pointed out that his ‘micro-macro’ distinction is an example of ‘Arguments we think creationists should not use’, because the issue is not size of change but direction (informationally uphill or downhill).
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I disagree with the author's points, beginning with the fact that evolution = adaption = evolution = adaption ad infinitum.
In reality there is no difference between one and the other except the length of time that changes accumulate.
Just my opinion, but virtually everyone seems confused about the boundary-line and interface between natural-science and the Bible.
Apparently, many think they must either reject one or the other, maybe both, since supposedly they can't all be true.
So my basic argument here is that if you understand the differences between natural and spiritual realms, you can accept both for what they are.
And despite your claims, the issue here is not your FRiend, BroJoeK, because I'm merely responding to frequent posts on this subject by people who obviously consider it hugely important.
Why do they think it's important enough to stubbornly make their cases over & over?
Presumably, because they think the only way to defend the Bible is to defame science, and that's what I respond to.
angryoldfatman: "...is using an abrasive tone (i.e., calling any doubt of it “rubbish and nonsense, blathering, denier”) an effective way of doing so?"
But there's a lot of rubbish & nonsense posted here.
Are we to be so politically correct we can't call it what it is?
angryoldfatman: "As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here?
If not, why not?
Is that not part of your stated goal?"
I've never seen such a thread or poster on Free Republic.
I have no interest in other sites.
angryoldfatman: "The supposedly impossible position in this case was reconciliation of the Flood story with the current scientific theories of geology."
Curious it could be an issue, since the geological record is chock full of data relating to past mass extinctions -- some over 90% of fossilized species -- floods and other catastrophic events.
So the importance of Noah's life is not the scientific details, but the spiritual message from God, in this case reminding us by a rainbow, that we will not see such a flood again.
But Noah's flood also reminds us that we may have an important role in preventing future mass extinctions.
That experiment was over 60 years ago and since then similar, related experiments based on different assumptions regarding the early Earth have produce similar results, and many other organic chemical precursors of life.
Of course it's all still hypothesis, not theory or fact, but some of it very interesting.
All of that is out of date.
For results of recent ideas & experiments on origin of life, I recommend these books:
"Except that THAT IS what evolution claims.
A fish climbed out of the primordial pond.."
No, FRiend, in an effort to sound absurd, you first claimed the reverse -- that wolves could become fish or birds.
Nothing like that ever happened.
But fossil records are clear and consistent, over hundreds of millions of years and beginning with the oldest sea-dwelling creatures, followed by land-crawlers, land-walkers, hoppers, jumpers, soarers, flappers & flyers.
Evolution theory, updated over the past 150+ years, explains how this could happen.
The theory implies both possibilities and limitations on what evolution can & has done.
Turning wolves into birds or fish is not among those possibilities.
Just my opinion, but virtually everyone seems confused about the boundary-line and interface between natural-science and the Bible.
Apparently, many think they must either reject one or the other, maybe both, since supposedly they can’t all be true.
So my basic argument here is that if you understand the differences between natural and spiritual realms, you can accept both for what they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are you avoiding the question, BroJoeK? The question is what harm would it do for others to be wrong about this subject?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And despite your claims, the issue here is not your FRiend, BroJoeK, because I’m merely responding to frequent posts on this subject by people who obviously consider it hugely important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What did I claim? I merely have been asking questions. The closest thing to a declarative statement I made about you was that I find your extreme interest in the subject interesting in and of itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why do they think it’s important enough to stubbornly make their cases over & over?
Presumably, because they think the only way to defend the Bible is to defame science, and that’s what I respond to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have they been defaming science? Is that possible? Science is strong enough to defend itself, isn’t it? We’re talking about empirical evidence and methodical naturalism - how can that be defamed or even denied?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But there’s a lot of rubbish & nonsense posted here.
Are we to be so politically correct we can’t call it what it is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve found that my opinions are better received when I am polite. Is politeness now considered political correctness?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
angryoldfatman: “As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here?
If not, why not?
Is that not part of your stated goal?”
I’ve never seen such a thread or poster on Free Republic.
I have no interest in other sites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your stated goal was:
“My goal is simply to defend the Christianity and modern science I began learning as a child.
I don’t consider them at war against each other, and don’t like seeing either distorted.”
If you feel so strongly about science and Christianity, why are you only interested in defending them here, IN PARTICULAR Christianity? Christ gave us a mission to share the Gospel with the entire world, not with just FreeRepublic (whose members are overwhelmingly Christian already).
