Creation/Evolution in the News

Various ^ | 8/9/2002 | JennyP

[jennyp]

OK you crevo addicts. If you've been jonesing for a good crevo thread lately, here are a bunch of items to whet your appetite.

I guess any article in the bunch that you think is significant you can copy it over here for the archive.

[jlogajan]

It was interesting to see reference to "Muslim creationists." I thought it was funny actually. Here's a philosophy that hasn't had a new idea in 1700 years teaming up with a philosophy that hasn't had a new idea in 2000 years. :-)

Unfortunately the Muslims have captured their governments and all progress has been stopped in those countries. Thank heavens (pun unavoidable) that the fundie creationists haven't caputured government and ground progress to a halt yet in this country.

[Camber-G]

Ahhh ... not only evolution, but anti-gravity too !
Great selection of articles, jennyp ... thanks. I read a few.

So, just so I can keep track of the game, is anti-gravity research considered anti-Christian too ?

[HumanaeVitae]

Yeah, and atheism/paganism hasn't had a new idea in 7000 or so years. You know; infanticide, genocide, pedophilia, whatever. Humans are just material. Do with them what you want.

BTW, reply at your peril. I'm feeling like annihilating a few atheists tonight.

[HumanaeVitae]

No reply. Didn't think so. Good night.

[LiteKeeper]

mega-dittoes - and now off to bed :-) Go for it - I am behind you 100%

[LiteKeeper]

You might want to check True Origins as an able answer to Talk.Origins.

[PatrickHenry]

Incredibly great thread ping.

[VadeRetro]

From your second link (Harun Yahya's answer to Sciam's answers):

Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" is just such an example of "avoiding the truth." Right from the start, a number of those questions reveal that this is what is going on:

"Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law."

"Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created."

"If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

None of the above are objections expressed by critics of the theory of evolution.

Huh? Harun Yahya (thought to be a pseudonym for a slew of different authors) has never seen an FR crevo thread.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Excellent list. Orr's article is spot on.

[Aracelis]

Thanks, jenny!

[Aracelis]

Thank you for the ping!

[Aric2000]

BTW, reply at your peril. I'm feeling like annihilating a few atheists tonight.

OOOHHHH, scarey!!...... NOT!!!

[HumanaeVitae]

"Scarey" = "Scary". FYI. You know, God may not exist, but the dictionary does.

[ward_of_the_state]

I think it's about time the Creationists stop ignoring all the empirical evidence that has been collected over the years and realize there is something to this science thing. God's hand is mighty, and who's to say that he didn't use evolution, the Big-bang, etc. to bring about the world as we know it. It's just as arrogant of the Creationists to presume to know how God did it as it is of atheistic scientists to say He didn't do it.

I think Creation and Science go hand-in-hand. Why do I believe that? Look at all the "accidents" that had to happen to get us where we are. There had to be a hand guiding all of that. I believe God knows the order of how things had to be done for Earth to support all of the life on this planet.

There was book written a few years back (and if anyone can refresh my memory on the title and author, please do); the author was an MIT professor and Christian. He wrote this book by sitting down with scientific journals and the Bible to prove how both are right. For example, how the Pleiestocene Period was day 3(or maybe it was 5). He used the theory of relativity to show how Methusala could've lived to be 900, etc.

It needs to be pointed out that even though the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, one still must put it in it's proper historical context. The authors of the day knew who their "demographic" was and had to put it in proper perspective for it to be accepted and in terms early readers could understand. Those same folks would not be able to read an issue of "Scientific American" or "Popular Science" the way we do today because they simply didn't possess the understanding we now have.

[Camber-G]

I tend to agree wth your viewpoint also ... when the book of Genesis was written, people didn't even have the concept of the "zero", let alone a million or a billion.

Though current evolution theory is by no means complete or "all-explaining", I find alot of sense in "divinely guided evolution" type of creationism.

[HumanaeVitae]

Actually I'm not arguing against science here. The post that provoked my rejoinder was something like "Christianity has been useless for 2000 years" or whatever. Well, atheism slaughtered 180 million people in the past eighty years alone. Yep, eighty years. The best estimates of the number dead in Christendom over the last two millennia, in both offensive and defensive wars, is 4.5 million persons.

Atheism kills. That's my point. As far as crevo/evo, I'll leave that to the scientists (I'm a fan of Dembski's ID, but the jury's still out).

[ward_of_the_state]

No, no - I didn't think you were arguing against science. But just as sure as you post your thread, there will be a creationist or two lying in wait to flame you. I'm trying to head 'em off at the pass! I don't have a whole lot of use for atheists, either.

[Aric2000]

Is that the best you could come up with? I am so disappointed.... and oh so scared!!