Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Scientific American article raised more questions than answers (on the few questions I didn't already know the answers for). That's good from the point of view of scientific inquiry. If all the questions were answered the scientists could all go home and write computer games.
But the arguments till boils down (IMO) to two positions. One side can imagine natural events leading up to the current situation and is not concerned with the Origin of Life question. The other side can't and is. But imagination isn't proof in the positive or "a final debunking" and lack of imagination isn't proof in the negative.
Ultimately the question isn't whether evolution is "true" or "false". Ultimately the question is whether you know G-d. If you know G-d, you will find all your questions answered in the end. If you don't know G-d, it won't matter.
Shalom.
You cannot have read that many of these posts yet. Or perhaps you omitted the "</sarcasm>."
I have always liked your inputs on these threads and this is one example of why. This despite the anti-Creationist rhetoric, which is, I believe, disdain for the blind acceptance of any authority. This latter is OK by me, for that is how we learn (i.e. by adopting a perspective and taking it to its logical conclusion -- and THIS is definitively IMHO). As to your post, I would agree with you insofar as God must have a strong and deep mathematical aspect. Where we distinctly part ways is in the inference that that is as far as it goes.
One who desires justice such as we will never know on this earth,
who desires acknowledgement of him as father and creator (he has placed it in all mens hearts to know him, it takes work over years to deny him),
and one who used his "brain" to create all, including all the science you will ever know over a lifetime. We cannot ever expect to know fully the mind of God, we are but men...
If you insist, my server is being a snail right now and I can't find the estimated gene counts I had previously found.
All I can do is smile, Patrick.
The point is that IF there really was a Big Bang, there is no need to talk about a "before".
As soon as somebody asks the question, "what happened before the Big Bang," they are necessarily asking that question within the context of the model. They often expect that, within that context, there is no good answer to that question, but in fact, there is one.
The title says it all...
and reveals the complete and utter self-aggrandizing spirit of those involved in the "debunking."
It is why I normally stay away from these threads.
To argue with those who have placed themselves as God, is to argue with an illusion...
What does the theory of evolution have to do with conservatism?
Ahh, that famous Christian Love we read so much about. Makes the cockles of my heart glow with good cheer and happiness.
To condemn one to the absolutely ridiculous, silly, and insulting ooky spooky fairy tale of a "hell" is about as intelligent and thought-out as the genius who wondered why there are still monkeys in the world. The more you "argue" science (surely you must realize that denying evolution, for whatever reason, implicitly denies all the laws/accepted theories of: Astronomy, physics, quantum mechanics, paleontology, biology, ecology, geology, limnology, and oh, LOGIC, just to name a few). I know this "argument" (although it's really not) will go round and round in circles forever...ironically never "evolving" to become an intelligent discourse because the fundies and deniers are incapable of actual intellectual gains.
I've said my piece, and I'll go back lurking now. Flame away godsquad, but please examine yourselves before judging me. (I'll say it for you: "god will judge me one day and damn me to the lake of fire with a horned red guy with a pitchfork poking me in the butt every so often blah blah blah. Oogity boogity).
I personally don't consider this to be a mistake (although you are correct in stating that there is a point there that Ferndina does not understand). It is true that modern monkeys and humans descend from a common ancestor, but I'm fairly sure that our last common ancestor, if it could be examined by people today, would also be classified as a monkey (and our last common ancestor with apes, an ape). I thus have no difficulty in stating that humans descended from monkeys and apes.
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.