If Christianity was so important to you, wouldn’t you do what Christ wants you to do instead of what atheists want you to do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Noah’s flood also reminds us that we may have an important role in preventing future mass extinctions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ said we must worry about our own existence, since without divine intervention we will be extinct due to “tribulation”.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A21-23&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A19-21&version=KJV
Where does science fit in with Christ’s prophecy here?
That experiment was over 60 years ago and since then similar, related experiments based on different assumptions regarding the early Earth have produce similar results, and many other organic chemical precursors of life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you have specific information on these experiments?
My specific source was from 2010:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123447937
Biochemist Nick Lane was the scientist with a different proposal than the atmosphere and lightning reacting to create amino acids.
The reducing atmosphere/lightning reaction hypothesis came from Haldane in 1929, and Miller-Urey simply put his hypothesis in vitro, getting the expected result.
The problem was that the primordial atmosphere was not a reducing one. From further research, I’ve found that scientists knew this since the 1970s, but the Miller-Urey experiment is still used as “proof” that the OOL puzzle has been solved.
What’s out of date? Miller-Urey? Yes it is.
My source? It’s from 2010. The person that NPR spoke to was Nick Lane, the author of “The Vital Question” book that you posted the cover of.
Why are you calling my source out of date and then recommending that I look at that very same source for recent ideas & experiments on OOL?
No, FRiend, in an effort to sound absurd, you first claimed the reverse — that wolves could become fish or birds.
Nothing like that ever happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course it didn’t happen, I’m pretty sure RoadGumby would agree with that.
I believe (RoadGumby can correct me if I’m wrong) he was exaggerating in order to illustrate of what he saw as an absurdity - that macroevolution is possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The theory implies both possibilities and limitations on what evolution can & has done.
Turning wolves into birds or fish is not among those possibilities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are the limitations on what evolution can do? Given deep time, can it not turn microorganisms into elephants and blue whales and humans?
Your nitpicking aside, the THEORY of evolution claims that an organism, can, over time, change (evolve) into something entirely new, that is NOT the same as the original. As in Humans came from non-humans.
So, ignoring the possibility of dog to fish, (although why you would say that is not possible through evolution is puzzling), let’s just go with “Breed that Dog into a non-dog”, whatever form that might be.
Good luck with that.
I don't know the answer to that question, do you?
angryoldfatman: "I find your extreme interest in the subject interesting in and of itself."
But my interest in this subject is no more "extreme" than in any other subject I've posted on.
angryoldfatman: "Have they been defaming science?
Is that possible?
Science is strong enough to defend itself, isn’t it?"
Of course they do, and you know that well if you've read anti-evolution threads & posts.
Some not only defame & misrepresent science, they attempt to redefine science by denying some of its basic assumptions.
angryoldfatman: "We’re talking about empirical evidence and methodical naturalism - how can that be defamed or even denied?"
A good many have no idea what those words mean, even after they've been explained.
angryoldfatman: "Is politeness now considered political correctness?"
I don't accept that words like "rubbish" or "nonsense" are too "rude" for Free Republic's non-religious news/activism threads.
Of course, if you wish to argue that once a discussion moves from "the science of evolution" to "evolution & religion", then standards for what is acceptably polite necessarily must rise, I can accept that.
However, you will not find in any post of mine where my terms "rubbish" or "nonsense" ever applied to anyone's religious beliefs.
I do use such terms to posters who misrepresent, mock or defame science, because such words are appropriate responses.
angryoldfatman: "If you feel so strongly about science and Christianity, why are you only interested in defending them here, IN PARTICULAR Christianity?"
FRiend, I have neither knowledge of nor interest in other sites, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
I do respond on Free Republic if I see posts that look like rubbish & nonsense.
My point of view on this thread is to provide arguments which support both the science of evolution and traditional biblical exegeses.
I think that can be done for people who wish to, such that it's not necessary to chose between rejecting either science or the Bible.
Did you "get" that key point?
I'm not here posting threads of my own, merely responding to posts & threads from others.
So again, the real question is, why do they keep posting such threads?
angryoldfatman: "If Christianity was so important to you, wouldn’t you do what Christ wants you to do instead of what atheists want you to do?"
I think God is always on the side of truth.
So defending science here is not what atheists want, it's what God expects.
Indeed, and I've mentioned this frequently before: most Christians belong to denominations which teach that evolution may have been a tool God used to create the world as we see it.
