1 2
#529169
dpareja
In my opinion, science cannot and should not concern itself with fundamental truths, and so mixing science with what 'sounds right' just doesn't work.
6/5/2008 11:21:17 PM
#529174
szena
Try reading Darwin's book for yourself instead of relying on other people who never read it to tell you what's in it.
6/5/2008 11:24:05 PM
#529184
MessianicServant
Well, I don't mean to open another can of worms here, but as a scientist I think he has a point. You may not agree with what he's saying, but the facts he lists are accurate.
6/5/2008 11:26:09 PM
#529195
Error on line 1. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
6/5/2008 11:30:35 PM
#529200
6/5/2008 11:33:15 PM
#529251
Chinook
... "we all evolved from a common parent (which also incleds plants)" sounds right to me!
We all came from cyanobacteria. It's kind of amazing if you think about it.
6/5/2008 11:53:20 PM
#529255
Dark_Lord_Prime
"Well, I don't mean to open another can of worms here, but as a scientist I think he has a point. You may not agree with what he's saying, but the facts he lists are accurate."
Absolutely. Except for the nine he got wrong.
6/5/2008 11:54:48 PM
#529264
MessianicServant
I disagree. I guess it just depends on how you interpret the facts. I have an advanced degree from Liberty University and one of the things that I was taught was to always submit my understanding of the facts to the objective witness of God's Word. This prevents me from falling into subjective interpretations.
6/5/2008 11:56:31 PM
#529275
Sheik yer Bouti
Oh, so you are not a scientist at all.
6/6/2008 12:00:26 AM
#529281
solomongrundy
Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
Dr Henry Walton (Indiana) Jones
Oh, sorry, that's fictional, I didn't realise the statements here were meant to be based in reality.
Oh and you have an advanced degree from Liberty University
Let me laugh some more.
6/6/2008 12:01:48 AM
#529285
LAchlan
Ummm, the second one.
6/6/2008 12:04:15 AM
#529286
Lefty Link
Everything there fails.
Now, I believe evolution is true. It's what I believe, as well as many other people. Even if evolution is proven false, that doesn't automatically validate your belief in god. I'm not sure why so many people think this.
6/6/2008 12:04:25 AM
#529312
MessianicServant
I'm an amateur scientist. I conduct experiments at home and have worked with several biomedical companies in my area; I have even published articles in a few biomedical journals. Currently, I'm doing research into the physics described in Genesis 1, which seems to point towards an expanding universe. It's a fascinating subject, and I'd be happy to share some thoughts on it if anyone is up for a discussion.
6/6/2008 12:11:39 AM
#529331
Imroy
1. Wrong. Not off to a good start.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.
4. I guess a reference to Pitdown Man. Whatever.
5. Hailed by who?
6. Oddball?
7. Probably wrong.
8. At last something quite reasonable. Yes, genetics is much more useful for studying and proving common descent than fossils.
9. WTF?
In all, pretty big fail.
6/6/2008 12:18:01 AM
#529341
sofia the antichrist
which of the two sound right to you? the evolution one.
6/6/2008 12:22:23 AM
#529390
Allegory for Jesus
1. No. The original formation of evolutionary theory had very little to do with observations of how humans were involved in it.
2. Imaginary creature born out of the mind of one man? I'm giggling, but you don't know why!
3. I guess I assumed that when you called whatever the hell this exaggeration of history is searching for "imaginary".
4. Only some remains were hoaxes. Most were not. Hell of an argument.
5. So, skulls are not evidence? Somebody, call up the writing staff for CSI, and quick!
6. A few oddball skeletons that were dated to time before the appearance of non-oddball human skeletons, and possessed distinctive characterisitics were called human's ancestors. I really don't know what possible problem you could have with that.
7. Apparently your definition of one or more of those words differs from what they mean for most people.
8. Why shouldn't genetics be used to prove evolution, since evolution relies on genetics to occur, and, in fact, most of the predictions of evolutionary theory coincide with genetic theory (founded independently, and after Darwin's original formation of the theory)?
9. They are, in many ways. Isn't that neat?
Oh, and the "common parent" one sounds right, because the one involving God is introducing an agent beyond any that we have sufficient experience or evidence for presuming as true.
Edit:
MessianicServant said: I was taught to always submit my understanding of the facts to the objective witness of God's Word. This prevents me from falling into subjective interpretations.
My response: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...oh...um..ha...woooo.
That was entertaining. Subjecting all information to your Christian worldview in order to make it "objective"....priceless!
6/6/2008 12:34:56 AM
#529408
tracer
Plants are eukaryotes too, ya know.
6/6/2008 12:38:02 AM
#529457
Beeblebrox
....which of the two sound right to you?
I like the option where we send you to a science camp and run a six week deprogramming party with you as the guest of honor.
2. Imaginary creature born out of the mind of one man? I'm giggling, but you don't know why!
Wasn't that a line out of Forbidden Planet? It sounds like a reference to the Id Monster.
6/6/2008 12:53:53 AM
#529473
Antichrist
Genetic comparisons.
That's how they discovered that skunks didn't really belong in the weasel family.
6/6/2008 12:58:26 AM
#529530
Papabear
You've never read one of Darwin's books have you? No, nor have you read any credible science book about the ToE either.
Study first, pontificate later, Sugarhitman.
6/6/2008 1:24:51 AM
#529532
Nutz
wow, wrong 9 lines running. Impressive. Usually people sneak in a morsel of truth.
6/6/2008 1:26:22 AM
#529687
Hadron
MessianicServant: "I have even published articles in a few biomedical journals."
Can you please tell us specifically which journals and issue numbers.
6/6/2008 2:59:25 AM
#529734
Qreg
The latter.
6/6/2008 3:18:39 AM
#529786
anonymous_troy
10. ???
11. Profit!
6/6/2008 3:36:58 AM
#529838
Sandman
@ MessianicServant:
An "advanced degree?" In what, might I ask?
You have been published? In what journals/issues? What were the articles? Back up your claims or zip it.
And you are an "amateur scientist?" If you approach science with a pre-determined benchmark, and base your conclusions on that pre-determined benchmark rather than on actual empirical evidence, such as "submit[ing] [your] understanding of the facts to the objective witness of God's Word," then you are no scientist. You are a doctrinal apologist.
And I would love to know what kind of amateur garage experiments one can perform to investigate the physics of the creation of the universe. Must be one hell of a set-up you have there.
6/6/2008 4:04:08 AM
1 2