Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: timburton
"This is just going to end up being another Archeoptrex (sp), where in 20 years they're just going to figure out it isn't a missing link...."

Archeopteryx IS a transitional.

"They want to claim missing links such as in a "Punctured Equilibrium" fashion, but admit that "Punctured Equilibrium" can't occur without:

A)Intelligent Design
B)Discounting everything we know about Micro-Biology "

Wrong on all accounts.

"Origin studies reside in Philosophical worldview and Science shouldn't be messing with Philosophy."

Historical sciences are as valid as any other branch of science.
308 posted on 04/05/2006 2:22:08 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies ]


To: CarolinaGuitarman

>>>Archeopteryx IS a transitional.<<<

No, there is more and more scientists who disagree that it is.

More are just saying it is a funky part of nature, like the Platypus.

>>>Wrong on all accounts.<<<

Yea, I know Behe is wrong. :rolleyes:

>>>>Historical sciences are as valid as any other branch of science.<<<<

No, Origin Sciences is based upon your Philosophical Presuppositions, because it can not be observed. You can not breed a fruit fly today and tomorrow get a cricket. Rather you have to infer one can evolve into the other based upon....here it comes....your presuppositions that Evolution and Naturalism are true.

Even worse is that Material Monism is irrational in the most basic, and scientists don't even bother to try to address it, because they know that Kalam Cosmological theory and basic rationalism on Matter and the universe not being eternal, Material Monism falls apart. It is why Hawkings tried to get a TV>FV Eternality in order to get around the boulder in the road.

Even most Evolutionary Scientists will reject Creationism, not on facts, but on the presupposition, they say, "Science can only be concerned with what is observable and testable, and can not have beliefs based upon 'faith'".

Ironically, they have blind faith in Material Monism with out justifying the rationality. Rather they try to "shift the burden of proof" and tell the Creationists they need to "Prove God First", but this is a rejection of rationalism. Rationalism requires both to prove their position.

Because the most basic of the Material Monist worldview is irrational, Atheists have:

1) Rejected Rationalism (Modernism and Post-Modernism) in order to justify their beliefs in Materialism, yet hold to rationalism in Science, which is contadictory
2) Keep to Rationalism without proving any basic priori, but maintain the priori of empiricism.

The fact is that Science has no right to talk about anything Philosophical, they claim this philosophical position, but are unable to rationally justify it and have repeated it enough that most non-philosophers buy it hook line and sinker.


1,404 posted on 04/11/2006 12:24:26 AM PDT by timburton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson