Not much point, as Ken so aptly said.

You don't read anything. I guess 'cause you think that you speak for god you don't need to.

Mar 11, 2012 -- 9:20PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Mar 11, 2012 -- 5:35PM, wohali wrote:

wohali: Not much point, as Ken so aptly said.

You don't read anything. I guess 'cause you think that you speak for god you don't need to.

iama: I consider your response to be a dodge, realizing that your attempt would expose the evolution speculations for what it is.

All scientific fields of investigation could / would function just fine without ever considering the "speculative first life-form cell to zoo to you" evolution.

One could note, of course, that the fields of biology would not have progressed as they have, IF there wasn't the evolutionist's drive to locate the elusive scientific evidence for the evolution speculation.  The scientific knowledge gained / gleaned, of course, has all been valuable.  But, the evolution speculation, remains unscientificall, observationally, unevidenced.

I'm glad that you acknowledge the valuable information provided by evolutionary scientists. But you should recognize that they never would have found all that information if they had been working with a creationist perspective.

The evolution control mentality which exists in the higher learning research facilities being controlled by the constraints of the evolution paradigm, has set back much investigative "freedom to follow where the research leads."

Constraints? That's a lie on your part.

The only "paradigm" being used is methodological naturalism. It's the only one that works in science. Creationists don't use it.

Had scientists been creationists, they would have limited themselves and been unable to see where the evidence truly leads.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:29AM, MMarcoe wrote:

Had scientists been creationists, they would have limited themselves and been unable to see where the evidence truly leads.[/quote]

Actually, scientists WERE creationists.  All scientists prior to 1790 were YECs. From 1800 -1859 scientists were OECs using progressive creation events.    Lyell in Vol II of his Principles of Geology stated:  "Each species was endowed at the time of its creation, with the attributes of organization by which it is now distinguished. ...been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed place on the globe." 

Iama forgets all this.  Scientists falsified creationism, just as scientists have falsified a huge number of scientific theories.  As you noted, scientists were able to see where the evidence leads, and that evidence lead them to refute creationism and accept evolution.

Iama thinks that "where the evidence truly leads" is atheism.  It's not.  Science is agnostic.  As you noted, one of the things that keeps science agnostic are the limitations imposed by methodological materialism.  MN prevent us from testing this hypothesis:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

As long as we cannot determine whether or not "what is natural ... presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so", then we are limited to what we can say, as scientists, about God's control of nature:

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists."  SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge.  Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_da...

As a person, Richard Dawkins can say that he believes natural happens on its own.  As a person, I say I believe God is necessary for everything "natural" to happen.  But those are our personal beliefs.  Evolution is not atheism.

In the latter half of the 19th century, Biblical scholars began approaching the Bible as all other ancient texts were approached and analyzed.  One of the first conclusions from this was the Documentary Hypothesis, which stated that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Bible, but that they were instead a compilation from at least 3 (and probably 4) earlier sources and were put together around 600-500 BC.  A subset of Christians was horrified by this and felt very threatened.  They felt that Higher Criticism threatened the "authority" of the Bible on the basic issues of God's existence, God's intervention in human history, the historicity of Jesus' divine actions, and the Resurrection (and thus the entire idea of salvation). They countered with a series of pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals (which you can find online).  2/3 of the pamphlets are directed against Higher Criticism, 1/3 against evolution.  From this was born Fundamentalism, which is a new religion.  Fundamentalism worships a literal, inerrant, "infallible" Bible, not God. You can see that with Iama and other creationists: they defend "The Bible" and not God. Fundamentalism is false idol worship:
www.newreformation.org/
www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

"One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff. Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today."

Apr 3, 2012 -- 8:36PM, Kingdom357 wrote:

The therory of evolution studied by a botinist called Darwin.  He went around making brand new plant species and thus we have evolution, o.k.  Now scientist obviously decided this theory could really put their names down in history by claiming this as a theory of evolution.  Tried and tested did you say, well if animals are small and eat a good diet and become larger, is that what you call tried and true testing?  This is just the natural way of things.

AS for the big bang, first it was gases now its something else an Adam, I don't think they know anything at this point.  The telescope up to this time was recording the universe and watching the stars and planets through the earths atmosphere.  They only recently put a large telescope into orbit and have a clearer picture but is doesn't go out in space very far.  The pictures of our galaxy are beautiful but to claim they know exactly how it was all formed, no, much more information is needed.  To make these claims because they don't like any other explaination is foolishness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

if you don't know deeply in any religion than no discussed them,,,