How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[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.

[Mr. Silverback]

A monopoly on interpreting the Bible you don’t have.

That's true, Yoda. Of course, I never made that claim or acted as if that claim were true, so 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?

[CottShop]

you’ll find several here: http://www.arn.org/mm/mb_ic.htm

[NicknamedBob]

"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."

It is at this point that you slip off the path.

Scientists do not think that their belief system is provable. They think it is discoverable. And they are perfectly willing to modify their beliefs as further evidence materializes.

They are not the hide-bound stubborn jackasses you may think they are. They just like saying "prove it!", even to each other.

[Dog Gone]

The fundamental problem with all these threads is that the two sides can’t even agree on the ground rules for the debate.

Those arguing from the science side begin from the premise that science can’t be science if it jumps to easy explanations of supernatural causes. Which is true. If science accepts that the apple falls to the ground because it’s a miracle, there’s no reason to look any further.

Those with religious beliefs of supernatural causes see this as an attack on religion and faith, (not that any are claiming that gravity is a specific miracle that I have seen).

The “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” faction is never going to accept any science that challenges that. Nor are the scientists going to accept miracles as a scientific explanation.

It’s as if the two sides don’t even speak the same language, so reaching common ground is hard, if not impossible, to achieve.

[metmom]

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?

Nobody can be perfectly objective. Scientists would do well to acknowledge that instead of bragging about how they're trained in objectivity.

The philosophies guiding science have changed since Newton's day. He had no problem with establishing the scientific method while all the while believing in creation and that the Creator created an orderly universe capable of being systematically studied.

But to demand methodical naturalism as the baseline and insist that it is philosophically neutral is intellectually dishonest. Any presupposition of the supernatural by scientists is biased and a matter of preference because science can make no determination about the supernatural. So much for objectivity.

[Mr. Silverback]

What I described in my previous post was profession through actions, not the specific words "I follow the religion of scientism."

It's as if someone stood up and said, "Jesus was born of a virgin, ministered, was tried, crucified and rose again, and salvation through him is the only hope for humanity and we will all be better off if everyone can see that" and you said, "Well, he didn't say he's a Christian."

These folks have a path that they believe is the only hope for the human race and they believe all other views should be eliminated. That's not only a religion, that's way more hardcore than most religions.

Let's put aside the idea of religion, though. Do you really have any doubt that these particular individuals ascribe to the idea that "natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations?"

[DevNet]

This Behe?

“First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.”

“Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.”

[RightWingNilla]

If you tell me human evolutionist have that, then I I'll say prove it! They observe different types of old bones that's it, they have not conducted experimentation that proves truth of the hypothesis

Prove OJ killed his wife and Ron Goldman.

[DevNet]

And you can find multiple rebuttals for everything on that page. That you post this information knowing that it is most likely false makes one wonder exactly what your motives are.

[RightWingNilla]

I had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch. It was really delicious.

[Mr. Silverback]

To be frank, the contingent that has left has mostly been a bunch of arrogant asses who can’t behave themselves around people who disagree with them.

[tacticalogic]

So you judged their actions, and assigned their religious beliefs based on your religious beliefs.

What't the practical difference between "scientism" and "heretics"?

[NicknamedBob]

"Any presupposition of the supernatural by scientists is biased and a matter of preference because science can make no determination about the supernatural. So much for objectivity."

Just because we know what we don't know doesn't mean we know what we can't know.

[CottShop]

Something as 'simple' as cutting yourself is incredibly complex biologically- how many millions of years did it take to evolve all these factors involved in clotting?

What exactly happens when we cut ourselves?

1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.

2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.

3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.

4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.

5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.

6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.

7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.

8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.

9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.

10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.

11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)

11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.

12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.

13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)

14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.

15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.

16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot. [LINK]

Yet more fingerprints of an Intelligence at work behind the scenes. When given enough of htese fingerprints as evidence, and hwen it's shown that nature couldn't be the answer, it comes a time hwen it's simply not reasonable to keep arguing that 'nature could have done it' (Despite a compelte lack of evidnece to support that claim, and worse yet, with evidence that strongly indicates it couldn't have, mounting up against the claim) 'if given enough time'

This is just one 'small' example, and incredibly, there are many factors invovled in just this one 'small' example, somethign we take for granted, but when examined, is foudn to be incredibly compelx- species are made up of many many such systems, all interdependent upon other systems and subsystems in order to function right, and yet we have a complete lack of evidence these systems 'could have' arisen naturally? Does it not bother you just how reliant upon ASSUMPTIONS and unsupported claims Macroevolution really is? Is it not important to you to take a critical OBJECTIVE look at hte claims made by macroevos? Just asking.

[SisterK]

And oyu make a good case for the anally obsessive word nazis- so IO guess we’re even

You funny

[CottShop]

No sir- YOU post the rebuttals, and then I’ll post hte Re-Rebuttals- For you to claim what was posted was false shows that you’ve NOT investigated this issue very carefully, and apparently have no desire to look OBJECTIVELY at hte situation. Behe wrote his Rebuttal to Miller after the trial since he was NOT afforded the common descency to Rebuttal him durign hte trial- You’ll find his Rebuttal online, and IF you care to look at it OBJECTIVELY and without bias, you’ll HAVE to cede that Behe has a point which can’t be refuted- infact He points out just how deceitful Miller was during his ‘expert testimony’ durign that trial-

[Jaime2099]

"Though unqualified to do so, you pass judgment on a scientific theory -- evolution -- on grounds that it does not match your theological beliefs."

I never said that, you made that up. I pass judgment because Human Evolution is not a sound science that proves itself by using the scientific method.

"But then you claim your theological beliefs are "scientific,""

Are you mistaking me for someone else? What the heck are you talking about, I never said that.

"But there's nothing scientific about "intelligent design," it explains nothing scientifically, predicts nothing and is COMPLETELY unprovable."

These words do nothing but prove my point about Human Evolution. The whole point of the religion is to discredit creationism not execute proper science. There is no sound scientific fact that disproves creationism (including Human Evolution).

"Finally, for what it's worth, let me repeat that I agree with the THEOLOGICAL statement that God created the heavens"

And the earth as well. It's worth very much and I'm glad you feel that way, I too feel the same way as you in this regard.

"But I think His methods include science and the processes of evolution."

I agree He uses science, but in regard to the evolution of humans, I wholeheartedly disagree.

"Indeed, He left us so much evidence of that, it's clear He wants us to admire his scientific handiwork. Praise God!"

I admire His work as often as I can: the waves, the mountains, the trees, the rain, the sunset and sunrise, all masterpieces of a wonderful Creator. But old bones of unknown and unproven origins will never prove Human Evolution's existence using science.... never.

[NicknamedBob]

So if God had all these functions working neatly, properly, and correctly in an ape, why wouldn’t He simply lift the blueprint for them, make the modifications necessary, and from this marvelous and proven template, make Man?

[CottShop]

[[And you can find multiple rebuttals for everything on that page. That you post this information knowing that it is most likely false makes one wonder exactly what your motives are.]]

And you can find manty Re-Rebuttals for every ‘rebuttal’ that has been posted, and hte fact that you post your claim knowing full well this is the case shows that you prefer bias and subjective opinions over objective evidneces which Behe and others have made public- it makes one not ownder about your motives, but only goes to reinforce the fact that gagain, you don’t really care abotu objective facts- You only care that people ‘stick it to’ those they dissagree with- regardless of how factual their
rebuttals’ really are!

[Coyoteman]

For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far....

Are you suggesting that all the data I have posted over the years amounts to "no case" and consists of "piles and piles of rant" and "debating tricks?"

Is this really what you are claiming?