Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Schaef did. You said the math to solve his problem was simple.
If you are going to bother yourself to respond, why not respond with an actual argument, instead of just insults?
I haven't insulted you. Cite the post where I did. As for the question you appear to be referring to as an insult, I find that sometimes the best way to show that someone's argument has holes is to just ask a simple question.
Besides, are you sure you want more people presenting long arguments with supporting evidence after your recent experience with the word "macroevolution?" Best not to keep digging, sir.
from 1,774 schaef21: "I think our conversation is over."
You really don't yet understand your problem, do you schaef21?
You just love to claim that evolutionists, biologists, geologist, chemists, physicists and scientists in general, are all in effect, "sh*it faced liars," (especially on matters they've spent their whole adult lives in study and research).
But you just can't cope when someone suggests that fact about your own team, can you?
Of course I have no expertise on this matter, but for what it's worth, I suspect JS1138 is absolutely right here, and you schaef21 are seriously in the wrong. Seriously enough that you ought to be ashamed of what you're trying to do!
And if I'm wrong, then you will provide us all with simple, direct and truthful answers, won't you?
No, and sorry, but it's quite odd that you can't figure this out, especially since I said it eplicitly in post 1,747.
What I'm saying is that there is a bias at these publications that would preclude them publishing any paper by an IDer or creationist no matter how solid the data in it was.
BTW, the whole spiel in your post where you basically assumed that disagreeing with you on this issue means I don't even understand the first thing about what science is was a nice touch. Not arrogant at all.
Here's the truth of the matter: embarrassing as it was, I'm happy to be corrected in my understanding of the real issues between micro- and macro-evolution. I had actually never heard those words before, and just erroneously assumed they were invented by anti-evolutionists as a weapon against science. Turned out, that's not right at all.
In fact, real scientists do use the terms micro- and macro-evolution, in the same sense that normal people use the phrases "short-term" and "long-term." It's a difference in perspective, not the underlying reality.
Anti-evolutionists, by contrast, insist that short-term micro-evolution is totally acceptable, while long-term macro-evolution is absolutely forbidden. Forbidden by whom? Why by the Bible of course, since macro-evolution violates the biblical concept of "kinds," they claim. Right!
But back to your post: what simple math problem do you expect me to perform for you, and why is that a concern to you?
"BTW, the whole spiel in your post where you basically assumed that disagreeing with you on this issue means I don't even understand the first thing about what science is was a nice touch. Not arrogant at all. "
On your first point above, I'll say again: real science is science, no matter who does it, or what religious, theological, philosophical or other beliefs they may or may not have. Therefore, if some ID-Creationist somewhere (anywhere) produced a verifiable peer-reviewable piece of REAL science, but could not get it published in a respected scientific journal, there's a simple solution.
Have the ID-Creationist's scientific experiment repeated over and over again, by scientists of different faiths -- atheists, Hindus, Catholics, Muslims, whatever -- and see if the results change in any way. If the results are STILL VALID, then let THOSE PEOPLE publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Problem solved -- right?
On your second point above, no I don't assume you know NOTHING about science. I assume that you, YHAOS, schaef21, metmom, etc. do know a little bit, but that you all loathe, hate, despise and reject any and all science which you imagine conflicting with your religious convictions.
That's what so warps your understandings, and makes it mostly impossible to get through to you, isn't it?
I can be humble if proved wrong. All someone has to do is demonstrate that the RATE Project followed effective protocols for eliminating the effects of contamination and used laboratories with an established record of radiometric dating.
When you are basing a world shaking conclusion on a few atoms out of quintillions in a sample, you need to be careful.
But a qualified physicist who ignores protocols has enough training to know this will produce a false reading, and he is therefore guilty of deliberate fraud.
Bottom line: I asked you if you would be equally ardent in ripping into scientists for declaring God to not exist as you are in ripping into Christians for questioning the validity of one or another facet of evolution (your quote, “it seems you imagine I’m trying to let this scientist off the hook”). You declared there were no such scientists. I sent you a laundry list of quotes indicating that there were. As predicted, your response was a great billowing cloud of smoke.
You now don’t seem to feel that way. I asked what happened to change your mind. That is the substance of the back quote you chose to hang your response on.
Bada be – bada ba.
Your response has no relation to the back quote.
