Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:52:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
596 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> > What Larry meant was because Creationism explains everything, it really
> > explains nothing. "Tigers look like lions" -- God's plan; "Dinosaurs don't
> > graze on grassy plains all over the world any more" -- God's plan; "Plant
> > chlorophyll has DNA like some bacteria that photosynthesise for themselves"
> > -- God's plan. It's good to know it's God's plan, but it doesn't tell us
> > anything more than that. There are biological questions we don't know the
> > answer to (because we aren't God), but we can better understand the work of
> > God by being open to the way the universe actually works. We can't properly
> > glory in the Creation if we restrict ourselves to the limited scientific
> > understanding of three thousand years ago, as recorded in Genesis.
>
> Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating
> "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every
> question), why don't you ask one.
>
> I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front of any
> response I give because I believe that it is.
>
> Show me any piece of scientific evidence you wish that shows how the
> Biblical Creation record in Genesis 1 and 2 is flawed.
I can't. That's the whole point. Because the Genesis creation story can be
twisted to explain everything in the world, and because it is irrefutable as
God's word, it can't be subjected to the same analysis as a scientific theory.
> You continue to say things like:
>
> "we can better understand the work of God by being open to the way the
> universe actually works."
>
> What is it about the way the Universe works (scientifically, not
> philisophically) that doesn't support the plain and simple record of how
> God created it.
Here's an example. Every living thing on Earth has DNA which works in pretty
much the same way. From the way the DNA is structured we can infer
relationships between all living things. To my mind, the evidence supports
the theory that there was a single common ancestor to all life on earth,
including the bacteria, protozoa, fungi, plants and animals, the last
including humans. If a living thing was discovered that had different system
(call it XNA), or it was shown that humans were qualitatively different from
chimpanzees, that discovery would cause me to radically rethink my theory.
Two questions:
1. How do you explain the similarity of the DNA of all living things?
2. What evidence would cause you to look for another explanation?
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every question), why don't you ask one. I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
