Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[reggieM]

I really don’t know any scientists who believe that we can know everything.

This is interesting on a few levels.

First, if scientists believe that there are some things in the universe that are impossible for science to understand, then I would expect them to stop trying to understand them since there would be no sense in trying to do what is confirmed to be impossible.

Secondly, this refutes the notion that “ID kills science” – in other words, once evidence that intelligent design was involved in the creation of certain things is found, then this stops the scientific effort to learn more (this is false even without the above example).

But in this case, we would have scientists claiming that there are aspects of the universe that science can never understand. So, they’ve “killed scientific study” in those areas of research.

This shows the double-standard and manipulation that evolutionists use when trying to refute ID theory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” **

This list is useful, if we match it up to Project Steve, a list of people who have PhDs in Biology or a related field, and are named “Steve” or some variant.

Comparing it to your list (which is overwhelminingly non-biologists, mostly not Doctorates) we find that about 0.3 percent of people with doctorates in biology don’t agree with Darwinian theory.

All of them, so far for religious reasons. And that’s a pretty good measure of the credibility of ID/creationism. And science can study only the physical universe. So there’s no problem with being unable to look at the supernatural.

There are other ways of knowing about that.

 

[redneck22]

**
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” **

This list is useful, if we match it up to Project Steve, a list of people who have PhDs in Biology or a related field, and are named “Steve” or some variant.

Project Steve List

From the first 34 or so that I counted from the list there were Astrophysists, Physists, Engineering Physists, Political scientists, Linguists, Particle Physists, Electrical engineer and Computer scientist. How are these related to Biology?

Comparing it to your list (which is overwhelminingly non-biologists, mostly not Doctorates) we find that about 0.3 percent of people with doctorates in biology don’t agree with Darwinian theory.

If you actually look at the list, you will see you are wrong.

All of them, so far for religious reasons.

Now that’s a bold assertion.

 

[reggieM]

Project Steve List

From the first 34 or so that I counted from the list there were Astrophysists, Physists, Engineering Physists, Political scientists, Linguists, Particle Physists, Electrical engineer and Computer scientist. How are these related to Biology?

A very good example of the kind of “precision” that we see from evolutionists all the time.

Beyond that, the list shows how reactionary the evolution-industry has become. They waste time coming up with this “project” that only draws more attention to the growing list of scientists who dissent against evolutionary theory. Clearly, they don’t have much of an answer for that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Statement of supposed “experts” who doubt Darwin)
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Barbarian observes:
This list is useful, if we match it up to Project Steve, a list of people who have PhDs in Biology or a related field, and are named “Steve” or some variant.

From the first 34 or so that I counted from the list there were Astrophysists, Physists, Engineering Physists, Political scientists, Linguists, Particle Physists, Electrical engineer and Computer scientist. How are these related to Biology?

Didn’t find any linguists. But for example, Stephen R. Addison, a physicist, has researched on sonar in liquid media, an issue in cetacean biology.

Barbarian observes:
Comparing it to your list (which is overwhelminingly non-biologists, mostly not Doctorates) we find that about 0.3 percent of people with doctorates in biology don’t agree with Darwinian theory.

If you actually look at the list, you will see you are wrong.

Took a look at it. Mostly non-biologists.

Barbarian observes:
All of them, so far for religious reasons.

Now that’s a bold assertion.

Show me one that doesn’t.

 

[reggieM]

Perhaps evolutionists will answer this by posting a list of “Steves”. Then they can claim that ID only has interest and support in America.

One in three teachers says teach creationism/ID alongside evolution in the UK

**One in three teachers believes schoolchildren should be taught that creationism is just as valid as evolution, according to a survey. **

Martin Beckford, in the London Telegraph, reports that the poll also disclosed that pupils in almost a third of schools already learn about the controversial divine explanation of the universe, with even science teachers thinking it has a place in classrooms.

 

[redneck22]

(Statement of supposed “experts” who doubt Darwin)
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Barbarian observes:
This list is useful, if we match it up to Project Steve, a list of people who have PhDs in Biology or a related field, and are named “Steve” or some variant.

Didn’t find any linguists.

