Uh… yeah. I would expect so.
They’re not. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
More freedom? That’s what scientific investigation is already about. Stein is not a scientist; he has not published in scientific journals; he has not delivered papers at conferences. He has no idea what he’s talking about, beyond reciting a script. If he wanted to convince the educated public, he should come up with some evidence that people have been deprived of freedom to propose scientific ideas.
That’s the desperation creationist “explanation”. One can always special plead out of any difficulty. You of course never accept such argumentation in favor of evolution; there the difficulties are always real and insoluble.
IOW, you don’t have a good refutation for the claim. Or are you saying apes are also descended from Adam and Eve?
Maybe there is a way, you just don’t know it yet. See two can play the special pleading game.
See, so there you go. All life evolving from a single celled creature can occur if the creator put that design in place from the beginning. Obstacle overcome, end of story.
He has convinced a very large audience to watch the film – that’s a very good first step. Expelled finished the weekend in the top ten for feature films – having only been offered in half the number of theaters as the rest of the top ten.
Tell us about those. I suspect you don’t know Stein wasn’t exactly honest about those. Pick some and we’ll see what we can turn up.
The debate on a flat Earth, very one-sided, too. For the same reasons.
You’re a bit too gullible. Give me a name and we’ll see what we can find out. I promise you’re going to be surprised. I lived in the era of blacklisting when people’s lives were ruined, and their careers were gone for nothing. It’s infuriating that the people who supported that kind of thing (Stein, as you might know, was a speechwriter for one of the great McCarthyites, Richard Nixon) are now accusing other of their own sins.
Most people who accept evolution are theists.
If he said so, he’s a liar or an idiot. The postmodernists detest evolution, because it supposes an objective reality.
The “intelligentsia,” then as now, were largely leftist; they struggled against Hitler, and most of them were shot or sent to the camps, or fled the country. It’s hard to say whether Stein actually believes it, or is just using old material from the McCarthy days.
Yeah, let’s show them intelligentsias. You know, if you spent your life as a couch potato, and then stepped into the ring with a trained fighter, no one would have a lot of sympathy for you. But Stein figures it’s unfair that scholars have thumped him over science. I guess that’s what he means by “no intelligence allowed.”
Funny that Luther used Christian theology to advocate the same thing. And that Darwin vigorously opposed such ideas. But Stein wrote speeches for a guy who didn’t.
If that were true, scientists and their families would be more inclined to crime and other misbehavior than others. And just the opposite is true.
If so, when do you think they will get the Institute for Creation Research to accept graduate students who don’t accept creationism? Or when will they allow scientists who don’t buy the party line, in the Discovery Institute?
If you’ll review my post, I said that he hasn’t convinced the educated public, not the public in general. Convincing people who have no idea what science is or how it works is not relevant. The claims in the six cases in question have all been shown to be essentially false. See http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Show me the fossil evidence. A single celled organism is very complex, just looking at external simularities is too simplistic. The burden of proof is on evolution.
I make no assumption. I do not see proof of evolution. I see assumptions that the evidence points to it being true but these assumption are not logical with regard to proof.
I had pointed out earlier in this thread that the complimentarity between the genders of any given species is so intrinsic to a species survival that any deviation between genders (as one would suspect would happen through the progressive changes of evolution) would be lethal to further propagation of that species. Still awaiting evolutionists explanation on that as well.
‘Expelled’ is as about as unbiased a source as a Michael Moore movie. Notice that they do not interview any religious scientists, such as the Catholic biologist Ken Miller. That would only confuse their message wouldn’t it.
And carefully omitting (or is that “expelling”?) those who defend evolution and believe that the universe was created by God. That would only confuse their propaganda message.
The Argumentum ad Hitlerum is logically incorrect: “The Nazis used chemistry to make Zyklon-B gas, hence chemistry is morally wrong and should not be taught in schools.” Hitler was no more a biologist than he was a theologian, he misused both Darwin and Christianity to try to justify his racist bigotry. For example:“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.”
Intelligent Design can say nothing about the origin of life - just ask yourself the question: “is the designer itself alive?” It may have something to say about the origin of life on earth, but if it is to do that it is going to have to produce some positive evidence, not just attacks on evolution. The default scientific position is “we do not know”. Even if evolution collapsed tomorrow ID would still have to produce positive evidence for design.
And there it is. It is noted that image and likeness are not limited to the soul.
don’t evolve. Evolution happens on the scale of a species (or a part of a species) as a whole, not on the individual level.*If evolution doesn’t happen in individuals, how much more ludicrous to believe it happens in the masses.
Who knows?
Probably not, but again who knows?
All skin is capable of being any shade of skin color. This does not mean skin evolves different colors. You also make the assumption that living in certain areas caused dark skin rather people of like colored skin tended to congregate together in certain regions. You have to eliminate that possibility before one can purport evolution as fact.
Yes because people with darker skin could handle the sun better and tended to then be the only ones found in those regions.
No, human beings have migrated to areas hospital to them by the varying degree of the color of their skin. Further this is biblically supportable. That their skin evolved over time to adapt to their environment is not.
Firstly science does not do “proof”, as you point out alternative explanations are possible. Science goes with the preponderance of the evidence - “beyond reasonable doubt” if you like.
In scientific terms humans are apes, Hominidae. My father (a human and an ape) had sex with my mother (a human and an ape) to produce a child - me.
As well as the GULO gene I would refer you to human chromosome 2 which is two chimp chromosomes joined end to end. We can still see the redundant telomeres and centromere left after the joining. This is another example of something that is easy to explain with evolution and difficult to explain with creation. Scientifically we meet all the criteria to be an animal.
Of course it is - if we had found it it would be the “found link” wouldn’t it.
What I don’t understand is why does it have to be one or the other and not both.
Creation in general is indeed compatible with evolution - evolution is seen as God’s way of creating creatures. I was referring specifically to the narrow Intelligent Design hypothesis that organisms, or parts of organisms, were directly designed and could not have evolved. In that case there is an either/or choice. My apologies for not making myself clearer.
Now if you deny the real presence you can make the claim that “He cannot be said to have a body” and you would be woefully in error. If you go to Mass you will hear the words “For This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood”. God is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Incarnation is the historical point in time in which Jesus bacame true Man. The Risen body of Christ is not bound by time, but transcends time. One of the tenants of our faith.
You appear to have a serious trouble with the fact that God has a human nature and a Divine nature as joined through the hypostatic union. What does anthropomorphism have to do with anything we are talking about? Your dissent from the teaching of the Church is based on your rejection that the human Nature of Christ is complete with real flesh, blood, hands, feet, bones, and toenails.