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 ...
You have no factual evidence in support of what you said and your religion tells you not to spread rumors and something about not being a false witness.
You do have to admit that quite do believe the earth to be less than 10k years old.
There is reality that science can neither touch nor see, but is real nevertheless.
Just because it is not subject to *scientific* analysis does not mean that it is not real. Or true.
Labeling everything that does not fit in your little box as mythology, superstition, etc, demonstrates a narrow-mindedness unworthy of those who claim the title of scientist.
Declaring that nothing outside the box in which one operates is not real, and yet ridiculing those who see and believe the greater reality which surrounds them, is unbelievably arrogant.
I have one additional reply however to both your and js1138's posts. Namely, that we have been down this road many times before.
The issue goes to how we personally know what we know and how certain we are that we know it.
For some, their most certain knowledge derives from sensory perception and reasoning.
And for others (I am one) - their most certain knowledge derives in the Spirit, the revelations of God. Thus I trust what God says no matter what my physical senses are saying and whether it seems "logical" to me.
And of course there are many shades of gray between those two extremes.
Bottom line, I cannot meld into you so that you can understand what I know to be Truth. The best I can do is to describe it as plainly as possible.
While the present day definition of science excludes the supernatural, (or extra-natural, if you will) thereby rendering the person speaking as a scientist unqualified to speak on those subjects, the theists who believe in both the natural and supernatural are qualified to speak on both as they have not excluded the natural from their field of study.
"Turkana Boy had a cranial capacity of about 880cc, although if he would have lived to adulthood, it could have been between 900-1000cc. The average cranial capacity of a modern human is approximately 1300cc. As a result, evolutionary scientists point to the smaller brain size as evidence of a more primitive and less intelligent creature on its way to becoming a fully intelligent modern human. However, as with cranial features, there is an enormous degree of variation in brain size in modern humans....
For example, Anatole France won the 1921 Nobel Prize for literature. When he died at the age of 80, France’s cranial capacity measured in at 933 cc.10 This is virtually the same size as Turkana Boy. There is also the story of Daniel Lyon whose cranial capacity measured only 624 cc.10 Lyon could read, write, and worked for the Pennsylvania Railway Terminal for twenty years at the end of the nineteenth century. He had no mental or physical abnormalities.... [LINK]
15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:
"What the fossil record shows in reality, even granted the evolutionary ‘dating’ methods, is that this clear-cut progression exists only in the minds of evolutionary popularists. Marvin Lubenow, in his book Bones of Contention (right), shows that the various alleged ‘ape-men’ do not form a smooth sequence in evolutionary ‘ages’, but overlap considerably. For example, the time-span of Homo sapiens fossils contains the time-span of the fossils of Homo erectus, supposedly our ancestor. Also, when the various fossils are analysed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic.
The morphology overlaps too—the Journal of Creation paper by creationist John Woodmorappe, titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms concludes from the analysis of a number of characteristics that Homo ergaster, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis as well as H. heidelbergensis , were most likely ‘racial’ variants of modern man, while H. habilis and another specimen called H. rudolfensis were just types of australopithecines. In fact, H. habilis is now regarded as an invalid name, probably caused by assigning fragments of australopithecines and H. erectus fossils into this ‘taxonomic wastebin’." [LINK]
"Most creationists conclude that H. Heidelbergensis (like Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis) are merely variants of modern man. The physical features do not offer significant proof of being far removed from modern humans. In fact, recent research shows that their ear structures were very similar to modern humans', and were well within the range for human hearing" [LINK]
"Ann Gibbons wrote in Science2 the next day about this find. She noted that the blurring of distinctions between H. habilis and H. erectus makes ripples with another famous fossil, too: Homo ergaster:
The skull also shows features that had previously been seen only in Asian fossils of H. erectus, such as a keeling (or ridge) on its frontal and parietal bones. These traits had persuaded a growing number of researchers in recent years to split the fossils of H. erectus into two species, with H. erectus from Asia and H. ergaster from Africa. But the skull's mix of traits shows H. erectus cannot be “easily divided between two species from Africa and Asia,” says Spoor. Kimbel and Arizona State graduate student Claire Terhune reached a similar conclusion after studying the temporal bones of 15 H. erectus skulls, in a paper published in the July issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.