Try Number 15…Stephen Robert Anderson
Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, Yale University
Ph.D., Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences…I know…I know…you don’t have to explain it to me Barbarian…The “grunt, grunt, grunt, ooh ooh ahh ahh grrr” ***evolved ***into " Where art thou Romeo" via the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection and thats why the Linguist is on the Steve list.

But for example, Stephen R. Addison, a physicist, has researched on sonar in liquid media, an issue in cetacean biology.

I’m keen to learn…can you show me where I can read the paper and how it relates to Cetacean biology?

Barbarian observes:
Comparing it to your list (which is overwhelminingly non-biologists, mostly not Doctorates) we find that about 0.3 percent of people with doctorates in biology don’t agree with Darwinian theory.

Took a look at it. Mostly non-biologists.

Barbarian observes:
All of them, so far for religious reasons.

Show me one that doesn’t.

I believe you made the assertion with no evidence, so I suppose the onus is on you. I’m suprised The National Centre for Science and Education would resort to informing the public that science is a matter of democracy and numbers with this type of list.

Anyway, The Steve Project is an impressive list, perhaps you could change your name by deed poll from The Barbarian to Steve Barbarian and bolster the numbers.

 

[edwest2]

To all atheists -

Please stop trying to sell the fiction that evolution can include God. If one of your atheist buddies came up to you and said, You know, I think evolution could include god. How would you reply? The answers are No and Never. So if reality matters, stop trying to tell any Catholic familiar with Church teaching that atheist textbook evolution is compatible with the faith. It is not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hugh_miller]

What I mean is that you can’t change the way things really work. You can’t change the way gravity works and you can’t change the way evolution works. All we can do is observe.

I sure didn’t mean that evolution theory explains the whole universe. Evolution theory isn’t what you claim it is either. It’s science.

Biological evolution is NOT science as I understand science. It can not be reproduced in the laboratory. The observations made by supporters of evolution about the fossil record, that no one was around to see form, ignore all the many anomalies that simply don’t fit the interpretations that they give their hypothesis of “Change over long periods of time.” To be even more accurate, that time period of millions and billions of years does not seem to exist based on repeatible laboratory experiments and observations in the field.

As one who has performed 100’s of research experiments over a working lifetime I was always required to confirm my observations by repeated experiments and recording of the observations in a laboratory notebook that was co-signed by a fellow co-worker. The department chief or assistant chief.would want to see the experiments and I would write the report to our sponsor and the chief would edit the final report or tehcnical paper.

Thus when I began to take an interest in the origins controvery I simply applied my training to field and laboratory experiments and observations. Again the anomalies in chronology alone are so overwhelming that a new theory of biological evolution needs to be developed or it needs to be totally abandened. So--------

(1) Repeated discoveries of distinct, pristine fossil human footprints with dinosaur footprint impressions under tons of rocks considered by evolutionists to be 110 million years old have been excavated, including four distilnct short trails over a period of 25 years. Now that is reproducability and C-14 dating of fossil wood confirmed the prints were laid donw only 1000’s of years BP.

(2) Repeatable laboratory C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics and bone apatite in the same range of RC ages as for saber tooth tigers, giant sloth, mammoths and mastodons etc. Since the dates for the megafauna are accepted by all scientists as valid ages why must the same ages for dinosaurs be ignored or attacked? Why? It is simply because biological evolution over long ages in now a RELIGION OF ORIGINS for atheists and for those believe in God but who also BELIEVE and argue that God set evolution in motion.

(3) Also, why are there accurate dinosaur depictions world-wide of many different species of dinosaur? Why did St. John Damacene talk about dinosaurs [dragons he called them] take note that they were real and not ghosts as well as huge, scary, laid eggs and came in various sizes? He knew as much about them in 700 or so AD as did the Peruvians, Mexicans, Asians, Africans, British, Cambodians and the American Indians 3000 to 800 or so years years ago. Did all these peoples discover dinosaur bones in their stone quarries, put them together and depicted them interacting with man. I don’t think so but you can believe that if you want.

