![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
So what are your guys's thoughts on Both my sister and Father?
Thank you,
-Dallas
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 ... 6-sticker/Ivellious wrote:I could go stargazing and name something "666" or "satan" or "The apocalypse is nigh" and it wouldn't really mean anything, would it?
Quite true, being labeled as 666 may be disgusting to a person but it certainly doesn't damn them or anything like that...the number doesn't have any magical effect; that would be ridiculous to believe nor does the Bible teaches so. This is the point where people apply the Bible as they wish and not how it should be. The bible says, no one knows the time the world will end, so if someone tells you he knows the exact date then he is either assuming his brains out or just beingWell, I'm sorry to those offended by this, but when you take a symbol from the Bible to that level, it's just superstition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I remember the Bible saying that being in the vicinity of the number 666 damns you eternally, nor does naming a comet Wormwood bring the apocalypse to Earth.
Ivellious wrote:Yeah, I disagree that believing in evolution means that you think everyone is programmed to be homosexual...Could you explain the logic behind that?
Sounds like your dad has been fed the same "evolution is a fact" nonsense that many other people have been subjected to.Dallas wrote:My father is a "typical" atheist. He believes nothing the Bible says, yet, he doesn't read it. He claims that it contradicts itself. By contradicts itself I mean It says one thing then says another abolshing that for said first law that was there (His Eyes). So what made this argument come up was my sister is worried about the end of the world. What made her worry was she heard that scientist named a coment/asteroid wormwood. If you're not familiar with wormwood it appears in Revelation 8:10-13. Now she's all scared that the end of the world is coming faster than she thought. Which it is, and if you're a Christian you can see it also. Now back on topic. She was telling my father about this, then he got on the rant which I was talking about earlier and he said something around the lines of Evolution show's the way earth/life appeared. So I stuck my tongue out and made a fart noise
. So one thing I wanted to tell my father was If you believed in evolution, you must believe that some homosapiaens are programed homosexual. Now my father is AGAINST homosexuals in every way, shape and form. He believes they choose to be that way, and honestly I believe the same since there is no evidence portraying that it's not by choice.
So what are your guys's thoughts on Both my sister and Father?
Thank you,
-Dallas
But Behe's ideas have been around for awhile. Why haven't they found widespread acceptance among scientists, especially scientists who are Christians?Stu wrote:Darwinian evolution is dead in the water, materialists just don't have anything else to replace it with just yet...
What makes you think they don't?sandy_mcd wrote:But Behe's ideas have been around for awhile. Why haven't they found widespread acceptance among scientists, especially scientists who are Christians?Stu wrote:Darwinian evolution is dead in the water, materialists just don't have anything else to replace it with just yet...
No. They have made attempts at shooting it down, but come no where near close to doing so. From the time Darwin's Black Box was first published there has been but one attempt to explain how the flagellum might have arisen through neo-Darwinian processes. That in itself has been shown to be inadequate.Ivellious wrote:Irreducible complexity is a dead argument, Stu...It doesn't work as a scientific argument. It's been tried for a long time by saying "Even simple constructs are too complex to have arisen in a step by step process." But, one of the most commonly used examples of this argument, the flagella in single celled organisms (which is deceptively complex in the mechanism it uses to move the cell), has been broken down by evolutionary biologists into every step that could have been taken via natural selection...Essentially, the best example that the irreducible complexity camp uses has been shot down numerous times.
"Darwinism" is simply a term used to describe the specific form of evolution we are refering to, namely, common descent through minor modifications to DNA over time, shaped by natural selection. ie. neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis that occured around the 1950's incorporating Mendelian genetics and the many other advancements in modern science.The other problem with all these concepts and attempts to "debunk" evolution is that they like to label evolution as being "Darwinism" or that we are using 150-year old science that is outdated or whatever. The reality is that, while Darwin was the father of evolution by natural selection, most of his conclusions and the ideas in On the Origin of Species is regarded as wrong by modern day science. The only thing we really take directly from Darwin's work is the concept of natural selection and the novel (at the time) idea of evolution. He was a brilliant guy and deserves the credit for evolution becoming a legit science, but really his ideas and observations just got the ball rolling for future scientists to test and revise his concepts into a more accurate and scientific theory. So anyone trying to use Darwin and his book and use that as the evolution you are debunking is wrong because scientists debunked most of it a long time ago.
Yes that might be a good idea. Not to be overly harsh, but denouncing his work without having much knowledge thereof seems to be arguing from ignorance, no?Also, I'm not sure I understand the study you reference here. Did he honestly infect people with HIV and malaria and rest every cell in their bodies? Or is this just some kind of pseudo-simulation where he just crunched some numbers? Over what time span? Is there somewhere online that I could read it?
Well now you're treading in interesting territory, because the same can be said of much of evolutionary thinking. Homology, common descent, macro-evolution are all thought experiments; or philosophy.As far as why scientists don't widely regard Behe's work as science...It's because his work on Intelligent Design and his anti-evolution campaign are wholly unscientific. I've read a little bit by him. He basically lives and dies on "thought experiments," which is basically just another word for philosophy in this case. Because he can't experiment or test his ideas, and because no one can test or experiment to try to disprove them,
What do you mean by this?there is no actual scientific literature on his view of ID.
Hence, real scientists don't pay attention to him.
I'm not following, could you clarify?That's not to say he hasn't published scientific items before, he most certainly has...but none of it has anything to do with ID or evolution.