Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
To: all creationoidsYes, there would definitely need to be more than one reality in order for a supernatural creature to dwell somewhere, before this universe existed. And in this other magical, mystical domain, miracles happen, and there are no physical laws, just magic, whims, prayers, etc. Presumably it is in this never-never-land that heaven and hell are located (although earlier generations, relying on the bible, thought heaven was literally "above" and hell "below" us).
Although it's a bore, I must point out that there is utterly no evidence for this extra domain of existence, but it definitely is necessary if one is to believe literally in the bible. And from this hidden domain of spirits, gods, devils, angels, lost souls, and god knows what else, frequent sortees are made into this, our own base realm, so that they (the magicians or whatever they are) can work their miracles and magic here, in our world, and we can never know if the pot will boil, if the bullet will fly straight, if the creek will rise, if the apple will fall, etc. We can know nothing because of the activities in this other universe. Being ignorant and powerless, our only hope is to pray for mercy. Yes, it's all quite clear to me. No wonder my computer requires frequent reboots.
Okay, let's see now ... the creationoid position, or so it seems, says there is no fixed objectively determinable reality. They even claim that scientists agree with this nonsense, all but evolutionists. And anyone who disagrees with SR [probably a reference to "Sting Ray"] is said to be satanic, marxist, etc. (this, notwithstanding ZERO evidence of marxism among us, but evidence is never a problem for a fanatic).
And creationoids claim that all evidence of evolution is faked (like Piltdown man) or it's missing entirely (fossils? what fossils?), evolution is junk science, a political ploy, etc. (I do, by the way, think "social science" is exactly what SR claims evolution to be, but this is off-thread.)
On the other side, we have a few brave souls trying to explain that reality DOES exist, it IS knowable, that evolution DOES have a huge foundation of easily verifyable evidence, that it DOES hang together rationally, and that although it seems to contradict scripture -- the principle objection, I fear -- it won't be the first time this has happened (thus the many references to Galileo and the solar system and the shape of the earth).
So where do we go from here? It's like Galileo offering the churchmen the opportunity to look through his telescope to see for themselves the moons of Jupiter, while they would refuse because they could not deal with the consequences.
This thread, like all of its kind that have gone before, is going nowhere because we have two clearly self-defined camps: those who understand and practice reason, and those who sling the vocabulary around when it suits them, but who either don't understand reason or who do understand it but repudiate it in favor of mysticism. And neither camp will change, so here we are.
173 Posted on 11/28/1999 04:45:37 PST by PatrickHenry
Ah, the tune changes! Did someone Freepmail you some more creationist evidence-dismissing apocrypha? Why are you all conspiring to make me look bad? </AndrewC_mode>
If you don't like the evidence, discredit it. The skull's in bad shape in a lot of ways, yes. It could use a lower jaw, for instance. It has an odd circular hole that has been the cause of some speculation. I believe some of the goofy-theory lovers have tried to call it an ancient bullet hole. It all sounds like "Lucy's knee was found a mile away and sixteen sediment layers up from her head."
As far as having been reclassified from its own species, you can still see it cited as H. heidelbergensis, another minor intermediate species term falling into disuse. A very few echo your usage of H. erectus, but it's a very late erectus if so. At any rate, it is typical of you to want too much for arbitrary, beauty-contest classifications.
And what are all those skulls you lawyer away as "unclassified," meaning I assume that they show in-between characteristics? (None are actually unclassified. If anything, they are over-classified.) Why couldn't such be used as evidence of evolution?
Hi, No-Kin. I see you resort to typical Ad Hominem.
That is proof that I am you and can't keep keep my role-playing straight.
Therefore, you should stop teasing me about my gall bladder.
Maybe we need to call on Miss Cleo to conjure him up. Nope we do have Vade AKA No-kin(at least until he shows up to claim his name)
You may have created me. My origins are so foggy that I just don't recall. One day, here I was, posting on FR. It's all such a mystery. Anyway, regardless of my beginnings, I have taken on a life of my own, like an evil character in an Australian Western, and now I am entirely beyond your control. Indeed, your creature is even better than you are, for I have a gall bladder! And you don't! Mmmmrrrruuuuhahahahah!
