tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post9122593783319648965..comments2023-11-02T07:36:25.657-07:00Comments on Local So-and-So: Poetry and ReasonRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09347604316112150273noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-1751251382667887642008-12-28T14:28:00.000-08:002008-12-28T14:28:00.000-08:00If scientists are unable to prove their theory usi...If scientists are unable to prove their theory using their own method, why would that be a problem for either poets or religionists? The burden of proof is on the scientists. And no, I’ve never heard of the bible being written by hypothesizers.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347604316112150273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-66274083112955328702008-12-28T13:03:00.000-08:002008-12-28T13:03:00.000-08:00Mmm.. I believe the subject was if "Darwin's Theor...Mmm.. I believe the subject was if "Darwin's Theory" had holes in it. All Newton accomplished was being able to <B>quantify</B> gravity - not prove it existed. And things have not progressed much from there despite Einstein and Hawkings.<BR/><BR/>Again I repeat Darwin was not very interesed in the origins of life; only on their evolution and devolution. <BR/><BR/>And what's so erroneous about "http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/08815079131127101352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-35352134466615108122008-12-28T11:04:00.000-08:002008-12-28T11:04:00.000-08:00Once again you wander off the subject. The life an...Once again you wander off the subject. The life and times of Charles Darwin are only of passing interest here. The use of "Darwinism" by atheistic rationalists as their example of superior knowledge of the workings of nature, as compared to the poet, was the issue. <BR/><BR/>As for the test tube crowd, anyone can "create" life with pre-mixed ingredients. Google "babies". Darwinism suggests a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347604316112150273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-16804492292852289362008-12-28T10:13:00.000-08:002008-12-28T10:13:00.000-08:00BtwIII, if you'd like to "create life" you can act...BtwIII, if you'd like to "create life" you can actually do right there at home with just a few basic chemicals and some ordinary lab equipment. It's called the Miller-Urey Experiment which you can easily find in a google search. Or just follow this <A HREF="http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>After you've obtained the goo, just let it http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/08815079131127101352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-39870768790139441542008-12-28T09:07:00.000-08:002008-12-28T09:07:00.000-08:00Creating life? Oooo...that's way too easy. Do a Go...Creating life? Oooo...that's way too easy. Do a Google Search on "creating life in a test tube" and you'll get 459,000 hits. Is that enough? As far as "peer review" goes, how about the combined sciences of botany, biology, and zoology in every (credible) seat of learning in the world as sufficient review and acceptance of Darwinianism - John MacArthur excepted, of course.<BR/><BR/>However, "http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/08815079131127101352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-15377627931737424852008-12-27T21:08:00.000-08:002008-12-27T21:08:00.000-08:00OK, just to keep things simple, let's start with t...OK, just to keep things simple, let's start with the origin of life itself. Please remember that the scientific method requires proof in order to move from theory to fact. Proof requires physical evidence, and that evidence will need to be reproducible. I eagerly await the volumes of peer reviewed data.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347604316112150273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-89580598792341952232008-12-27T20:29:00.000-08:002008-12-27T20:29:00.000-08:00Apologies for the wrong inference gathered."There ...Apologies for the wrong inference gathered.<BR/><BR/>"There are many holes in Darwin's Theory,.." Now <I>this</I> interests me. Just what are the many holes in "Darwin's Theory" and just which of his - and the tens of thousands which have evolved from Darwin - are you speaking of?<BR/><BR/>This is just gotta hear...http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/08815079131127101352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-7432979194747389442008-12-27T11:27:00.000-08:002008-12-27T11:27:00.000-08:00I didn't mean to imply that Darwin himself was an ...I didn't mean to imply that Darwin himself was an atheist, only that he gets lumped in with the anti-religious attacks. There are many holes in Darwin's Theory, yet rationalists like to claim logic and reason, and site Darwin as their example.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09347604316112150273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3193426595390801550.post-20193784722793452302008-12-27T10:33:00.000-08:002008-12-27T10:33:00.000-08:00Umm....actually Darwin wasn't athiestic at all. Li...Umm....actually Darwin wasn't athiestic at all. Like his father, he was studying for the seminary when he accidentally got involved in ornothology and then biology. After he made his trip on the Beagle he waited 25 years to publish the "Origin of Species" while he was wrestling with his empirical observations v. his inner spirituality. It was the Church of England which originally put his http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/08815079131127101352noreply@blogger.com