Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Food for thought

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Food for thought

    I am not looking for debate here, but am presenting these items so that you all may think a thing or two.

    Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May
    13, 2000), p. B-3.


    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution
    is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to
    Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was
    true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
    Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In
    New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
    constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
    commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori
    adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
    concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
    matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
    absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press,
    1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is
    adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the
    dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs
    went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our
    imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions
    Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June
    2000), p. 54.
    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are
    primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence
    that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that
    supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to
    the contrary.
    Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and ‘Row, 1964),
    p. 125.

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever
    arisen on earth.
    Ibid., p. 222.

    We must change our pattern of religious
    thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.
    Ibid.

    The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our
    thought. We must construct something to take its place.
    Midgley, Mary [former Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK], "The Religion of Evolution," in Durant J., ed., "Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1985, p.154.


    Evolution is the creation-myth of our age. By telling us our origin it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory.
    Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107

    Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped...To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.
    And on and on. I was just looking some stuff up about what evolutionists say about evolution and found these, and dozens more. Found it quite interesting.........


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  • #2
    Seriously mossy, you put stuff like this up and then say you don't want a debate? If you don't want to discuss them then a blog is a better choice.

    I've discussed remarks made by Ruse extensively the last time you went through your "evolution is a religion" nonsense. Perhaps you should have read it rather than left the thread.
    To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:
    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

    Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:
    "The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

    Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

    Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

    Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

    It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

    That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

    Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

    IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

    This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

    And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example.

    Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:
    …evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

    According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

    Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."

    For a couple of quick comments about a few of the others (since you don't want debate which would require a much more thorough explanation like I did with Ruse)...

    I don't see where in the quote from Lewontin's review of "A Demon Haunted World" any mention of evolution whatsoever.

    Instead of talking about what others say about Henry Gee's remarks it would probably be better to see what he said. He has been much chagrined and frustrated concerning how many have misunderstood what he said jumping on particular sentences, phrases and the like (the most famous being "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate").

    He was trying to explain that there is a popular misconception concerning the relationships between various extinct organisms. As he said "because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might instead have been side-branches; collateral cousins rather than direct ancestors." IOW, it's impossible to deduce strict ancestor-descendent relationships (species A evolved directly from species B) although evolutionary relationships can still be shown through things like morphological development and the like.

    His comments about amphibians was in reference to the then newly discovered transitional fossil Tiktaalik and he was explaining that Acanthostega is likely not a direct ancestor, but in any case it still represents an earlier related form.

    Again from Gee:
    That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution.

    Okay, that was longer than I meant for it to be so to recap, a couple of the quotes are complaints not about evolution-the-scientific-theory concerning how biological life grows and develops but rather what some have termed "evolutionism" -- the non-scientific but heavily philosophical concept that there is no God, no Creator, no purpose in life (Richard Dawkins position or a form of metaphysical/ontological naturalism or scientific materialism).

    And it should be noted that I can quite easily turn around and do the exact same thing about YEC and its proponents. For instance how other YECs who have extensively dealt with the current Grand Poobah of the movement, Ken Ham of AnswersinGenesis, have described him as a man who engages in "deceptive conduct," who changed AiG from a ministry into a fund-raising machine, and is "ungodly, and mean-spirited."

    Or how virulent racism was a central component of the belief of those responsible for the development of the modern YEC movement. How their belief that blacks were either the result of whites mating with animals or Satanic tampering with whites. It wouldn't be pretty.

    And sorry I snapped at you at the beginning but if you post things like that and then say you don't want a debate...

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mossrose View Post
      I am not looking for debate here, but am presenting these items so that you all may think a thing or two.

      Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May
      13, 2000), p. B-3.




      Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In
      New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.




      Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press,
      1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.


      Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June
      2000), p. 54.


      Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and ‘Row, 1964),
      p. 125.



      Ibid., p. 222.



      Ibid.



      Midgley, Mary [former Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK], "The Religion of Evolution," in Durant J., ed., "Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1985, p.154.