So.....feeling your oats again, huh BroJoe. Someone else has joined the fray on your side of the argument and you are once again emboldened to call me a liar and PWIMMA.
I’ve claimed that no one is a liar...notice I’ve left out the expletive. If you feel compelled to go back and read the things that I’ve written, you’ll see that I think evolutionists use circular reasoning and that since one of the two possible truths is excluded from consideration, science has in effect “handcuffed” itself. Since it can only posit “natural” answers for things that may not have natural answers they can (and do) come to some wrong conclusions.
This does not make them liars......it makes them mistaken and constricted by their paradigm.
****especially on matters they’ve spent their whole adult lives in study and research****
So have scientists who disagree with them....are they to be dismissed?
****But you just can’t cope when someone suggests that fact about your own team, can you?****
In my opinion, js1138 appears to be well-versed in this topic. His venom exceeded even yours (in your earlier posts and now it seems, once again since you’ve been emboldened by a soulmate.)
I’ve been coming on Free Republic almost daily for as long as I can remember.....before 9/11/2001....I know this because I remember going there for news on that day. I quit posting a long time ago because of people like js1138 seems to be (I don’t want to totally indict him based on one post). I don’t like invective used in an otherwise reasoned argument nor do I like the kind of attack that he made on a group of scientists that put forth an argument refuting his worldview.
He has leveled an accusation of fraud against the scientists on the RATE team. I can’t tell you or him whether their conclusions are correct but I can tell you this..... their work was not deliberately fraudulent.
These men all have submitted to the Lordship of Christ. Is it possible for one or two of them to get together and do something fraudulent? Absolutely.....we are fallen creatures and subject to the pressures of a sinful world.
What he is saying is that 10 men who have professed Christ conspired to put forth a deliberate fraud. One or two, maybe. Ten, no way. They are accountable to one another and more importantly, they are accountable to Christ.
I’ve not called your side liars (no matter how many times you say that I have). I don’t have anything more to say to js1138 based on his attitude and his invective...and in fact, a few posts back I told you that I was making my final points to you, so I shouldn’t even be writing this.
****Of course I have no expertise on this matter, but for what it’s worth, I suspect JS1138 is absolutely right here****
This can only be based on one thing and it’s certainly not an examination of the facts....since he agrees with you philosophically, you think he must be right on this. Empirically it has no basis.
****you ought to be ashamed of what you’re trying to do!****
I’ve been very open and above board with what I believe and why I believe it.....so what is it that I have to be ashamed about?
****And if I’m wrong, then you will provide us all with simple, direct and truthful answers, won’t you?****
When have I ever not done that? You may want to do a little tour through all of our posts and review what has taken place in our conversations....you’ll see that I’ve always done that.
In refutation of your previous post about dating methods....once again your own side refutes you:
Frederic B. Jueneman in an article in “Industrial Research and Development” called “Secular Catastrophism”:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that RADIODECAY RATES ARE NOT AS CONSTANT AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, NOR ARE THEY IMMUNE TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES. And THIS COULD MEAN THAT THE ATOMIC CLOCKS ARE RESET DURING SOME GLOBAL DISASTER, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but rather within the age and memory of man.
THE MECHANISM FOR RESETTING SUCH NUCLEAR CLOCKS IS NOT CLEAR, but knowledge has never really stood in our way in the quest for ignorance.
William D. Stansfield in the book “The Science of Evolution”:
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. AGE ESTIMATES ON A GIVEN GEOLOGICAL STRATUM BY DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS ARE OFTEN QUITE DIFFERENT (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE LONG-TERM RADIOLOGICAL “CLOCK”.
I gave you examples of different methods giving wildly different results on the exact same rock....how can this happen if the “blocking method” resets the clock?
Here’s how it happens.....assumptions are made...several of them. When anything is assumed, the answer can be nothing more than an educated guess subject to the limitations of the worldview of the person (or orthodoxy) doing the assuming.
It could be right, it could be wrong...and I might say that the same would hold true if it was my side doing the assuming.
I really am done this time....you and I have beat enough dead horses in this dialogue.
I’ll leave you with this:
ROMANS 1:19-20
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
ROMANS 1:25
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
HEBREWS 11:3
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
We are all without excuse. God has made it plain to all of us that He is the All-Powerful Creator. I’ll pray for you BroJoe....I hope that one day you’ll come to know the truth.
