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 ...
Here's a link to just a small part of the case that's already been presented right here on FR.
You'll have to go through several years of posts, but you'll find a case composed of facts, evidence, and links to professional, scientific journals if you keep at it.
I apologize for the posts on other subjects; I know of no way of filtering them out using FR's search function.
Happy reading.
Easy one. It's the same tactic used by the evos when they try to link creationists and IDers to islam, the Taliban, Nazis, the Inquistion, etc.
That'll help you understand it better since evos are so adept at making those comparisons.
[[Precisely how does one test for God]]
IF you’ve been following any of these type threads, then you should know the answer to that- You test for fingerprints- unmistakable evidences- and hwen you accumulate enough of them to show that it is something that is beyond the capabilities of Nature and biology, and hwen you present enough reasonable evidneces that show the actual fingerprints present- and yes, they are present, then you have a strong enough case- just as you woukld in ANY forensic investigation
[[and how does one factor in his influence into equations and formula?]]
Who says you have to? When hte evidnec e becomes overwhelming, the case is made regardless of equations and formula. When the evidence mounts showing that 1000 clay pots couldn’t have created themselves, and that an intelligence was needed- the case is made- period. One need NOT identify the intelligence- all one has to do is show that an intelligence was needed to cause the complexities we see. Secularists are attempting to make the case that nature is the ‘intelligence’ behind the causations, but their little god just isn’t big enough I’nm afraid! It fails on so many fronts it isn’t even funny.
You do know that he let the leviathan drown, don’t you?
What presuppositions do you submit scientists make, and what presuppostions do you submit they should be replaced with?
The philosophies that the scientists adhere to color their analysis and make it impossible to be entirely objective.
Exactly what philosophies are those, and what exactly what philosophies should they be required to assume in order to insure that they are perfectly objective?
Define unmistakable evidences please.
Your link goes to a selection of threads- which thread is it in? And scientific journals discussing what? I’ve read many scientific journals on Macroevolution, and just because it holds the title ‘scientific’ doesn’t mean it presents sound and logical science, nor does it give it any more weight simply because it uses that title- MOST of the articles and works presented are RIFE with assumptions, and extremelyt lean on actual facts and evidence- but again- what subject are you pointing to that was presented on FR?
Ah. A race to the bottom.
That'll help you understand it better since evos are so adept at making those comparisons.
Help me understand why you make those arguments to people who have not and would not make the same arguments about religion.
I’m not *bashing* science for not taking the supernatural into account.
Scientists take the supernatural into account when they decide on methodical naturalism. They take it into account when they make assumptions about it before they even proceed with the experiments. By deciding beforehand that there is no supernatural influence, they’ve made an assumption about it and are taking it into account.
How can truth enter into it? You have people in the scientific world saying that truth is not a part of science and then you whine about truth not mattering.
The problem arises when scientists, as scientists, speak on the validity of reality that they are not qualified to speak on.
Biologically impossible feats that couldn’t exist without forethought and full instant assembly, IC, systems interdependent upon each other in order to even survive- one not beign able to survive without hte other- there are plenty of just such evidences all the way up from single cells to completed species, and hte further science looks, the deeper they go down into the molecular levels, the more they are starting to see IC systems- all of which they simply wave their hand at claiming it ‘could have happened’ ‘given enough time’ (Despite the fact that it’s both biologically impossible, and, that we have NO such evidence that it did arise naturalistically, AND, Despite the fact that all attempts to recreate these marvelously assembled systems and leaps beyond species KINDS has compeltely failed.)
So tell me, how do we ‘test for the claims’ made by Macroevo scientists? They make MANY claims about past events, but have not a shred of evidence to back their claism up, and infact, the actual scientific FACTS are in direct opposition- so tell me, how do we test for those claims since you’re the one imposing a lopsided requirement-
The evidence is mounting showing the fingerprints of an intelligence, but those clinging to Darwinism have nothign but assumptions that simply don’t fit the evidences
Baghdad Bob is that you?
Well, perhaps I was wrong. If the case for evolution is non-existent, there should be even less material to have to study to support it.
But I thought this whole brouhaha started when dinosaur bones, or the fossils of them, started showing up in rock layers in Europe and around the world.
That indicates to me that the entire world is the evidence case to support the contention that life has been around a long time on this planet.
Then the discovery that all life has a similar pattern of knitted fabric called DNA proves in a simple instant that all life is related.
It really wasn't a great leap of logic that led Darwin to conclude that animals produced more animals until the whole Earth was covered with them, grazing in every available niche of ecology into which they could squeeze, and some of them necessarily being squeezed out.
What his stroke of genius was, was the realization of the force that drove them to differ, and to succeed or fail on the basis of that difference.
Examples of “Biologically impossible feats that couldn’t exist without forethought and full instant assembly, IC, systems interdependent upon each other in order to even survive” please.
What his stroke of genius was, was the realization of the force that drove them to differ, and to succeed or fail on the basis of that difference.
Reading some of the arguments against evolution that seem to be mostly directed at Darwin personally, there seems to be an assumption that if Darwin hadn't posited the theory of evolution, no one ever would have.
Yes, they do, as I described in my earlier post. They are as surely members of the religion of Scientism as a man who stands in the town square and preaches salvation through Jesus Christ alone is surely a Christian...or pretending to be one so hard that he would be a fool to object if someone called him a Christian.
If I did everything I do now, and someone described me as a Christian, I would have no grounds to object, even if I had never told them I was a Christian. Though I'm far from perfect, I have gone out of my way to practice Christian tenets.
As for the "abuse" of making it a religion, every religion believes it has saving knowledge for humanity. So do these folks...and they believe their's is the one true path. Sounds like a religion to me.
That's simply in response to the demand from the evos that creationists/IDers provide *scientific evidence* to support their side.
They are challenged that there is no proof (evidence) and challenged to provide something a scientist would accept. And when they do, what happens? Just what happened in this post.
The sneer that we think our belief system is in someway provable is unjustified because there are many evos here on this forum who think that evolution has been proved to the point of considering it able to be called a fact.
Scientists themselves think that their belief system is somehow provable, otherwise they wouldn't keep referring to the *mountains of evidence* to back up their claims. They also make allusions to logical points and supposed scientific studies, and not all scientific studies meet the rigor they are supposed to, even if they do not contain outright fraud.
There is no reference to anyone professing a belief in "Scientism". Are you professing it for them, or are you submitting that Colson has and that he has the authority to do so?
Behe gave them in the trial- Miller deceitfully took JUST the REDUCIBLE aspects of the IC systems Behe presented and claimed that because these particular REDUCIBLE elements ‘could have’ arisen (Despite a complete lack of evidence to prove that they infact did exist or arise), then the whole system (INCLUDING the IC elements) was therefore ‘reducible- this was a deceitful biased bit of assinine argument, and the judge fell for it- Behe later fully explained that his examples were STILL Irreducible because the IRREDUCIBLE parts of the whole system could NOT have arisen naturally
There are other examples which you’ll find by doing a little research.
That's true, Yoda. Of course, I never made that claim or acted as if that claim were trueso I'm wonderin why you thought you had to inform me I lack a monopoly I never thought I had.
And if I'd like to discuss differing interpretations of the Bible with a fellow Christian, why would it be your place to object to that?
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.