Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Something happened. We need to understand more about what.
We understand plenty already, enough to know that abiogenesis is impossible. It is so impossible that atheists are totally unable to show any process by which it could have happened. Not prove it mind you, just not even be able to show how it would be possible let alone it being probable or likely.
And while evolutionists deny that their theory has anything to do with abiogenesis, it certainly does. Darwin thought about postulating it, but he did not dare. He knew it was too unlikely, too wild a thing to say and it would render his theory a complete joke if he tried it. He however knew quite well, as do all evolutionists, that the theory of evolution, a theory which denies that God has had any influence in the development of life on earth even up to and including man's creation, needed abiogenesis, because it needed to get rid of God as a possible agent in the life process. For why else would people deny God's own words in the Bible that he created man, the fish and the rest of the living species if he indeed had been the Creator of life? Why would one say that the Creator of life sat on his hands for 4 billion years allowing chance to rule the world? So yes, abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably intertwined and that is why both are false.
How long would our freedom have lasted if we had based it on "we are endowed by accident with certain inalienable rights?"
Answer -- about as long as that of the French in 1789.
Wow! Thanks for the motivating, inspiring, and chilling post. I haven't read anything like that for a long while. Good for you, Gore!
Makes me proud to be a veteran, but even more proud to be human.
Have a good evening!
MM
Evolution claims to be science. Scientists and scientific theories have to answer challenges to it. They have to disprove the claims of opponents.Now it's up to us to disprove the creation myths of every society on earth. Better get cracking!992 posted on 8/8/02 8:22 PM Eastern by gore3000
I've repeated it. It's nonsense.
I am not talking creation myths, dishonest one. I am talking scientific facts which have been presented to you:
Post# 858 That the development of an organism from conception to birth is a program.
Post# 958 That birds could not have evolved.
Post# 998 That Darwin was a charlatan.
Post#345 That paleontology cannot even come close to proving descent.
Post #521 That euglena and the platypus refute evolution.
Post# 530 That evolution is scientifically impossible.
Post #634 That genetic evidence shows evolution did not occur.
Post# 683 That genetics shows that the passing of mutations is practically impossible.
Post# 683 That new working genes through mutation are impossible.
Hhhm, seems like a lot of scientific stuff has been presented to you eh? Lots of stuff you have totally ignored. Lots of stuff that has gone totally unrefuted. Lots of stuff that strikes at the heart of the stupid theory of evolution. Lots of stuff which you cannot wave off.
Seems you have been wasting a lot of time with insults, dirty pictures and just plain blather. For that you have time eh?
"You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.""No, a circle is not an ellipse...."
"Wildly elliptical" planetary orbits
"1720"
From Raymond d'Aguilers, Historia francorum qui ceprint Jerusalem
Christian treatment of Jews during the first Crusade.
[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]
The opening through which the spinal chord passes is angled differently as well. So a skull all by itself is capable of providing a probable indication of its owners ambulatory habits.
Yup, the lamers of evolution refuse to answer scientific questions. We are supposed to believe that evolution 'happened' but never mind how it happened. Well the science of the last 150 years has shown how impossible it is for evolution to have 'happened' and since you folk do not believe in miracles it is really absurd for evolutionists to say that species just transform themselves 'somehow' but it 'happens'.
Popper argued that progress requires a critical structure within which competing theories can be tested. Popper captured his philosophy, called falsificationism or critical rationalism, with the motto "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth." Instead of attempting futilely to verify or justify our theories, Popper claimed we should try to falsify them since we need only a single negative instance to refute a universal theory. Consequently, what matters in rational debate is that different positions are open to criticism, which becomes the engine of progress by removing from consideration false theories, leaving only the provisionally best theories behind. The "best" theories could still not be verified or justified, but since they had not been falsified either, they would be preferable to falsified theories. The rationality of holding a particular position would be granted to the extent to which the theory is open to criticism. This makes possible not only progress but also optimism, which is for Popper a moral duty.
From: Remembering Karl Popper
The attitudes of the evolutionists prove more than anything I can say that:
I thought the greatest and the only unpardonable sin was blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29). It says so in my Bible.
So your objection to evolution is twofold: you are personally insulted at the thought that life arose from "pond scum", and you are afraid that if this is true, then human life has no worth. Is this a fair representation of your views?
I can't help you with the first issue, but I can tell you that as an atheist, I consider all life to be infinitely precious and worth preserving. I do not believe that abortion should be legal except for very serious health reasons such as the life or mental health (and I don't mean simple depression) of the mother are in danger. I do not believe in euthanasia, but I do believe that terminally ill people should be allowed to choose the time and mechanism of their deaths, if they wish.
I have seen and read about many instances where religion played a huge role in devaluing human life (note recent suicide bombers in the Middle East). Religion in my opinion, devalues life.
Why?
Answer: because you grew up in a Christian culture and were exposed to Christian values, which you have recognized as good. Or Jewish values. Christian and Jewish values are basically the same albeit the theology is obviously different.
The values of the world can be summed up as social Darwinism.The worth of a life here is not infinite but relative as to how much that life benefits the one in charge. It's an evil philosophy.
Amen, sister! Many of the folks that purport to believe the Bible to be literally true have never actually read the book and simply go on what others have to say on the matter. I keep a King James and an NIV at my desk at work and I've got a New Jerusalem on my desk at home.
You may have a point to an extent. Religion in general, and Western religions in particular, see life as a transient situation. Indeed, many Christian sects consider life to be a necessary sojourn in an evilly tainted world (hence the "in the world but not of it" attitude evinced by many). Of course we've seen the Moslem attitude toward life in this world.
Does anyone know the statistics -- if they exist -- for suicide rates among atheists, as compared to religious people? If it were true that atheism caused life to be devalued, they should be killing themselves at a far greater rate than other people.
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.