Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Well, I commend your stab at answering the post.
The connotations of that response imply that I was incorrect somehow.
I have seen most of those quotes before, used in exactly the same way, and I know full well they are not nearly as supportive of your case as you might like to think.
Are you aware of the people that work for film studios? PR they are called. They have a job to promote their movie. The most basic step is collecting quotes that say to people "Go see this movie" - the problem is that sometimes they have to find quotes for a stinker. Thus they creatively edit.
Full Quote on Stinker: The Crapness: "I have never seen anything like it - the poor quality of the acting, direction and script are amazing. Truly the worst film of all time." - A. Critic
What will go on the poster: "I have never seen anything like it...amazing." A. Critic
Do you see the parallel? Yes? Good. Taking something out of context might very well seem supportive of a stance, but it is easily dismissed if one acesses the whole text.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't accuse you of asking me to question God's power or motives, did I?Here is what I am trying to convey: God has explicitly stated (in no uncertain terms) how He created the universe (He did so through speaking) so why even bring up a hypothetical like evolution in reference to God creating?
You said, "...if God created evolution, it would also be by Gods words...."
But He didn't create evolution. Based on the record that we have of humanity's origin it is clear that God did not want to use an inferior method like evolution. Evolution is a protracted process that supposedly occurs over eons of years. But everything that God does has a spiritual import and significance. For example, human beings are the only creatures that are made in God's image. No other creature has this claim to fame. Evolution presupposes that all organisms evolved from lower life forms into higher life forms. This process runs counter to God's process of creating creatures that are in His image. God's image is not that of a lower life form that evolved into a higher life form. So right off of the bat this methodology will not work. God wanted creatures that were made in His image and that were made fully mature and ready to reproduce from inception.
All I am saying is open your mind up a bit, realize that the "record" of "humanity's origin" you go off of was created back in a time when people thought lightning was God communicating with us and not a "natural electrostatic discharge" or a plague decimating a village was God evoking his wrath and not microscopic bacteria being spread due to unsanitary conditions. Etc, etc, etc.
Science and technology have progressed in the last 6k years, doesn't mean God doesn't exist though, just puts into question on how we view God and us. I.E. realize that the Earth cannot be 6k years old, back then 'we' had no conception of tectonic shifts, erosion. geology or anything that can pretty much draw us a picture of how old the Earth is... Get my point?
Originally posted by Robtard
All I am saying is open your mind up a bit, realize that the "record" of "humanity's origin" you go off of was created back in a time when people thought lightning was God communicating with us and not a "natural electrostatic discharge" or a plague decimating a village was God evoking his wrath and not microscopic bacteria being spread due to unsanitary conditions. Etc, etc, etc.Science and technology have progressed in the last 6k years, doesn't mean God doesn't exist though, just puts into question on how we view God and us. I.E. realize that the Earth cannot be 6k years old, back then 'we' had no conception of tectonic shifts, erosion. geology or anything that can pretty much draw us a picture of how old the Earth is... Get my point?
I understand your point but I do not agree with it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Question, do you view all science with disdain as you view Evoluntionary Science, Geology, Physics or just about any school of thought that directly questions Creation being taken literally?
I respect science it has (through God's providence) helped many people. I believe that science complements the Bible.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I respect science it has (through God's providence) helped many people. I believe that science complements the Bible.
You respect it yet simultaneously show utter disdain for it... Facinating.
I take it in your stance, science can be relied on if it cures you of cancer (hypothetically speaking), but if that same school of thought (science) tells you the Earth is billions of years old or that dinosaurs and man could not have coexisted then it is worthless garbage. Correct?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I know who we need: where is Templares when we need him. He makes an effort to explain away my posts on creation and evolution.Still waiting for an erudite and scholarly reply to this post.
Awwwww . . . . missed me?!?
DEBUNKED: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
DEBUNKED: Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
DEBUNKED: The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . . . . Paleontology covers 400 claims DEBUNKED in addition to other BS creationist claims.
(Me am very lazy right now).