However I do have a suggestion for revision. Use Vilikovsky’s idea of catastrophic evolution occurring over a period of 1000’s of years during massive cataclysms. That might save your sacred cow of biological evolution from totally imploding. Meanwhile I think our accountant will understand why evolution could be radically wrong when he takes away six zeros away from 15,000,000,000 years for cosmic and biological evolution you get a max of 15,000 or so real years for the possible age of the earth and the cosmos.

From a religious point of view I would use a paraphrase of Christ’s words, You know them [evolutionary hypotheses or theories] by their fruits: abortion, same sex marriage, the holocaust by practioneers of the evolutionary philosophy or religion like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, Margaret Sanger etc.
Cheers

 

[edwest2]

To hugh miller,

Thank you for your examples. I have run across the same thing. The overarching purpose for attempting to “convert” all Christians to evolution is atheism. The linkage between a “no God” belief and the permitting of modern mass murder in the form of a quick and painless death is evident in the belief in embryonic stem cell research and euthenasia.

The human being is reduced to a utilitarian device. To be used or discarded at will. See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

So, the Nazi death camps have been replaced by the laboratory and abortion clinics, or a hospital where the elderly and sick are being encouraged to kill themselves. This without consideration of likely depression in some cases.

That is what this is about. The answer was given to me on another forum: We don’t want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again. The guiltless celebrities who pose, dressed like prostitutes, on magazine covers is one example. Porn on the internet is another - the human being reduced to a thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Biological evolution is NOT science as I understand science. It can not be reproduced in the laboratory.

You have been misinformed. See the Luria-Delbrück experiment.

(1) Repeated discoveries of distinct, pristine fossil human footprints with dinosaur footprint impressions under tons of rocks considered by evolutionists to be 110 million years old have been excavated, including four distilnct short trails over a period of 25 years.

If you are talking about Paluxy, then Answers in Genesis have said that the Paluxy footprints are not reliable:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.
If you are not talking about Paluxy then please give a reference.

Now that is reproducability and C-14 dating of fossil wood confirmed the prints were laid donw only 1000’s of years BP.

Carbon dating of very old material is only good for showing the limits of accuracy of the equipment used. If I stand on a kitchen scales that weighs up to 20 pounds and it registers 20 pounds does that tell me anything useful about my weight? If you answer “yes” then I have a sure-fire weight loss system to sell you.

(2) Repeatable laboratory C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics and bone apatite in the same range of RC ages as for saber tooth tigers, giant sloth, mammoths and mastodons etc. Since the dates for the megafauna are accepted by all scientists as valid ages why must the same ages for dinosaurs be ignored or attacked?

References please, bearing in mind my points above about the applicability of carbon dating to anything more than about 50,000 years old.

(3) Also, why are there accurate dinosaur depictions world-wide of many different species of dinosaur?

Ancient people can look at fosils just as much as we can and make educated guesses as to what the animals in question looked like. Merely using the word “dragon” is not sufficient - dragons were hexapods (four limbs and two wings) no dinosaur was a hexapod. The closest to a dinosaur would be a wingless, non-fire breathing dragon or a wyvern.

Did all these peoples discover dinosaur bones in their stone quarries, put them together and depicted them interacting with man. I don’t think so but you can believe that if you want.

Your personal disbelief is not sufficient. I have seen fossils along the seashore at various places, there is no need for stone quarries.

From a religious point of view I would use a paraphrase of Christ’s words, You know them [evolutionary hypotheses or theories] by their fruits: abortion, same sex marriage, the holocaust by practioneers of the evolutionary philosophy or religion like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, Margaret Sanger etc.

Complete irrelevance. Hitler burned Darwin’s books. Stalin sent Darwinist biologists to the Gulag while the official party line was to support Lysenko, a non-Darwinian Lamarckian.

Every time a place crashes people die due to gravity - does that mean that the theory of gravity is wrong? Every time a car crashes people are injured or killed by momentum, does that mean that the laws of motion are wrong? You can do better than this.

rossum

 

[redneck22]

Biological evolution is NOT science …

From a religious point of view I would use a paraphrase of Christ’s words, You know them [evolutionary hypotheses or theories] by their fruits: abortion, same sex marriage, the holocaust by practioneers of the evolutionary philosophy or religion like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, Margaret Sanger etc.
Cheers

…the Finnish Tech. massacre, Columbine, Ted Bundy …etc the list goes on.

