Posted on 04/20/2003 10:36:35 AM PDT by JHL
On Easter of all days, Gary Trudeau uses his Doonesbury cartoon to insult Christians in general, and George Bush's faith in particular. How quick the liberals are to condemn someone else's faith and belief system, but just let a Christian say anything negative about another's belief system and how quick they are to invoke an injunction against "judgementalism."
You can read the cartoon for yourself at the following link CLICK HERE for cartoon
Different kinds, different circumstances, different processes.
Science was correct in calling alchemy (including its belief that lead could be transmuted into gold) a collection of little more than old-wive's tales and myths.
And yet, with a particle accelerator, it is today possible to irradiate a lead target and convert, via nuclear physics, some of the lead atoms into gold atoms. But that's done via methods that bear no resemblance whatsoever to those the alchemists were dabbling with. It neither vindicates the alchemists, nor invalidates modern nuclear physics.
Similarly, the fact that ancient peoples believed that unliving material could give *sudden* origin to living creatures (i.e. flies "arising" from rotting meat, mice from moldy grain, fruit flies from rotten fruit, rats from sewage) was rightfully disproved as ignorant superstition.
But this hardly invalidates the idea that some form of extremely simple chemical replicators could manage form from vast oceans of chemicals over vast periods of time, and that once a replicating system beings reproducing itself, its products will vary, the variations in the products will lead to differential success, and differential success will lead to change over time (and the more time, the more change).
This is the very definition of intellectual bankruptcy.
Actually, what's truly "intellectually bankrupt" is trying to compare "garbage gives birth to rats within days" to the modern fields of abiogenesis and evolution and then pretending that you've made any sort of point worth making.
There is nothing scientific about Darwinism,
Of course there is:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for the Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modificationbut evidently you are unable to admit that.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Evidence for Evolution An Eclectic Survey
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Macroevolution: Scientific Proof?
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?
Evolution and Philosophy: Is evolution just another religion?
Is Science a Religion? (with specific emphasis on evolution)
I make it a point not to "admit" falsehoods.
You are positing your (religious) faith in that unproveable theory by your very post. Decorating your faith with scientific jargon does nothing to alter its underlying religious nature.)
Evolution is a science, and I treat it as such.
Your calling it my "religion" does not make it so.
but at least I (unabashedly) admit that my convictions are religious and faith-based
And with regards to your beliefs, you are most likely correct. Don't presume to mischaracterize mine, though.
You also state Belief in the process of evolution is no different from a belief in the process of erosion, lightning formation, or gravity. That hardly requires us to approve and/or look the other way when the results are contrary to human compassion or concerns. Erosion is a natural process, but I'm not going to allow a landslide to happen and bury a town. Gravity is a natural process, but I'm not going to let a child fall off a cliff.
I would think that these analogies contradict evolution as most of us understand it. Evolution must let that child fall off the cliff so to speak. Otherwise it must first create the intelligent agent that can act independent of the radomness of nature.
Not one missing link fossil has ever been found showing a transition from one species to another, yet the notion that it happened is treated as fact.
Carbon dating has on many occasions indicated ages that vary by many thousands of years, from different parts of the same body.
The "age rings" in the ice core from Greenland (I could be wrong on the location) that allegedly showed an age of many many thousands of years, until a WWII aircraft was found underneath those thousands of years worth of ice.
Fossilized dinosaur and human footprints found together.
The ever-changing "age" of the earth, from one billion years to two billion to, what is it now, four and a half billion?
The notion that we all evolved from a "simple" singe-celled organism--that notion has suffered quite a blow since these organisms turn out not to be simple at all, but rather are incredibly complex machines that show intelligent design.
The circular reasoning of using fossils present in certain strata to date the layer, while also using strata to date the fossils.
The biggest aspect of the lie is the fact that evolution is taught not as what it is, a theory. It is presented as scientific fact despite the utter lack of empirical evidence to support it. Virtually all elementary science textbooks will contain some variation of this line: Millions of years ago, dinosaurs walked the earth. There is no way that stating that something happened millions of years ago can possibly be anything other than theory. Is it treated that way, though? Nope. Fact is, it's dogmatic.
When you mention the notion of a Creator and evolution, I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from. I certainly concede that microevolution is reality. Not macroevolution, however. And lumping the two together is how the issue is handled. They're presented as a part of the same package, so that the observable truth of microevolution (variations) lends credence to macroevolution.
There are many, many more inconsistencies in the evolution theory I've read or seen pointed out, but I don't remember well enough to present them here. I've also seen survey results that show only a slight majority, around 55% if memory serves, of scientists from related fields believe in evolution as taught. But few are willing to publicly challenge it, for to do that is perilous to one's career.
I'm not a scientist, just a layman who happens to believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, who created the universe and all within it. Despite what you or anyone else believes on the topic right now, you too will believe at the end of the day when every knee shall bow. That's reality that will happen and I praise God that I know it already.
The bottom line is that evolution is one of satan's most successful lies. Get someone to doubt one part of the Bible and you're well on your way to killing their faith in God, which is exactly what satan wants.
If you're a scientist or teacher in the field, however, there are creationists who will gladly debate you or any professor at any university. There's also a standing $250,000 offer out there for anyone who can present straightforward empirical evidence of evolution as taught.
MM out.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (From Scientific American).
The Hall of Human Ancestors.
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [21st Revision].
Why? Why do you assume there is some sort of "morality" or list of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" at work in a random, meaningless universe? Who cares?
Cockroaches are far more successful at leaving offspring than human beings, and they don't have "compassion." They don't have moral/ethical systems. Why are we any different? After all, the universe is random and meaningless. There is no metaphysical imperative that makes the death of one or of millions "bad." Who is to say? Your silly hang-ups perhaps? Why should your hang-ups have any authority over anyone else? Even if your hang-ups are shared by billions, they are still only subjective hang-ups devoid of any objective meaning. If G-d's commandments are so onerous, then why am I supposed to acquiesce in your groundless emotional hang-ups?
If there is an objective morality, it comes from the Creator. If there is no Creator there is no morality, regardless of the silly assertions of Hellenic/Confucian humanists who require a totalitarian state to give someone's subjective hang-ups a purely practical objectivity.
You haven't answered two of my questions. Why do you reject sexual taboos that come from religion while retaining religion's other taboos on things like murder? And why do you want me but not Rev. Al Sharpton or the Sioux to believe in evolution?
Pray for GW and the Truth
Zonker and the other guy should be renamed "Neal and Bob."
I was really thinking about the statement that someone else draws his cartoons, but I would imagine getting ideas from readers is not all that unusual.
Tru-duh is boring and fake, as one would expect from a democrat.
You haven't been paying a lot of attention to Republicans in the last 10 or so years, have you?
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.