> revtec at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Biblical creation requires almost as much faith as evolution.>
It requires more faith
> Darwin did touch on the ancestry of man and many other animals.In particular he argued man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. Hence the title of his work -- The Origin of Species.
So he postulated that one species could evolve into another, such that subsequently,they could not cross breed? This has never been observed, ergo his theory is bogus, and IMHO deserves to be labeled as such.
At another level we have what is termed the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of strange creatures come into existance at once with no trace of ancestors in the underlying rock strata. This is one of the great difficulties Darwin wrestled with. He tries to explain this problem away, but it sure resembles an act of creation to me.
I agree. Unfortunately there are Christians who insist on a literal 6, 24 hour day creation, despite the fact that the Hebrew text can be read to mean either that or a preexistent Earth which had been rendered dead. While this sort of absolutism plays well with the Christian masses, it turns off many educated people. I regard this as the Christian version of political correctness.
If you want to be considered a scientist today, and you imagine a different origin of man, you dare not express it or you will be branded a simpleton or a quack.
I will be posting the following to my blog, www.prodofgod.blogspot.com .
The sexual fusion process resets the DNA code. This is a reversal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I believe that this is the best argument I have found to make the case for the stupidity of the theory of Spontaneous Biogenesis, it's even better than the complexity of life argument.
Are you saying that the scientific establishment allows a scientist to attend church so long as he/she does not believe the first chapters of the Bible? I'm thankful that I am not beholden to the scientific community. They don't sign my pay check and they never will.
This is sad but true, Parksie told me, "if you believe in a creator (god) who manipulates DNA, you are terminally ignorant." The thing that I remember from Parksie's last newsletter is his going on about reversing our hard won right to purchase the herbal supplements of our choice. Any competent Biophysicist will admit that they don't understand the nature of Chi, and how it makes life work. What burns me the most about Parksie's Pronouncements is his attacks on Energy Medicine, about which he has less understanding than a pig does about Easter. IMHO, they are either blinded by their pet paradigm or ignorant and proud of it.
If the first part of the Bible is a fairy tale, then, how far into it does the truth start? If the first part is a lie, then, the rest can't be trusted either. The whole thing should be dumped in the trash and one should sleep in on a Sunday morning. The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't. It's all or nothing for me. Anything else is hypocritical.
With reference to the Bible being a fairy tale, I assume that you have heard of the Bible Code? While the odds of the Codes occurring by chance are huge, they are much smaller than the simplest biological reactions occurring by chance. BTW, I have some excellent B C URL's that I can send to anyone interested in the subject. There is no way that even someone with an intimate knowledge of the Jewish People, the 20th century and Hebrew could have written the Tanach (Old Testament).
My bottom line is that the Bible makes more sense to me than Darwinism.
I agree.