Well Done Hugh.

 

[hugh_miller]

You have been misinformed. See the Luria-Delbrück experiment.

If you are talking about Paluxy, then Answers in Genesis have said that the Paluxy footprints are not reliable:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.If you are not talking about Paluxy then please give a reference.

Carbon dating of very old material is only good for showing the limits of accuracy of the equipment used. If I stand on a kitchen scales that weighs up to 20 pounds and it registers 20 pounds does that tell me anything useful about my weight? If you answer “yes” then I have a sure-fire weight loss system to sell you.

References please, bearing in mind my points above about the applicability of carbon dating to anything more than about 50,000 years old.

Ancient people can look at fosils just as much as we can and make educated guesses as to what the animals in question looked like. Merely using the word “dragon” is not sufficient - dragons were hexapods (four limbs and two wings) no dinosaur was a hexapod. The closest to a dinosaur would be a wingless, non-fire breathing dragon or a wyvern.

Your personal disbelief is not sufficient. I have seen fossils along the seashore at various places, there is no need for stone quarries.

Complete irrelevance. Hitler burned Darwin’s books. Stalin sent Darwinist biologists to the Gulag while the official party line was to support Lysenko, a non-Darwinian Lamarckian.

Every time a place crashes people die due to gravity - does that mean that the theory of gravity is wrong? Every time a car crashes people are injured or killed by momentum, does that mean that the laws of motion are wrong? You can do better than this.

rossum

I am talking about the vast amount amount of reproducable Paluxy River data of the last 25 years. There are several books written about these much better than Laetoli footprints which I’m sure you accept as valid. It just goes to show that you and your fellow adorers of the Sacred Golden Cow of academia are in a complete state of denial. I feel sorry for you land the folks that you continue to lead astray with your support for those long ages.
i don’t pay heed to everythilng AIG says as I am sure you don’t either. You and they do NOT have a copy right on scientific research. Both you and they are fundamentalists, you on evolution and they on creation but they are far more logical as they have NOT done the researh and are more careful than yoiu who sit behind your computer and your computer web site links and pontificate without doing ANY research on origins.

Oh come now C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and wood are well within the range of 50,000 RC years. Please my friend, I know how much you love the theory of evolution so write the carbon dating scientists at over 150 labs that when they get RC dates in the range of 12,000 to 43,000 RC years that their dates are out of spec. Why don’t you write all the Universities that have AMS
C-14 and tell them that? I’m sure they would appreciate your sage advice.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Biological evolution is NOT science as I understand science.

Chemistry is NOT a science as you understand science.

It can not be reproduced in the laboratory.

College undergraduates do it every year. The first directly observed example of evolving irreducible complexity was in a laboratory.

The observations made by supporters of evolution about the fossil record, that no one was around to see form, ignore all the many anomalies that simply don’t fit the interpretations that they give their hypothesis of “Change over long periods of time.”

I’m used to hearing creationists spout vague accusations, but when it comes to evidence, they all change the subject. Tell us about those “anomalies.”

To be even more accurate, that time period of millions and billions of years does not seem to exist based on repeatible laboratory experiments and observations in the field.

Geologists and physicists say that they do. And they have a lot of evidence behind them.

As one who has performed 100’s of research experiments over a working lifetime I was always required to confirm my observations by repeated experiments and recording of the observations in a laboratory notebook that was co-signed by a fellow co-worker. The department chief or assistant chief.would want to see the experiments and I would write the report to our sponsor and the chief would edit the final report or tehcnical paper.

Perhaps you don’t understand the scientific method. It doesn’t require an experiment; it requires one make observations of reality. Could be an experiment. Or it could be taking a look at what’s there, and figuring out why.

Thus when I began to take an interest in the origins controvery I simply applied my training to field and laboratory experiments and observations.

Pity they didn’t teach you how science works.

Again the anomalies in chronology alone are so overwhelming that a new theory of biological evolution needs to be developed or it needs to be totally abandened.

