Ape to Man
Out of context: Reply #137
- Started
- Last post
- 273 Responses
- discipler0
Let me try to address the assault that was launched while I was away. I'll do it according to user name...
fate_ -
The holes in evolutionary theory are not small:
1. The Cambrian Explosion (millions of species suddenly appearing in the fossil record with no time to have evolved) = not a small problem.
2. Irreducibly Complex biological machines which could not have developed thru small successive mutations = not a small problem.
3. An 100% lack of TRUE transitional fossils between species = not a small problem.These are pretty substantial actually. And these are just scratching the surface.
As for the alleged "holes" in Christianity (Genesis), I've yet to encounter an apparent contradiction or issue that did not get resolved thru careful reading - in context. The burden lies with the accuser to produce the error. I can guarantee you that every part of Genesis squares up with modern science. Try me. And somehow I think the countless phD's who hold every word of the Bible as infallible, and who eat, sleep and breathe it's study, might have a reason for their position.
Also, you make the error of saying this is an issue of "religion" vs. science. It isn't. It's an issue of new discoveries in science challenging old ideas and the proponents of these old ideas not wanting to let go. Religion has nothing to do with the core scientific issues being challenged here.
Mimio -
1. Species to species evolution has neither been scientifically observed, tested, or recreated. Information, as in DNA, has never been generated apart from a cognizant intelligent entity, therefore, it's only logical to assume that life is ultimately the product of a supernatural being. This is true of a universe with a beginning. Something immaterial and uncaused would be required as the author. It's only logical.
2. Genetics, adaptation and mutation do not suggest species to species evolution. They demonstrate variation within a genome. Science observes variation whtin a phenotype. i.e. different breeds of dogs. But science does not observe dogs becoming cats. The genome remains as is. Therefore, an intelligent designer is a superior explanation for organic life.
unfitt -
You have common misunderstanding of the purpose of the council of nicea. The concern was clear and any true student of Christian history or legitimate scholar will tell you: it was to combat the heresy that relegated Christ to creature rather than Creator. Don't let Constantine's involvement convince you of something categorically untrue. Here is a scholarly treatment for your edification:
http://www.equip.org/free/DN206.…You cannot upgrade "dogma" when the doctrine has been clearly set in scripture centuries before:
Colossians 2:9 -
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"know the roots. know the truth.
Pocho -
The NCSE exists as a direct and frenzied response to the I.D. movement (which consequently indicates the threat I.D. is posing to dated ideas). This "response" to the Dissent list is telling. I think it was damaging to their position to publish this article on their site because you see a panicky attempt at focusing on rather insignificant semantics in order to somehow discredit the numerous scientists who signed the list CLEARLY understanding it's purpose and intent. Note also that the "response" article is dated 3 years ago - now notice how the Dissent list has been regularly updated since then (March 05 - most recent entries). More and more scientists joining the dissenting ranks. Further information on this:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…>end responses