Originally posted by Templares
Awwwww . . . . missed me?!?DEBUNKED: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
DEBUNKED: Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
DEBUNKED: The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . . . . Paleontology covers 400 claims DEBUNKED in addition to other BS creationist claims.
(Me am very lazy right now).
I love 'TalkOrigins' they have a ready supply of responses for the bible thumpers that try to disprove science through a skewed view of science.
Originally posted by Templares
Awwwww . . . . missed me?!?DEBUNKED: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
DEBUNKED: Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
DEBUNKED: The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . . . . Paleontology covers 400 claims DEBUNKED in addition to other BS creationist claims.
(Me am very lazy right now).
Nobody else had the moxie to answer my post.
What say you Templares about these quotes?
A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2
--English physicist Sir James
This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3
--Charles Darwin
The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7
--Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy
The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8
--Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry
The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.
If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10
--molecular biologist Michael Denton
Plants do not proliferate in a field to the point where they become crowded. They do not engage in a "struggle for existence" where natural selection would preserve the strong and destroy the weak. Plants tend to control their populations by sensing the density of the planting. When the growth is dense, plants produce less seeds; when growth is thin, they produce more seeds.11
--Israeli biophysicist Lee M. Spetner
Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants.12
--Charles Darwin
... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.13
--Dr. Eldred Corner of Cambridge University
How does an acorn know it has to grow into an oak tree and not into a sunflower? . . . The science of biology took a pivotal turn about 40 years ago when biologists began to learn how information plays its role in living organisms. We have discovered the location of the information in the organism that tells it how to function and how to grow, how to live and how to reproduce. The information is in the seed as well as in the plant; it's in the egg as well as in the chicken. The egg passes the information to the chicken it becomes, and the chicken passes it to the egg it lays, and so on.14
--Dr. Lee Spetner
Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.16
--well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History Niles Eldredge
… What spectacular variety we see among living things, both variation within kind and the stupendous number of different kinds. Most of us are awed by the spectacular variation in color, size, form, features, and function we see both within and among the incredible diversity of living things that grace our planet. Why so much variation?20
--former evolutionist Professor Gary E. Parker came to the conclusion (along with many other scientists) that the theory of evolution was invalid. He based this conclusion on research he conducted into paleontology and biology.
So wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.21
--Charles Darwin
I remember well the time when the thought of the [amazingly complex structure of the] eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now, trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! 23
--Charles Darwin
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.7
--Andrei Linde
Originally posted by Templares
Awwwww . . . . missed me?!?DEBUNKED: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
DEBUNKED: Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html
DEBUNKED: The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . . . . Paleontology covers 400 claims DEBUNKED in addition to other BS creationist claims.
(Me am very lazy right now).
These links don't debunk anything. Show me the money. In other words, the evidence that what they claim is true or not true.
Claim CA001.1:
Since evolution began to be taught in public schools, crime rates and other social ills have increased.
I must admit I always liked this one - the whole creationist claim that if one believes in evolution then one doesn't believe in God, and if one doesn't believe in God then you have nothing to live for and you will become an amoral, nihilistic criminal motivated only by pleasure.
Which of course is a massive load of cobblers.
Response:
Crime rates go up and down and are associated mostly with the age of the population. There does not appear to be any correlation between crime rates and teaching evolution. The United States was generally more violent in the years 1870-1910 before evolution was taught. In recent years, crime rates have been dropping since 1989.
✅
Regional trends show a negative correlation between crime and teaching evolution. Other developed democracies accept evolution to a far greater extent than the United States and have lower homicide rates, juvenile and early adult mortality, sexually transmitted disease infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion rates (Paul 2005). In the United States, southern states tend to emphasize creationism more, but they also have generally higher crime rates.
✅
Correlation does not imply causation. Since the teaching of evolution, death rates from most cancers have decreased, air travel has increased, and the earth's temperature has risen, but we do not attribute any of those to teaching evolution.
✅
In the United States, at least, most people do not believe evolution. If social ills follow from belief about origins, creationists deserve more of the responsibility.
✅ .... So, for example, what do you say to that JIA? How does the Bible refute that?