So your assumption on what is atheists' work is simply false, FRiend.
angryoldfatman: "Where does science fit in with Christ’s prophecy here?"
It doesn't: in no way, shape or form, does science belong in such spiritual matters.
But as for some future natural mass-extinctions, science tells us the Earth records a pattern of extinctions at fairly regular intervals, and we are now due, or past due.
It's a reason why governments spend money searching in outer space for asteroids such as one said to have destroyed dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.
If that size asteroid could be diverted harmlessly away, it's a good thing, imho.
But looking longer term, in a few billion years, science says the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.
So our descendants, if there are any, will need to find a new home, says science.
So amazingly, in some sense natural-science and the spiritual Bible agree, not only about creation & catastrophes of the past, but also a possible future.
In post #84 above, I recommend a book by Lane.
It explains & updates the history, acknowledging the problems with Miller-Urey, and reports on more recent experiments.
It's not light-reading, but it will disabuse you of some straw-men you've been shooting arrows at here.
angryoldfatman: "...Miller-Urey experiment is still used as “proof” that the OOL puzzle has been solved."
I'd say that qualifies as "rubbish & nonsense".
In fact, Miller-Urey "proved" nothing, and was never claimed to be "proof", except that certain natural conditions can produce some simple organic chemicals.
It doesn't "prove", it suggests.
And, as ideas about Earth's earliest atmosphere have changed new experiments were designed, as explained in the books I recommend in post #84 above.
Bottom line: every scientific idea on abiogenic origins of life fall into the category of "hypothesis" at best, not theory or fact.
If you'll read Lane's book, you'll find that he puts Miller-Urey in proper context and provides updates on more recent work.
No, no microorganism has, or ever could, by evolution turn into an elephant, and no blue whale has or can ever become human, according to natural evolution theory.
What can happen, as you well know, are small incremental changes producing over time new slightly different species -- i.e., wolves & dogs.
Give more deep time, species might split into new genera, genera into families, families into orders, etc., etc.
But in each case they are accumulations of small changes, and no species ever suddenly became a member of some new order.
But you know that perfectly well, so why do you mock science by making absurd arguments against it?
But in observed, confirmed fact, you are not the identical same as your own parents, and the differences are not just genetic mixture.
In every generation there are a small number of DNA mutations, most harmless or harmful, rarely beneficial.
Through DNA testing these mutations can be identified and tracked down the generations, dozens, hundreds & more generations later.
Every generation accumulates more mutations.
It's how humans create breeds of dogs, and make dogs a separate species from wolves.
They are no longer the same, they're something different.
That's what evolution is, in the case of dogs relatively short term -- about 30,000 years.
In 300,000 or 3,000,000 years, dogs would no longer be able to interbreed with wolves and would be classified as different genera or families -- something different.
RoadGumby: "So, ignoring the possibility of dog to fish, (although why you would say that is not possible through evolution is puzzling)..."
The mammal Pakicetus was somewhat doglike, and may serve to illustrate the point.
Pakicetus lived in or near bodies of water, about 50 million years ago, and its fossils show characteristics we can also see in modern whales.
So it's considered a whale ancestor.
That could be a "dog to fish" story, except it wasn't a dog and didn't become a fish, but that's evolution for you.
I don’t know the answer to that question [what harm it would do for others to be wrong], do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are you so adamant about correcting the “defamation” of science (from what I’ve seen, only evolution - if you have examples of other science threads where you’ve defended science please feel free to show me) when you don’t know if it does any harm?
Why not let the delusional be delusional? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But my interest in this subject is no more “extreme” than in any other subject I’ve posted on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This particular thread had pretty much ground to a halt. Then you decided to resurrect it, and make a post many hundreds of words long to do so.
Is there another thread about another subject on FR where you’ve done this? I’d like to see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course they do [defame science], and you know that well if you’ve read anti-evolution threads & posts.
Some not only defame & misrepresent science, they attempt to redefine science by denying some of its basic assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? As I’ve asked several times already, whom does it harm?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good many have no idea what those words [empirical evidence and methodical naturalism] mean, even after they’ve been explained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? Just as many probably don’t know what “Epicureanism” means, even though it’s mentioned in the Bible. They most assuredly don’t know what “Draper-White conflict thesis” is, even though it affects many of the attitudes involved in these types of discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t accept that words like “rubbish” or “nonsense” are too “rude” for Free Republic’s non-religious news/activism threads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn’t ask if it was too rude for FR. I asked if your abrasive tone was effective in achieving your goal of defending Christianity and modern science.