Others who have championed H. ergaster are taking note. “The new cranium blurs the distinction between H. erectus and H. ergaster,” says Wood. “I am not willing to sell my shares in H. ergaster just yet, but I am not relying on them for my retirement!” [LINK]
Well, that laid to rest the accusation on your part that I’m spreading false rumors about you. You’ve made your position fairly clear on this thread.
You accused me of being one of at least two other users. How has that been laid to rest?
In truth, Dear Sister, do you ever find yourself in a situation where that conflict occurs? I don't...
There are some on these threads that do subscribe to the <10,000 year old earth. Whether that is many, I do not know.
Are you spreading false rumors about people by assuming that?
For the record, I do not know the opinion of even my closest friend concerning the age of the earth. It simply never came up.
Same with my children. I know that they believe that God created the world in pretty much the order that is stated in Genesis and animals did not evolve from a common ancestor, and that man did not evolve from apes, but we never discussed the age of the earth either.
The whole age of the earth thing is just another in a long line of attempts to discredit religion, just like the flat earth myth. If doubt can be cast on the account given in Scripture, it opens the door for casting doubt on the whole rest of the Bible. If one can make the creation account or the Flood to be a lie, then they can try to make out the whole Bible as a lie.
Science is being used as a weapon to bludgeon Christians and Christianity with and those who claim to be true scientists would do well to demand that it be stopped and stop giving a bad name to science instead of letting it get hijacked by the likes of Dawkins et al.
Brooking No Debate: Scientism, Crowbars, and Bats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761605/posts
Nope. Besides, others have noticed the similarities as well and made the same coments.
Are you going to hound them across threads with the same questions?
Which led Tipler to ask Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
A quick Google on the response to both of the above linked items shows how toxic the atmosphere has become in America for "freedom of inquiry" in the sciences as Ben Stein called it.
Seems to me that all conservatives would agree that freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are crucial to our way of life.
You made your claim with just a very very few posts to work with then they followed your lead.
Please stop implying that any actual research went into your claim as their was a distressing lack of researchable material available when you made your original claim.
God could have taken them directly to the promised land, but the stop there with the Red Sea ahead and the Egyptians closing in was for their benefit.
Those who relied on sensory perception and reasoning were panicky. Those who relied on God were not.
Ditto for Caleb, David, Daniel, etc.
So is GGG trying to discredit religion?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2159148/posts
It really is sad that you define science as anti-christian and anyone who doesn’t agree with you as anti-christian.
Exactly.. Spiritual Relativity.. trumping General or even Special relativity..
Instead of scolding bray,you might be well advised to closet yourself with some of your colleagues and council them over measures you can take to get your stories straight. It seems that not all of the Science Community joins you in such a categorical disconnection of Origins, particularly the Origin of Life, from the Theory of Evolution (See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01, a Berkeley University website entitled “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under the rubric “evolution 101” and described as “your one-stop source for information on evolution.”).
Quoting from the website: “. . . within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.” I think that's exactly right, and very well put.
Interestingly enough, a number of other universities list the Berkeley website as a recommended resource on their own Evolution websites. Perhaps you should inform them all of the embarrassment they are causing you and others, and of the need to rewrite their Origins material with the view to put a considerably greater distance between the Theory of Evolution and the issue of the Origins of Life. Oh, wait . . . Too late. The cat is out of the bag.
As with most propagandist efforts, you’ve forgotten the last moment and the next moment when framing your argument for the present moment. Whatever the other outcomes of their conflicting claims, Scientists and other academics have given away the fact that speculation on the origin of life is inevitably infused and informed by the Theory of Evolution.
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.