Pastor Rejects Evolution Theory

How predictable - I knew you’d resort to the “quote-mining” accusation.

I know, except, I think we end up focusing to such an unbelieveable extent on our chosen speciality, that we can’t see obvious blunders others can who aren’t so focused, you know?
Remember when Feynman dropped O-ring material into a glass of ice water as a member of the Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger disaster? They spent months and millions to uncover the exact cause of the failure. He took the rubber out of the glass and shows how in 32 degree temperatures it became too brittle to seal the solid rocket booster joints.

He was reluctant to join the commission. After all, he was a theoretical physicist, known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as his work in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model.

They didn’t need him to figure out what was staring them in the face. He was a tad overqualified.

1 Like

They aren’t theoretical. A nested hierarchy is an objective measurement.

Also, DNA is just as real as fossils and the morphology of living species.

Do you accept shared ancestry between humans and other apes?


1 Like

That isn’t entirely true. While Feynman did show that the seal became brittle, he did not show that it became too brittle to seal the joint, nor did that experiment demonstrate that the failure happened at that joint. If memory serves, Feynman learned of the potential problem with the seals from the internal documents within the company who built the booster rockets.

There were engineers who knew there was a real risk of those seals failing before the disaster.

1 Like

Sometimes it is obvious. Sorry for being redundant. But, always good to go to the primary source, which EN was good to link in their article.

1 Like

5 posts were split to a new topic: What is Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)?

Feynman pressed the red button on his mic. “This is a comment for Mr. Mulloy,” he said. He held up a chunk of O-ring for the TV cameras, explaining, “I took this stuff that I got out of your seal, and I put it in ice water. And I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for awhile and then undo it, it doesn’t stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. I believe that has some significance for our problem.”

Rogers broke in. “That is a matter we will consider in the session we will hold on the weather,” he said, “and I think it is an important point, which I’m sure Mr. Mulloy acknowledges.” But there was no denying the impact Feynman’s demonstration had on the proceedings. His waving a chunk of chilled rubber for the cameras would be played and replayed all over the world. As Feynman’s friend and fellow physicist Freeman Dyson put it, “The public saw with their own eyes how science is done, how a great scientist thinks with his hands, how nature gives a clear answer when a scientist asks her a clear question.”

Officials lied during those hearings. Rogers was afraid to do his job. Feynman made crystal clear how basic error cost lives.

1 Like

Hmmmm. Where’s the Resurrection on that scale? The Incarnation? The mass murders of the OT?

The Incarnation involved miraculous conception, but otherwise there’s no evidence of anything unusual about the process, for example. The Incarnation, Resurrection, and judgements all convey very important information.

Aye they do, but their spectacularity is not in proportion to their message import.

Spectacularity is not easily quantified, so it’s hard to say. This also relates to a bad argument against “methodological naturalism”, the claim that one should prefer a miraculous explanation because it is more impressive and therefore gives more glory to God. First, it is not clear that a miracle is more impressive than God’s being able to direct things using ordinary means. If someone could just wave a magic wand and create a masterpiece, we would be impressed because nothing like that happens when we wave sticks around, but in an important way that would be less impressive than someone who toils away and creates a masterpiece using ordinary skills. Secondly, we give more glory to God by obeying His commands to truthfulness than by trying to be PR agents.

1 Like

Oh I certainly prefer a miraculous explanation for the Incarnation because it’s infinitely more impressive; it’s the only warrant we have for God after all. The splashier ‘miracles’, drowning humanity or just plague decimated Egyptians, I no longer prefer. They bespeak an evil God.

Whoa, that’s the only warrant we have? :slight_smile: I’m not talking about miracles. Curiouser here. Thanks. Maybe I’m thinking of reasons for needing God, not proofs.

The proposition that the Incarnation is true. If we didn’t have it, there’d be no grounds for faith (i.e. in the transcendent) whatsoever.

1 Like

I think I see, but maybe you could explain a bit more. Thanks

Sorry Randy. Rationality does not need God at all, cannot lead to God. It’s atheistic without having to be theistic in the first place, except in the evolution of the history of ideas. Theism comes before atheism in the record. Although obviously, even a thousand years before Christ, there were ‘fools’. Starting now, with rationality, one ends with nature, eternal, infinite nature. I’ve just finished Dawkins’ perfect The God Delusion. 15 years late. I wept at the terrible perfect beauty of it. I wouldn’t have been matured by suffering enough to be able to say that then. I’d have sneered at Dawkins’ courage. I spoke out loud to the Lord with tears in my eyes and said all that. It’s such a paradox as God has evolved in me to the best He can ever be this side of death, but as His image has refined, it has attenuated to the smile of the Cheshire cat. He doesn’t fill the void any more. There is no rational reason whatsoever for the physical, the natural, suffering, loss if there is the transcendent. Why does His smile remain? Jesus. The Jesus claim is so outrageous it distracts from the meaninglessness of existence. That has me in tears right now. More. Jesus is the Cheshire cat smile in the void.

1 Like

If Darwinist propaganda presents theoretical branches between phyla as factual, what other misleading “facts” is it serving up to the masses? Little wonder so many people have learnt not to take the historical claims of evolution science seriously.

Which “mass murders” are you referring to? If executions are ordained by God, they don’t qualify as “murders”.

He still shines brightly and there is nothing feline about his smile. Ask Maggie or George. They (and I) along with many others can tell you that your derogatory ‘micromanagement’ is a gross mischaracterization and a foolish insult to a Father’s intervening and loving providence. You may have grown, but only in your own eyes.

Do we have any examples of matter forming from nothingness? Besides the universe which exploded into existence 13.8 billion years ago, is there one example of matter originating from the complete absence of anything?

Little kids know what adults can’t remember. I think Jesus called himself the Son of Man because like a child, He knew what life is all about–GOD—even though He grew into adulthood. That, I think, is one of his most important attributes. He hadn’t lost the ability to see life for what it really is.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.