      Grasse, Pierre-P., [editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie", former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], "Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation", [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.107



      And on and on. I was just looking some stuff up about what evolutionists say about evolution and found these, and dozens more. Found it quite interesting.........
      Never fear mossy. No debate, merely a quote to match your quotes:

      “Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life [whereas] one particular tribe of uneducated, Bronze Age, goat herders got it exactly right. – Chuck Easttom.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #4
        I this a bacon thread? I saw "food" and naturally that means

        Comment


        • #5
          Y
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Seriously mossy, you put stuff like this up and then say you don't want a debate? If you don't want to discuss them then a blog is a better choice.

          I've discussed remarks made by Ruse extensively the last time you went through your "evolution is a religion" nonsense. Perhaps you should have read it rather than left the thread.

          For a couple of quick comments about a few of the others (since you don't want debate which would require a much more thorough explanation like I did with Ruse)...

          I don't see where in the quote from Lewontin's review of "A Demon Haunted World" any mention of evolution whatsoever.

          Instead of talking about what others say about Henry Gee's remarks it would probably be better to see what he said. He has been much chagrined and frustrated concerning how many have misunderstood what he said jumping on particular sentences, phrases and the like (the most famous being "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate").

          He was trying to explain that there is a popular misconception concerning the relationships between various extinct organisms. As he said "because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might instead have been side-branches; collateral cousins rather than direct ancestors." IOW, it's impossible to deduce strict ancestor-descendent relationships (species A evolved directly from species B) although evolutionary relationships can still be shown through things like morphological development and the like.

          His comments about amphibians was in reference to the then newly discovered transitional fossil Tiktaalik and he was explaining that Acanthostega is likely not a direct ancestor, but in any case it still represents an earlier related form.

          Again from Gee:
          That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution.

          Okay, that was longer than I meant for it to be so to recap, a couple of the quotes are complaints not about evolution-the-scientific-theory concerning how biological life grows and develops but rather what some have termed "evolutionism" -- the non-scientific but heavily philosophical concept that there is no God, no Creator, no purpose in life (Richard Dawkins position or a form of metaphysical/ontological naturalism or scientific materialism).

          And it should be noted that I can quite easily turn around and do the exact same thing about YEC and its proponents. For instance how other YECs who have extensively dealt with the current Grand Poobah of the movement, Ken Ham of AnswersinGenesis, have described him as a man who engages in "deceptive conduct," who changed AiG from a ministry into a fund-raising machine, and is "ungodly, and mean-spirited."

          Or how virulent racism was a central component of the belief of those responsible for the development of the modern YEC movement. How their belief that blacks were either the result of whites mating with animals or Satanic tampering with whites. It wouldn't be pretty.

          And sorry I snapped at you at the beginning but if you post things like that and then say you don't want a debate...
          Dear roguey, you know I adore you. However.

          I read your post the first time in the other thread, and I read it again now. It doesn't much matter to me if the evolutionary scientists who SAID these things decided to backpedal and/or have others try to explain what they think the non-creationist were really trying to say.

          Because, there it is in black and white, or pink and green, or whatever colour the original quote was in.

          I am trying to point out the FACT that many so-called evolutionary scientists seem to have no problem with making statements along the lines of "evolution is a religion", and, from Lewontin, "we are forced...to CREATE an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations...", and, from Sir Julian Huxley, " we must CONSTRUCT something to take its (the God hypothesis) place".

          You and others can pooh-pooh these statements all you wish, but there they are, out of the very mouths or pens of those who try to make us believe that their CONSTRUCTED plans to remove God from the worldview are truth.

          I find it beneath you to bring up slavery. That has nothing to do with the articles I mentioned in the op.


          I am requesting that this thread be moved to Natural Science, where you can all carry on, but don't expect me to participate much, because once I've said what I need to say, there is no point in me beating my head against a wall any longer.