I suppose you had to go through a lot of trouble collecting these quotes -- hours and hours, right? And so you cannot be pleased when I just dismiss them out of hand, we presume?
Well, note again your key words above: "declarations badgering and denouncing Christians." That is the subject you want us to discuss, right? You personally, as a Christian, feel "badgered and denounced," by these quotes, right?
So you went back through nearly 1,800 postings and collected 15 quotes, stripped them from their contexts, and tell us now that these make you feel "badgered and denounced," as a Christian, right?
Now tell us, YHAOS, did you happen to notice something? Did you happen to notice that the word "Christian" does not appear in ANY of those 15 quotes (actually 14, since you duplicated one)?
Nowhere do these stripped-out-of-context quotes refer to "Christians." What they do refer to is ID-Creationism, which ID-Creationists go to endless pains to claim is NOT a Christian RELIGIOUS doctrine, but is rather just a SCIENTIFIC alternative to the theory of evolution.
So, dear YHAOS, since ID-Creationism IS NOT CHRISTIAN (by their own claims), IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THESE QUOTES REFER TO CHRISTIANS! So, as a mere Christian, YHAOS, you should in no way feel "badgered and denounced," don't you agree?
Indeed, at the very most, ID-Creationists represent only a small minority of all Christians. So to the degree that ID-Creationists really are just Christians pretending to be legitimate scientists, it cannot be said that criticising IDers equates to criticising "Christians."
Of course, the question here is: what constitutes a "lie," versus what is just a "mistake". I think people who know better, or definitely should know better are "liars." The rest of us can make a lot of legitimate mistakes, which are not necessarily lies, unless we refuse to acknowledge them when pointed out.
Now, just so we're clear, I take personal responsibility for the following quotes (and accept NO responsibility for ANY OF the others you listed). These are not the words of a scientist, but of a regular Joe, who "pounds sand" for a living, reads a lot of books, and just hates liars!:
”My statement above is literally true, and so you are a liar, despite your quotes, for attempting to deny what is obviously the case.”
”by definition, Creationism / ID-ism is a Big Lie, and its proponents Big Liars.”
”Your statement above is a lie on several levels, and I'm pretty certain, a deliberate lie, just because that's the kind of guys you are. Truth telling just doesn't come natural to you, does it?”
”. . . when I read the arguments of ID-Creationists, I get a sense of slimy, creepy & really disgusting attempts to pervert the truth for strictly religious reasons. I'll say again, I think it's a Big Lie . . .”
” . . . people who CLAIM they reject evolution on scientific grounds are LIARS, and sorry, but that's all there is to it.”
” I consider the anti-evolution arguments of Creationism or ID-ism to be a Big Lie, worthy of a Goebbels in it's flaunting of truth -- and so, necessarily it's proponents are Big Liars . . .”
Finally, let's look at a quote from the other side, which I think is not only 100% lie, but also "badgers and denounces" legitimate scientists.
"All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets."
You are misrepresenting the list you sent. Note that I take personal responsibility for about half those quotes (see previous post above). These quotes do NOT refer to Christians in general, they refer to ID-Creationists, who all claim to be nothing but legitimate SCIENTISTS!
So surely I am permitted to criticise ID-Creationists without being accused of being anti-Christian?!
Which quote was that?
I think I've answered your questions on this several times, so the problem is, you just don't want to understand, do you?
If you wanted to understand, then you might begin by realizing: it's inconceivable that laws requiring children be educated (privately or publically) will ever be revoked.
So I took betty boop's comment to refer to the usual conservative solution, which is vouchers and/or tax breaks. I did not suspect that might mean buying into yet another piece of your personal lunacies. ;-)
But of course, it WAS deliberately fraudulent, if they refused to submit their work for peer-review, or if the results could not be duplicated by other scientists doing the same research!
This is what's so distressing to me! Here we have what are apparently a pack of "sh*t faced liars," doing fraudulent "scientific" work, and at the same time claiming to be Christians! Schaef21, that's an abomination!
You should take personal responsibility for telling those folks to straighten up and fly right. If it's real science, then submit it for peer-review and replication. Otherwise, go home and do something else!
schaef21: "This can only be based on one thing and it’s certainly not an examination of the facts....since he agrees with you philosophically, you think he must be right on this. Empirically it has no basis."