Do you suppose at some time, you’ll be able to tell us about those “anomalies?”

(1) Repeated discoveries of distinct, pristine fossil human footprints with dinosaur footprint impressions under tons of rocks considered by evolutionists to be 110 million years old have been excavated, including four distilnct short trails over a period of 25 years.

If you’re talking about the Paluxy “man tracks”, they were debunked by YE creationists. For good reason, as one ICR leader pointed out, they were in the middle of what was assumed to be “flood deposits.” He said that creationists needed those tracks like they needed a hole in the head.

Now that is reproducability and C-14 dating of fossil wood confirmed the prints were laid donw only 1000’s of years BP.

Hey, show us that. Be sure it’s from peer-reviewed literature.

1. Repeatable laboratory C-14 dating of dinosaur bone organics and bone apatite in the same range of RC ages as for saber tooth tigers, giant sloth, mammoths and mastodons etc.

Anthony? I didn’t think anyone else in the world believed that woofer.

From a religious point of view I would use a paraphrase of Christ’s words, You know them [evolutionary hypotheses or theories] by their fruits: abortion, same sex marriage, the holocaust by practioneers of the evolutionary philosophy or religion like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, Margaret Sanger etc.
Cheers

Hitler’s racial philosophies were debunked by Darwinists. The Soviet Union officially denounced Darwin’s theory. Is it possible you really didn’t know any of this? If so, what makes you think you are qualified to judge anything about it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Try Number 15…Stephen Robert Anderson
Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, Yale University
Ph.D., Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Ah, you don’t know what “cognitive science” is:

**cognitive science may be broadly defined as the multidisciplinary study of mind and behavior.[1] It draws on multiple empirical disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, computer science, sociology and biology.
** Wikipedia

I know…I know…you don’t have to explain it to me Barbarian.

Turns out that I did. But it gets worse:

…The “grunt, grunt, grunt, ooh ooh ahh ahh grrr” evolved into " Where art thou Romeo" via the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection and thats why the Linguist is on the Steve list.

It’s that kind of behavior that causes scientists to think creationists are idiots. They aren’t, of course, most of them. But ignorance is poorly covered by ridicule. Learn about these things, and you will be better prepared to talk about it.

But for example, Stephen R. Addison, a physicist, has researched on sonar in liquid media, an issue in cetacean biology.

I’m keen to learn…can you show me where I can read the paper and how it relates to Cetacean biology?

A search turns up:
4forums.com/political/creation-intelligent-design-vs-evolution/711-transtional-forms.html?t-711.html=

Barbarian observes:
Comparing it to your list (which is overwhelminingly non-biologists, mostly not Doctorates) we find that about 0.3 percent of people with doctorates in biology don’t agree with Darwinian theory.

Barbarian observes:
All of them, so far for religious reasons.

(Barbarian challenged)
Show me one that doesn’t.

I believe you made the assertion with no evidence,

I made it with a vast amount of evidence. If you like, I can list prominent creationists, all with a religious objection. If you remember, science is inductive, going with the evidence, not with exhaustive proof. I’m making an inference from that evidence. You could weaken that claim somewhat by producing even one exception.

But you can’t.

I’m suprised The National Centre for Science and Education would resort to informing the public that science is a matter of democracy and numbers with this type of list.

It’s not. The idea is to have a little fun with creationists trying to pull that ploy. There are, as you see, more biologists named “Steve” on the list than you have biologists on yours. (About one percent of people in the US are named “Steve” or some variant)

Anyway, The Steve Project is an impressive list,

Yeah, it’s pretty effective in demolishing the “look how many scientists are creationists” scam.

perhaps you could change your name by deed poll from The Barbarian to Steve Barbarian and bolster the numbers.

Funny you should mention that…

 

[edwest2]

To The Barbarian -

Your posts have helped convince me that all debates about evolution here have only one goal: reject religion and let science be your god.

I am not interested in joining the Atheist New World Order.

As Pope John Paul II has written, naturalistic only evolution cannot ground the dignity of man. It can’t. Richard Dawkins wants to make sure everyone believes man is nothing special, just another animal.