          Last edited by mossrose; 11-03-2014, 11:14 AM.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Never fear mossy. No debate, merely a quote to match your quotes:

            “Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life [whereas] one particular tribe of uneducated, Bronze Age, goat herders got it exactly right. – Chuck Easttom.

            Who is this Easttom person? Is he an anti-creationist? If he is, then his quote does not belong here, as he is attacking creation. If he is a creationist, then fine. And he is as ignorant and as guilty of resorting to name-calling as the anti-creationists.
            Last edited by mossrose; 11-03-2014, 11:13 AM.


            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Moderated By: CP

              Thread moved to Natural Science at owner's request

              ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
              Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Now you may all carry on debating or whatever. I will likely get tired of it by the third page or so, if it gets that long.


                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                  Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May
                  13, 2000), p. B-3.


                  Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution
                  is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to
                  Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was
                  true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
                  When Ruse originally wrote those words in:-

                  Is Evolution a Secular Religion?

                  - he explained (bolding is mine):-

                  Originally posted by Ruse, at first link, bolding is mine.
                  So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.


                  Hence I'm sure he would accept that these:-

                  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

                  Dinosaur to bird tail transition. Testing the theory. Genetics and the fossil record.

                  “DeNovo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes” or How Some New Genes Come About.

                  - are all illustrations of the "industrial chemistry" aspects of the theory of evolution - namely rock solid evidence for its reality and examples of the theory being tested.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                    I am not looking for debate here, but am presenting these items so that you all may think a thing or two.
                    ...
                    And on and on. I was just looking some stuff up about what evolutionists say about evolution and found these, and dozens more. Found it quite interesting.........
                    I think Mossy brings up a good point. The word "evolution" has different meanings and implications to different people. To a scientist, "evolution" refers simply to physical mechanisms. But to a non-scientist, "evolution" often means "evolutionISM", an atheistic, materialistic worldview. Outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins don't help when they conflate the two (evolution and evolutionism) in their popular writings.
                    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      I think Mossy brings up a good point. The word "evolution" has different meanings and implications to different people. To a scientist, "evolution" refers simply to physical mechanisms. But to a non-scientist, "evolution" often means "evolutionISM", an atheistic, materialistic worldview. Outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins don't help when they conflate the two (evolution and evolutionism) in their popular writings.
                      Well, mossrose doesn't think there's any contradiction between believing Christianity is a religion and believing Christianity is true, so it shouldn't matter to her if the theory of evolution could actually be classified as a religion. Because in this case, it'd be an instance of a religion being true.
                      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It doesn't matter to me if evolution is a "religion". It sure seems to matter though, to a lot of people who believe in it.

                        True? The theory of evolution?



                        Full of lies, it is!


                        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                          It doesn't matter to me if evolution is a "religion". It sure seems to matter though, to a lot of people who believe in it.


                          True? The theory of evolution?
                          It has been empirically observed in multiple populations and as such continues to be the most plausible and supported explanation for the diversity and origins of life on Earth. Many people who believe in the existence of a creator God acknowledge this fact and realize that there is no contradiction between the theory and theism.

                          Full of lies, it is!
                          I thought you said you weren't looking for debate.
                          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            It doesn't matter to me if evolution is a "religion". It sure seems to matter though, to a lot of people who believe in it.

                            True? The theory of evolution?



                            Full of lies, it is!
                            This is why it does matter to us. Let me rephrase it for you:-

                            "It doesn't matter to me if heliocentrism is a "religion". It sure seems to matter though, to a lot of people who believe in it. True? The theory that the planets orbit the sun? Full of lies, it is!"

                            Remember when JohnMartin (a geocentrism) used to post here, and the responses he drew, even from creationists?

                            It would be great if you could tell us what some of those lies are then demonstrate that they are in fact lies. And what would you think it geocentrists were pushing for equal time in schools whenever astronomy was being discussed?
                            Last edited by rwatts; 11-03-2014, 04:25 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              . . . are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life
                              Except TOE does not relate to origin of life any more.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              35 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              40 responses
                              237 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X