Posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“It ain’t necessarily so...
“It ain’t necessarily so...“
That was my thought too. They didn't answer it, only kicked the can down the road.
“Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. Thats because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. Its out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles.”
A two word rebuttal:
Global Warming.
That's been challenged in several recent papers.
They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is regulatory and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just junk DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic basement boxed up in chromatin.
Moreover the non genetic DNA comports exactly with what one would expect if humans and chimps diverged from a common population some six or seven million years ago, as does the genetic DNA. The pattern of little change in highly conserved DNA and more change in less conserved DNA and a lot more change in “junk” DNA is exactly what is observed in other animals of known common ancestry.
Basically people would rather believe humans didn’t evolve from other creatures. That’s not much of an argument.
So if some deity created humans but evolved everything else, why make humans so similar to other hominids and apes that so many people get confused?
Actually the big difference is that most creationists believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Most darwinists deny the distinction has any meaning. Hence your critique makes sense to you but not to a creationist. And the crosstalking continues.
Absolute and utter nonsense.
Moreover most creationists define “macro” evolution as a speciation event leading to the common descent of species.
Apparently they DO believe in the (semi) common descent of species - and thus “macro” evolution.
Would you consider the differentiation between a mouse and a rat to be a “micro” change or a “macro” change? How about between a gorilla and an orangutan?
What makes a human unique is that he has a soul. The story of Genesis is the truth and science does not contradict it, but instead supports it. The Big Bang theory is the same sequence of events described in Genesis. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but was made in 7 days - those are consistent statements. Science has shown by Einstien, that time is relative to the frame of reference. The 13.7 billion year age is from an earth reference. Seven days is from the reference envelope of the entire universe. An excellent easy to read book on this is the Science of God by Gerald Schroeder who is a physicist
Adam obtained his soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Whether there were other homo erectus on earth is not addressed in the Bible and not terrbily important. Events then began unfolding rapidly for humans once he has a soul with the beginning to farm, and the bronze age.
“with displays of the innumerable examples of transitional fossil sequences”
The displays you have seen are primarily artists renderings, NOT hard evidence. Remember that soft tissue, depicted in most of these displays, does not survive time.
The term “transitional” for creationists is usually employed to discuss transitions between, rather than within, species. The former transitions are clearly not innumerable if demonstrable at all.
The author appears to be ignorant of the media's seamless record of slanting and falsifying scientific data to support the establishment worldview. Remember global warming (cooling?) and the "scientific" proof that gays are born that way?
Macro-evolution (as opposed to micro-evolution) has never been proven methods that do not require begging the question. Recent discoveries on the previously unimaginable complexity of cellular organelles demonstrate the impossibility of macro-evolution.
...anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago
I am sure it was an oversight that you missed the explanation of the genesis of the 10,000
The Bible talks about a first couple, I agree. I don’t see anywhere that it talks about a “literal” first couple, though.
RE: Absolute and utter nonsense
Can you elaborate please?
So Michael Mann, prof of bullshit, at Penn State, has always been transparent with his published findings about global warming.
Most creationists believe that ‘macro’ evolution is something that hasn’t been observed. Like Santa Claus. It has a name but that doesn’t mean you believe in it.
Both rats and mice (Or gorilla and Orangutan) could be on an Ark of course so I’m not sure how that makes a point here.
Thank you for pointing this out. The specific revelation in scripture was not written as a scientific or even a complete text. All that is necessary for the account to be true is that God made Adam, a unique being with a soul made in God's own image. To force more precision onto the account than the facts require is a bad way to read scripture, especially when the general revelation of creation suggests that particular accounts are not likely unless God did some extreme messing with reality.
History is written by the victors.
And science is sold to the highest grant-bidder.
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.