Is it? How is it more effective than simply stating your disagreement with proper sourcing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FRiend, I have neither knowledge of nor interest in other sites, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s too bad.
You see, there are many other sites out there who agree with everything you post about evolution. They are even more knowledgeable about the nuances of evolutionary biology than you.
The problem is, most of them are filled with atheists who not only defame Christianity, but are attempting to eradicate it altogether using science as a weapon against it.
Since we’re talking about the loss of eternal life versus being in error about some scientific thing in the temporary existence on Earth, and given your goal, I would think you would care more about saving the souls of those others than with calling out Freepers (most of which are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ) on their errors about evolution.
After all, which one does more harm, being wrong about evolution or being wrong about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
And why don’t you care enough about the eternal fate of people who agree with you about science to tell them of the Gospel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It [Christ’s prophecy of an unprecedented tribulation] doesn’t: in no way, shape or form, does science belong in such spiritual matters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Human extinction is a purely spiritual matter? If that is the case, we don’t need to study it scientifically, do we? We leave spiritual matters at home when we put on our labcoats and head out to the lab, correct?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But looking longer term, in a few billion years, science says the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.
So our descendants, if there are any, will need to find a new home, says science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that before or after Christ’s Second Coming?
Bottom line: every scientific idea on abiogenic origins of life fall into the category of “hypothesis” at best, not theory or fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In post #84 above, I recommend a book by Lane.
It explains & updates the history, acknowledging the problems with Miller-Urey, and reports on more recent experiments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. And you called all my info out of date, even though I referenced Nick Lane in my link.
Why did you out-of-hand assume my info was out of date, BroJoeK?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s not light-reading, but it will disabuse you of some straw-men you’ve been shooting arrows at here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A straw man is a distortion of an opponent’s position used to easily refute it.
What position have I distorted and how?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, Miller-Urey “proved” nothing, and was never claimed to be “proof”, except that certain natural conditions can produce some simple organic chemicals.
It doesn’t “prove”, it suggests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s why I put quotes around “proof” in my statement.
The fact that Miller-Urey is not an accurate experiment hasn’t stopped the use of it to teach schoolchildren to infer that the problem of OOL has been solved by science already.
Even as late as 1980, the experiment was used in Carl Sagan’s Cosmos as an affirmation of the question of OOL being solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2xly_5Ei3U
There are also 21st century textbooks that tout the “primordial soup” hypothesis and show illustrations of the Miller-Urey experiment without a hint of its inaccuracy in simulating primordial atmospheric conditions.
No, no microorganism has, or ever could, by evolution turn into an elephant, and no blue whale has or can ever become human, according to natural evolution theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did not say an elephant or blue whale could become human via evolution, BroJoeK. Here’s my comment:
“What are the limitations on what evolution can do? Given deep time, can it not turn microorganisms into elephants and blue whales and humans?”
I said that microorganisms could, given deep time and evolution turn into those three creatures: elephants, blue whales, and humans.
The chart that I posted and that you post sometimes plainly shows that. In a certain period of time, microorganisms evolved into multicellular organisms.
After another period of time, those small multicellular organisms evolved into larger organisms with endoskeletons.
After another period of time, those organisms evolved into amphibians.
After another period of time, those organisms evolved into reptiles.
After another period of time, those organisms evolved into mammals.
After another period of time, some of those mammals evolved into large quadrupeds.
After another period of time, some of those quadrupeds evolved into elephants.
After another period of time, some of the other quadrupeds evolved into cetacea.
After another period of time, some of those cetacea evolved into blue whales.
Back during the evolution of mammals, some mammals evolved into primates.
After another period of time, some of those primates evolved into apes.
After another period of time, some of those primates evolved into humans.
Now, besides lengthy pedantic explanation, how is what I’ve just typed different than saying “Given deep time, evolution turned microorganisms into elephants, blue whales, and humans”?
ALSO...
What are the limitations on what evolution can do?
Angryoldfatman: “Why are you so adamant about correcting the “defamation” of science...”
Adamant? No, but you seem adamant.
So, on the off chance that you are genuinely curious, and not just hoping for some handle for ad hominem attacks, let me explain, again:
Believe it or not, I do have a life outside Free Republic, and pathetic as it may seem to you, it does pay my bills and requires me to be away for days, sometimes weeks at a time.
So, when I do have spare time, I like to make the most of it, hence the post which has you so, ahem, adamant.
On Free Republic we can see dozens or hundreds of threads per day, some of which involve science or history subjects, and some of those attract posters who seem, ahem, *adamantly* opposed to some basic ideas.
Or, and more often, people ask very interesting questions, all such I enjoy responding to.
Now, since you post under the moniker “angryoldfatman” I have to suspect you come here with no good intentions, that you’re really more an assault weapon than conversationalist.
However, I think I’ve dealt with tougher hombres, so we’ll see how well you meet my expectations.
This post is coming off my allegedly “smart” phone, while waiting in line at Blue Beacon.
I’m up next!
Of course, my answer is: there's no difference, it's all the same thing, short-term & longer term.
So-called macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution accumulating over millions & hundreds of millions of years.
But now, some people wish to change the subject somewhat, and so we'll digress:
angryoldfatman: "Why not let the delusional be delusional? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?"
Last time I looked, this is Free Republic, it's sort of what we do here, on occasion.
angryoldfatman: "This particular thread had pretty much ground to a halt.
Then you decided to resurrect it, and make a post many hundreds of words long to do so."
An accident of timing, no need to read more into that.
angryoldfatman: "Is there another thread about another subject on FR where you’ve done this?
I’d like to see it."
Sure, but you may well know that every post from every poster on Free Republic is available for review pretty much any time.
I couldn't stop you from looking at those if I wanted to, which I don't.
So, feel free to look them up and study them as much as you wish.
angryoldfatman referring to mockers of science: "As I’ve asked several times already, whom does it harm?"
Obviously, there's plenty to mock, especially when we get into subjects like AGW, aka: Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change or even Climate Extremes.
This is what happens when science marries politics, and becomes driven by people whose interests are not science but rather political power.
And we can know that's the case because there are still some well-recognized scientists who say, in effect: "no, wait a minute, not so fast with those unwarranted conclusions."
But that is not the case with evolution theory, since there is neither obvious government entanglement with the theory itself, nor are there serious recognized scientists who dispute it's basic idea: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
And please note: in response to such mockery as we sometimes see, I do not mock in return, but simply try to set the record straight.
angryoldfatman: "...many probably don’t know what 'Epicureanism' means, even though it’s mentioned in the Bible.
They most assuredly don’t know what 'Draper-White conflict thesis' is, even though it affects many of the attitudes involved in these types of discussions."
But they do misunderstand evolution theory, and continually post their misunderstandings on Free Republic.
angryoldfatman: "I asked if your abrasive tone was effective in achieving your goal of defending Christianity and modern science.
Is it?
How is it more effective than simply stating your disagreement with proper sourcing?"
And this coming from a poster whose very moniker "angryoldfatman" tells us he's here to fight abrasively in the arena of ideas.
Remember, FRiend, for every post here there are at least two different audiences: those who agree with the poster, and those who disagree.
We may even postulate a third group as fence-sitters, not sure which they prefer, but I doubt if that group is very large.
In this particular subject -- evolution theory -- there is a relatively large & well established school of thought, anti-evolution, which aggressively promotes its views on Free Republic.
I would ask you to think of these people the same way we think of, oh, let's say, a car salesman.
So long as a salesman is employed by, say Chevrolet, you will never, ever, convince him that Fords are better, regardless of what you say, and you waste your effort trying.
And so it is with our committed anti-evos.
But there are also a large number of readers and posters on such threads who do support the scientific view, and who do appreciate it expressed reasonably and well.
Those are the people I try not to disappoint.
You may also see that different arguments have more or less merit, and so deserve more or less respectful responses.
Imho, when people post "rubbish" or "nonsense", it should be called out by its right name.
angryoldfatman: "You see, there are many other sites out there who agree with everything you post about evolution.
They are even more knowledgeable about the nuances of evolutionary biology than you.
The problem is, most of them are filled with atheists who not only defame Christianity, but are attempting to eradicate it altogether using science as a weapon against it."
We all do what we can.
I've been reading Free Republic for at least 15 years, posting here since 2003, contributed for the past 10 years, have always enjoyed & appreciated the ambience of its threads & posters.
angryoldfatman: "Human extinction is a purely spiritual matter?
If that is the case, we don’t need to study it scientifically, do we? "
Just my opinion, but I doubt if biblical eschatology refers to anything scientifically knowable.
angryoldfatman: "Is that before or after Christ’s Second Coming?"
How would anyone know that?
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.