Regarding my line that G3K might want a calculus textbook to affirm that God created life: That's a garbage analogy. Calculus does not talk about life, evolution does.
I'll admit I was being silly, but I had a point in mind and it was this: Calculus doesn't appear in the Bible. So, the important part of the answer (to me), is that G3K will accept things or ideas unmentioned in the Bible. Good. (Okay, okay, G3K posts to the web. But can we prove it's not through Devine intervention?)
Picking up the G3K answer again, and repeating the previous sentence for clarity, Calculus does not talk about life, evolution does. Evolution nowhere says where it starts and if you have been following these threads you will see that the evolutionists deny that God created life.[My boldface].
Hold it. Isn't this a contradiction in one sentence? "Evolution nowhere says where it starts" (I'm assuming the "it" refers to "life"), but "evolutionists deny that God created life." It certainly is a contradiction if you're referring to evolutionists writing about the theory of evolution. If you have evolutionists in a discussion somewhere denying that God created life -- a possibility inasmuch as within "evolutionists" you'll find people who don't believe in God -- the denial doesn't automatically become part of evolutionary theory. That would be like trying to say "Because my doctor told me last night at a cocktail party he doesn't like foreign cars, that's the official position of the AMA."
In fact, God's creation of life is totally incompatible with evolution. The reason is quite simple: if God created life, what is more likely - that the species were created by the convoluted, contradictory, almost impossible to think of "survival of the fittest" or that God created it?
This strikes me as a matter of opinion. In my opinion, neither is very likely. The odds are indeed against evolution happening exactly as it did. However, that's a meaningless statement, because whatever the odds might have been, what happened happened. The odds are against 10 coin-flippings coming up heads every time, but it can happen. Once it has, the odds of it's having happened are 100%. On the other hand, if you posit an all-knowing and all-powerful God, it strikes me as a tad insulting to Him that this screwed up mess of creation is something He did.
If one is a Christian and believes in the Bible, why should one think that God created life and then went to sleep?
Because that's where the evidence leads?
Certainly the Bible teaches that God is involved in the world. So why deny that he created different species as evolutionists constantly do.
Why insist that if God created different species, he didn't choose evolution as his instrument of creation? Now you're arguing interpretation. Find me two Christian sects that agree on every matter of theological interpretation and then ask yourself why they're different sects in the first place. Then we'll talk about all the other religions that claim to speak for God, and why none of them can agree with each other.
In fact, half the time their argument is 'you are not going to say that God did it are you?'. So yes, evolution does deny God and it does deny that God created life in the beginning.
G3K ... slow down. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, evolution is a scientific attempt to explain the diversity of life. Science presupposes no supernatural influences. You can't use science to say "God did it," because science doesn't allow for that hypothesis, whether it's about evolution or the germ theory, or aerodynamics. The reason isn't atheism, it's that you can't test the "God did it" theory. And again, you can assert that evolutionary theory has something to say about the creation of life, but that doesn't make it so. It's not part of the theory. To take a page from your postings, if you have proof of your assertion, "evolution does ... deny that God created life in the beginning," post it here. Asserting it will do no good. Find this statement in a scientific book about evolutionary theory, not a religious tract, and post it.
As to your posting on the Pope statement on evolution, yes, I read it, yes I remember it. And no, my opinion about it is none of your darn business.
I post it to point out that people seriously concerned with religion do not share your idea that evolutionary theory is atheistic. I keep prodding you about it because your every posting on the subject assumes the Pope's position is the same as an atheist's. I'd be interested in finding out how you've determined the Pope is wrong about Christian belief.
A book I have not read yet, but intend to, is Simon Conway-Morris' The Crucible of Creation. Conway-Morris is an eminent paleontologist and evolutionist (his work on the Burgess Shale fossils is a major subject of Gould's Wonderful Life), and is also a professing born-again Christian. I understand that his book agrees with Gould on the paleontological interpretation of the Burgess Shale fossils, but draws a very different philosophical point from them.
You are my greatest fan. Probably my only fan.
Don't you ever get tired of posting about your operation?
I'd say he's been eating dandelions on the hill with Opus and Bill the Cat if you ask me.
Ack thhpit!!!
Watch out or I'll break out the Bill the Cat ASCII art.
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.