Hannes Alfven
Posted on 08/31/2007 3:21:59 AM PDT by monomaniac
"Evidence" that only supports evolutionary theory if you accept the premise of Darwinism before examining the evidence. So that's exactly how it's done: "Wow, a new bone! We know before we even study it that it supports Darwinism, we just have to decide how!"
You can talk about the huge amount of evidence all you like, but if that evidence were examined in a cold, critical, unabashedly scientific light, it would no more support Darwinism than it would support the notion of the man in the moon. Evolutionary theory is a house of cards held up by circular reasoning.
You left off the first part of my comment:
The evidence is non-existent to creationists because they absolutely refuse to see it--for religious reasons.
That is unfortunate, as your response just serves to document my point.
Then it should stop making assertions that religion is just a bunch of mythology and folk tales and that the supernatural doesn't exist. Science demands a *naturalistic* approach, one that insists that there be no outside entity involved at all, when there's absolutely no basis of it.
By your own admission, then, scientists are way outside their field when even mentioning the supernatural. So then, they have no basis for censoring those who DO chose to believe it.
So the mockery and derision demonstrated towards those who believe in a creator is totally unwarranted because scientists cannot say that they are wrong, because it's supernatural and science has divorced itself from any connection with it.
Evos who claim creationists are wrong are speaking out of their own self-admitted ignorance. IOW, when they say creation is wrong, they don't know what they're talking about.
Exactly.
Ask yourself the question. How do you empirically test that which by definition cannot be scientifically tested, i.e. God?
C.S. Lewis wrote a book on it. Entitled "Miracles".
Modern Science is based on "Plilosophic Materialism".
I’m sure Coyoteman and PatrickHenry will come running...they sniff this stuff out!
And this is a large part of the problem. Science has been hijacked by the atheists in the name of "reason", and many scientists not only don't realize it, but believe themselves and also teach it as a fact. There's no room for scientists like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc in today's "scientific" community.
“It’s such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence”
Careful when you use terms like “fraud”, “bizarre”, ect for you have to have an apriori source that defines “fraud”, “lies”, “truth”, ect....
We don’t want you to go unscientific on us now....;)
lmao at this ridiculous lie. Evolution has NEVER identified this first life form, nor does it care to, because it cannot. Furthermore, the prevailing opinion amongst the evo posters here is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is based on a single common ancestor that will NOT be identified. It doesn't matter what the first life form was, just that it's successive generations continually added information as it evolved into the millions of distinct life forms we see today. Evolution science continues to pretend that the coming into existence of the first life form is irrelevant to the theory.
Evolution does NOT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE DOWN TO THE BEGINING. It only portends to explain all the life forms coming into existence AFTER the first (NEVER HAS/NOR TO BE IDENTIFIED) life form. Mathematics has nothing to do with evolution either. Hence the reason for this entire argument in the first place.
I'm here already, but thank you for thinking of me.
PatrickHenry gave up posting here almost a year ago, and for some reason was banned--after no posts whatever--a couple of months later. He is over on DarwinCentral.org now.
Not if the claims can be tested. Claims about the age of the earth and the possibility of a global flood are well within the purview of science. Any claim made by religion about the history of the physical world, or about the way the physical world works, is within the scope of science.
If we're part of the conspiracy then we must be falling down on the job, too. The ID mob seems to be alive and well.
To the extent that they are making duplicitous efforts to pass off their religious beliefs as science, they are.
They're sole accomplishment to date is the sale of books, essays, and pamphlets to gullible marks on the receiving end of their con-game. And out in the twilight zones of social conservatism, their supporters both excuse their behavior and enable it by invoking a multicultural moral equivalency that is indistinguishable from distilled liberal drivel. "Teach the controversy (that we have invented from whole cloth)!" "Break down the rigid doors of science and let in the fresh air of fantasy!"
Hannes Alfven
As far as I can tell, your only purpose here is to pimp ur site.
It is highly annoying. :/
So where’d the aliens come from? LOL
IT’S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!
Darwin may have a point.
Look at these striking similarities between Elton John and the gorilla.
Dughh.. Science was invented and created by creationists..
Are you asking me???? I didn’t posit the idea, hell I am just quoting.
But I agree it’s turtles all the way down.
Attempting to explain the resistance to his ideas, Alfven pointed to the increasing specialization of science during this century. "We should remember that there was once a discipline called natural philosophy," he said in 1986. "Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect." Among the causes of this transition, Alfven believed, are territorial dominance, greed, and fear of the unknown. "Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."
In my opinion, he is correct.
Given human nature, he probably always will be.
What’s an “evolution professor?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.