It's based on the following:
Where are the peer-reviews?
Where are the independent labs doing the same research and achieving the same results?
If there are none, it likely means these people are ashamed of their work and know that it's fraudulent.
Sorry, but I am not impressed with your excuses -- because there are many legitimate controversies in science, where some scientists spend years developing an experiment just to prove their colleagues wrong.
So I am just not going to believe that if these folks of yours have legitimate results to report, that someone somewhere would not be willing to peer-review and replicate it.
I beg to differ with you on this. Several members of the RATE team have the credentials to know that what they did is fraudulent. Their proposals were widely reviewed and rejected even before they began. An honest researcher would clear up challenges to methodology before starting a research project.
Further evidence of dishonesty: The RATE project found, by its own definitions and methods, evidence for more than 500 million years of radioactive decay. That’s considerably less than 4.5 billion years, but where is the proclamation from Answers in Genesis that the earth is at least 500 million years old.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/rate-ri.htm
"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that RADIODECAY RATES ARE NOT AS CONSTANT AS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, NOR ARE THEY IMMUNE TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES. And THIS COULD MEAN THAT THE ATOMIC CLOCKS ARE RESET DURING SOME GLOBAL DISASTER, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but rather within the age and memory of man.
"THE MECHANISM FOR RESETTING SUCH NUCLEAR CLOCKS IS NOT CLEAR,"
Actually if, as he claims, decay rates are not constant, then the earth could just as easily be 45 billion years old as 4.5 billion. In other words, the earth might then just as well be older than we think!
But of course there's no evidence that atomic decay rates ever vary, except under certain specific conditions. And we have discussed at length now problems of contamination and blocking temperatures.
By the way, on that subject, blocking temperatures are not going to be identical for every radiometric material. So if a rock is heated underground to melting point, and then slowly cools, it will reach the blocking temperatures of different radiometric materials (thus resetting their atomic clocks) at different times.
Keep in mind, the "age" we can determine of any rock is only the time lapsed since its blocking temperatures were reached.
And why, anyway, should we be terribly concerned about dating accuracy within some small percent? What we're really looking for here is a general idea of how and when the earth developed. Did it happen 4.5 billion years ago, or 450 million, or 45 million, or 4.5 million, or 450,000 or 45,000 or is it even younger than that?
All our scientific evidence points to the older numbers.
Look schaef21, I'm no scientist nor theologian, but there seems to me a hugely obvious answer to this whole quandary, and this is it, from your Young Earth perspective: God created the world just as the Bible tells us, but He did it in such a way as to fool our materialist scientists into believing the world is much older, and everything came about naturally, i.e., through evolution.
Why God would ever do such a thing is not for us to ask, but it sure seems to me that would solve your problem, wouldn't it? ;-)
Don’t concern yourself for me.
”And so you cannot be pleased when I just dismiss them out of hand, we presume?”
I didn’t think you would do anything else with them. You can’t deal with them. Otherwise you would have done so in your last posts. This is your second bite at the apple, and you’re doing no better than the first time.
”You personally, as a Christian, feel "badgered and denounced," by these quotes, right?”
Huh-oh. When they personalize it, there’s really going to be a lot of smoke.
”So you went back through nearly 1,800 postings”
You counted them (voice rising an octave and a half of incredulity). You are desperate.
”Nowhere do these stripped-out-of-context quotes refer to "Christians."”
No, they refer to despairing fugitives from Move On dot Org. You really should quit pounding sand, and go work for FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). You would fit right in.
”So to the degree that ID-Creationists really are just Christians pretending to be legitimate scientists, it cannot be said that criticising IDers equates to criticising "Christians."”
Are you sure you didn’t work for the Clinton Administration? Or maybe Nancy Pelosi’s office?
Now, you’ve gone the long way around the block to do just what I said you would do; blow a whole lot of smoke. You just can’t help yourself can you? Without fail, you have to go and step in that pit where the outhouse used to be.
Are you sure you havn’t worked for a Philadelphia lawyer?
”So surely I am permitted to criticise ID-Creationists . . . ”
You’re permitted to do whatever the forum rules allow. There’s nothing in there about intellectual honesty.
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.