Posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus
One thing I'd also like to point out: expansive research is continuous regarding Evolution - I doubt anyone would argue that. However, the same cannot be said for Creationism; it's total source of researchable data consists of less than a chapter in the Bible. Unless you attempt to puzzle out some hidden meaning from a very small amount of text, your research ends pretty briefly. That, I think, is the fundamental downside downside to Creationism (please note I didn't say disqualifier): no verification or testing is possible. Although many people are happy with that, imagine what our world would be like if all branches of science simply ended before they could be researched.
What are yor thoughts on the end results of Evolution?Evolution has no "end results". It is a process, not a goal. Organisms do get "better", but only if you define "better" as "more likely to survive and reproduce in the environment they inhabit."
Mendel was a monk. Keppler, by all accounts, was pretty fanatic in his faith in God, as well. Both are huge names in the history of science. I'm sure you have ample opposing evidence to prove your point, right? Or are you simply making this up as you go?
Science can be as dogmatic as any religion. Dogma isn't caused by faith but by an inability of certain forms of faith to deal with any data that falls outside of the belief system and a switch from a search for the truth to a smug feeling that you have all the answers.
The current issue of Scientific American has an article titled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense by John Rennie. In the article, he writes (underlined emphasis added by me):
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Note that there isn't a statement in there that isn't speculative. And some of the other answers are similar. This is "preaching to the choir" stuff. It sounds convincing if you already believe all of the premises but it is does nothing to refute the alternative claims.
In Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, he wrote up a "Baloney Detection Kit" which is a quick primer on how to spot fallacious or fraudulent arguments. Follow the link for a quick summary and see how many of these items you can spot in Rennie's article. A Biblical quote about splinters and eyes comes to mind here.
Sorry, but that's way less than clear. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; how's anything supposed to "big bang" its way out of that??
Basically, the idea of a big bang arises from a misinterpretation of the redshift phenomenon which has since been explained. There never was a big bang, and the universe is not expanding. The most likely reality is that the universe and the intelligence content of the universe which we call God, has always been there. The creation stories which we read in the bible and elsewhere are generally speaking of new orders and realities as they appear after cosmic events. In particular, when Isaiah speaks of the new heaven and new Earth which shall not pass away (i.e. new heaven and Earth starting from somewhere around 600 - 800 BC) he meanxs the heavens and the Earth as they appeared after the catastrophes of his own times.
Check out the links to Halton Arp and plasma cosmoligies in the list of links I posted above for modern thinking on the subject of "big bangs".
No. This is the rallying cry of the Creationist-Deconstructionist wing of thought. One goes with the best evidence, which in turn may mean changing beliefs as new phenomena obtain.
How about as a tree dweller that would live in the very top of the canopy. Long arms for reaching could be an advantage like the neck of a giraffe. Light bones to navigate even the most fragile branches, keeping away from predators.
No, actually it's located west of the West Pole ;-D
Why limit it to just your version of ID? Let's be fair and evenhanded!
Let's bring in the Titans! Vishnu! A giant Chicken from Pasadena who farted the world into existence.
Quarks are particles theorized to have existed less than a millionth of a second after the birth of our universe, sometime between 12 and 15 billion years ago. You won't see any quarks lying around in your garage, of course. For one, they are beyond microscopically small. And also researchers think they are now hidden in packages of twos and threes, held together by gluons, the ultimate invisible Elmer's.
Big Bang theory puts it this way: As the universe aged and cooled, a plasma of quarks and gluons coalesced into protons and neutrons, then nuclei and finally atoms. Only then could molecules develop, setting the stage for places like Earth and perhaps the most bizarre result of all, life.
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...
Evolution is just another tool the atheists use to turn people from God.
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.