As just another animal, man has no greater dignity or origin. His true identity buried, and led by the nose by scientists, man could become something other than what he really is: a creation of God, capable of forming a relationship with Him. But that cannot be allowed since it would make God’s Word, the Holy Bible, relevant.

Today, the goal is to replace the Word of God with the word of science.

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Thus when I began to take an interest in the origins controvery I simply applied my training to field and laboratory experiments and observations. Again the anomalies in chronology alone are so overwhelming that a new theory of biological evolution needs to be developed or it needs to be totally abandened. So--------

Good point. The old theory of Darwinian evolution is far too weak to survive much longer. The theory produces many anomalies and contradictions but they’re ignored by the scientific community (nobody within the evolutionary camp is interested in cataloguing all of the unreconciled problems that the theory encounters).

From a religious point of view I would use a paraphrase of Christ’s words, You know them [evolutionary hypotheses or theories] by their fruits: abortion, same sex marriage, the holocaust by practioneers of the evolutionary philosophy or religion like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, Margaret Sanger etc.
Cheers

Atheism yeilds fruits that are a logical outcome of a materialist-philosophy (upon which Darwinism is built).

Where there are laws, moral or civil or divine – there is a law-giver, a judge and a prosecutor. The law giver creates the law. The judge adjudicates the law, and the prosecutor rewards or punishes based on the law.

When God is removed as law-giver, judge and prosecutor – there must be another law-giver, etc.

In the atheistic-evolutionary model the law-giver is a human being (first) and then the collective human beings (who are stronger than an individual).

The human law-givers also bestow rights on the public (and they take away rights). They judge the law and prosecute – on their own authory to fulfill their own goals (not God’s will).

That’s the recipe for dictatorship and oppression.

Evolutionists have made it clear (those like Dennett and Myers) that religion is an enemy to the materialist state and the atheist individual.

 

[reggieM]

Your posts have helped convince me that all debates about evolution here have only one goal: reject religion and let science be your god.

We can see this even with “Catholic” Darwinists. We shouldn’t be too surprised that 55% of Catholics voted for the most pro-child murder candidate in history.

When materialistic interest replaces the desire to serve God, new tyrants will emerge. But even without that, science does become a god for people.

Today, the goal is to replace the Word of God with the word of science.

That is right. The Word of God will be tolerated as long as, and only if it is compatible with the mythology of science.

 

[edwest2]

The thing that should concern everyone is the new form of death. The death camps and killings fields where fear was created and brutal killing occurred have moved to the womb and especially in regard to the embryo where death will be quick and painless.

The same choice is being offered to the sick and elderly - quick and painless. What could be more human? I spent nearly ten years in health care. I saw the sick and dying. I transported the dead to the morgue. The one thing I did see offered was hope. And one soon learns the motivations of all involved. All doctors are reminded: “First, do no harm…”

First, do no harm… No one invites pain and suffering into their lives but instead of mentioning the new methods to control pain, a dollars and cents decision is being made: It’s more practical and economical, to end it now.

So, although there is easily demonstrated science that shows that an embryo is a human being, it’s ignored. Not human.

The sick and dying? Quality of life we’re told. Yet how can anyone, especially a doctor, add death to their options?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your posts have helped convince me that all debates about evolution here have only one goal: reject religion and let science be your god.

I would be happy, Ed, if you would just let God be your God. Creationism is a poor substitute.

I am not interested in joining the Atheist New World Order.

Nor am I. But as you know, creationism is a great atheist-maker.

As Pope John Paul II has written, naturalistic only evolution cannot ground the dignity of man. It can’t.

Neither can physics, or chemistry, or metallurgy. Or plumbing. Only the Church can do that. But then, science isn’t supposed to ground the dignity of man. You’re asking way too much of your plumber.

As just another animal, man has no greater dignity or origin. His true identity buried, and led by the nose by scientists, man could become something other than what he really is: a creation of God, capable of forming a relationship with Him. But that cannot be allowed since it would make God’s Word, the Holy Bible, relevant.

Your Pope has found evolution to be “virtually certain” and yet I think the Holy Bible is relevant to him. Maybe he knows something you don’t?

Could you entertain the possibility that he might be right, and you might be wrong?