Popular Evolutionism

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:30 PM Micaiah said this in Post #9
Today at 12:05 PM chickenman said this in Post target=_blank>#8

is there a special room for newton, for him to discover how gravity actually works?
is there a special room for pasteur, for him to discover how bacteria actually infect human beings, or are some of the "evolutionists" going to explain it to him?

No need to make these guys a special room. They proved their point and we enjoy the benefits of it today!

And both were thinking that they were discovering the material mechanism that God uses.

Darwin thought the same way.  Proved his point, and we enjoy the benefits of it today.

1.  MJ Plunkett and JA Ellman,  Combinatorial chemistry and new drugs. Scientific American, 276: 68-73, April 1997.  Summary of article: "By harnessing the creative power of Darwinian selection inside a test tube, chemists can now discover compounds they would not have known how to make.  The key is combinatorial chemistry, a process that allows them to produce and screen millions of candidate molecules quickly and systematically."
2.  GF Joyce, Directed molecular evolution. Scientific American 267: 90-97,July 1994.
5.  CW Petit, Touched by nature: putting evolution to work on the assembly line.
8.  FS Santiago, HC Lowe, MM Kavurma, CN Chesterman, A Baker, DG Atkins,LM Khachigian, New DNA enzyme targeting Egr-1 mRNA inhibits vascular smooth muscle proliferation and regrowth after injury.  Nature Medicine 5:1264-1269, 1999.  Used Darwinian selection to design a DNA enzyme (not found in nature) that degrades mRNA for use in treating hyperplasia after balloon arthroplasty. Humans have no idea what the nucleotide sequence of the DNA enzyme because they didn't make it --Darwinian selection did.  They are using this one to treat restenosis of vascular grafts.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 05:07 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15


In particular I am interested to hear how you interpret the first two chapters of Genesis, and your Scriptural support for your interpretation. As noted previously, the Christ and the writers of Scripture clearly viewed Genesis as a historical document. Anyone who attempts to establish a basis for another method of interpretation has a monumental task. I suggest you simply accept the clear teaching of Scripture, and discontinue making false statements about personal interpretations.

It's an easy task. As I demonstrated on a thread on this board that you refused to respond to.

Also, I showed in all you quotes from the NT that they were using the second creation story as a metaphor, not literal history.

Something for creationists to do to try to gain credibility: don't ignore contrary arguments and pretend they don't exist.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 09:09 AM wblastyn said this in Post #17 It's statements like these than make me wish I was another animal, then I wouldn't have to listen to the mindless drivel some humans come off with.

It is only fair sense we have to listen to your mindless drivel.

 

[gentu]

I know that genetic algorithms derived from evolutionary theory do help in modern computer simulations. I think someone else brought this up. These machines are able to "smart" compute by predicting viable paths in situations where bit-by-bit computing takes much longer. Similar algorithms are finding their way into economics, which with the advent of computers has progressed far beyond Adam Smith and NeoClassical theory.

 

[Just]

JohnR7, for someone of your age you know very little.
I would have expected more maturity and intelligent conversation from you.

Its a bit rich that you accuse someone of "mindless drivel" consider that the only thing you talk is just that.

 

 

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 04:38 AM lucaspa said this in Post #22



It's an easy task. As I demonstrated on a thread on this board that you refused to respond to.

Also, I showed in all you quotes from the NT that they were using the second creation story as a metaphor, not literal history.

Something for creationists to do to try to gain credibility: don't ignore contrary arguments and pretend they don't exist.

We do not ignore credible arguments. As I have demonstrated previously, the internal evidence from Scripture clearly shows that Genesis is intended to be read as history, not metaphor. You clearly reject the plain teaching of Scripture on this matter and it is therefore not surprising that you reject the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:12 PM Micaiah said this in Post #26 

As I have demonstrated previously, the internal evidence from Scripture clearly shows that Genesis is intended to be read as history, not metaphor. You clearly reject the plain teaching of Scripture on this matter and it is therefore not surprising that you reject the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation. /B]

LOL!! First, Micaiah, you never addressed my arguments from Genesis that it was not meant to be taken literally. Instead, you have only tried to argue that Jesus and Paul thought the stories were literal, therefore they are literal.  Now, I have given two counters to this: 1) Jesus and Paul were using the stories as metaphors, not history and 2) that if we use your criteria consistently, then we have to accept Zeus as real also.  Have you responded to those?

Now, "this matter" and "Creation" are the same matter.  Once again, what I reject is your literalistic intepretation of Scripture. The "plain teaching" is something entirely different. I reject your attempt to arrogate yourself to be God. From what I see of the rest of Scripture, I am right to do this.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:07 AM Micaiah said this in Post #15


In particular I am interested to hear how you interpret the first two chapters of Genesis, and your Scriptural support for your interpretation. As noted previously, the Christ and the writers of Scripture clearly viewed Genesis as a historical document. 

Genesis 1 and 2 are two different and contradictory creation stories.  If God intended them to be read literally, He would not have allowed the different authors to be inspired to be contradictory.

Genesis 1 is meant to preserve the faith of the Hebrews during and just after the Babylonian Captivity.  Genesis 1 destroys the Babylonian pantheon by taking all the gods and turning them into created entities. Genesis 2 is a simple creation myth and uses allegory to explain how and why humans are cut off from God -- disobedience.  Every person disobeys and Adam (dirt) and Eve (hearth) simply stand for each and every person. It naively explains why snakes don't have legs, childbirth is painful, and farming is difficult.  You know, I've never known you or any other creationist to defend the difficulty of childbirth on a command of God. 

Would you care to do so now? I think it would be interesting.