Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
I was one of those kids...until confronted with a series of skulls spanning the ages from Australopithicus to Homo Sapiens. All my preconceptions and faith dissolved in one 45-minute lecture. Fortunately for me though, one of my geology professors was also a Christian, and after much soul-searching I approached him with my dilemma. He asked me a very simple question: if God exists, couldn't He have created everything through evolution?
I still am not entirely convinced that God does exist, but I also find it hard to imagine a Universe without a Creator.
And in America...public schools---the jails/insane asylums are overflowing...
the the psyhco drug industry---pharmacies are working around the clock!
High probability...
evolution teaches the balls are falling up the the table---
'Patrick Henry'/Dominick Harr call this "thinking"--'science'!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via sclock science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!
Only lead foil can save us now...
if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone...
this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning...
NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA---ALIEN-AMERICA!!
There is a very important difference between this and the phenomona we see in the Universe, for example; in the case of the "rubber ball on the floor," there are many equally valid theories that can be constructed about where the ball came from ("it fell off the table," "a mouse pushed it there," "it was there before the table," "LGM's in a UFO dropped it there," "A Deity placed it there to confound and amaze us," and so on.) That is to say there is an almost unlimited number of "theories" that can offer an explanatory framework to explain how the ball got on the floor, and fit the available evidence. And there's no good way to choose between them (except, perhaps by invoking Occam's Razor.) Thus the dilemma you describe.
OTOH, when it comes to Cosmology, for example, we have a set of data (equivalent to the observation of the ball on the floor and the balls on the table) for which Cosmologists have only ONE currently viable explanatory framework: the so-called "Big Bang" Theory. All the other posited Cosmological theories have difficulty with some aspect or other of the observed data, or lack sufficient explanatory power to tell us much of anything useful.
So, in conclusion, your point applies when there are many equally-viable explanations for a phenomonon, but does not apply when we can exclude virtually all other theories, which tends to be the case in the areas that PH was discussing.
Additionally, it is worth noting that your objection lends itself to circumstances where ad hoc theories are postulated to explain things; in science, however, we are constrained by what we already know about the Nature of Things. We cannot ignore General Relativity or QM in formulating a Cosmological Theory; we are constrained to accept only those theories that are consistent with our current understanding of how things work. This dramatically cuts down on the number of possible explanations that can be postulated for a given phenomonon, and thus, your objection really doesn't fit the instances that PH brought up.
Finally, as I'll be offline for a while, I must leave further discussion of this in the worthy hands of my colleagues, PH, et al., whom I'm confident will rise to the task.
You said in post 1061,I believe his statement is correct if and only if one defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment."
Then in posts 1062 and 1063, two other folks explained what was, I believe, obviously communicated by my many posts on the subject.
Then in 1064, you made it clear you were carefully parsing words, not reading for comprehension but instead reacting to the word, 'Darwinism'. And you admitted to "taking liberties" with what was said.
Classic straw man situation.
And this clearly isn't a matter of 'thinking for yourself'. You're making a self-contradictory statement, and it's acceptable for others to point that out. As if you had said, "I believe in being honest, but it's okay to lie, cheat and steal."
These words have actual meanings, you see. It's not a matter of 'opinion' what the meanings of the words are.
Specifically, we're talking about changes here. 'Micro' evolution is the concept of small changes in a species. 'Macro' evolution is only big changes in species.
The attempt to seperate 'micro' and 'macro' changes is merely a word game.
It is an observable, provable truth that in systems around you every day, enough small changes to a thing and you end up with a very different thing than you started with.
So bottom line -- if you believe in 'micro' evolution, you "agree with Darwin/agree with the theories of Darwin/believe in evolution/(any one of the fifteen other ways I've phrased it).
Your beef is not with Darwin, or evolution.
Now if you believe you have evidence that Man did NOT evolve, as other species do, I'd be willing to consider that evidence.
"Evolution plus", so to speak. Don't deny the obvious truth of evolution, offer your proof that man is the exception.
Excellent point.
I wonder if anything interesting could be had from getting a definition of 'evidence' from one of these folks?
I'm really interested in the mechanics of this mindset.
It's all about, "what is evidence?"
That is the job of the demon.
This is very, very interesting.
Ah, the baton is passed to me. I shall try to be worthy.
I am beginning to think this mindset operates much like an addiction, similar to alcoholism. The evidence is presented to the sufferers, yet they are unwilling/unable to accept that the evidence actually exists. Only when they "hit bottom" do these individuals begin to look about, very much like my experience in anthropology as an undergrad.
Just one of my many splendid qualities.
Sniffing to muuch evo gas-glue...no more brains/sense---hitting ceiling(floating)!
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.