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.

[DevNet]

I am sorry but programming isn’t supernatural.

[Coyoteman]

What data? The science I have posted!

I've seen lists of facts and pings to outside sources. But you have never, ever told me what you think Darwin's theory is, or why you feel it is correct.

OK, I see where this is going.

I post good solid science here for years and you casually dismiss as just "lists of facts and pings to outside sources."

I regret to have to tell you this, but you wouldn't know real science if it bit you just abaft of the acetabulum. And you wouldn't know what to do with it if it did.

You're a disgrace to the post Enlightenment era, but I think you've found your niche. Enjoy it, but don't confuse what you do with science.

[tacticalogic]

Philosophy is every bit as dependent on logic and reason as science is. It just has a different field of inquiry.

If that were entirely true, there wouldn't be any debate, because there wouldn't be any contention over who's "field of inquiry" is being intruded on.

[Finny]

It’s kinda like the cost of believing that the Earth is not flat, and that it goes around the sun.

Very well said!

It's enough for me to know that Judeo-Christianity holds the key to human survival any place, anytime. When dealing with people psychology, any plan for that that works as well as Judeo-Christianity has performed over the past 2,000 years, all considered -- well, that alone is proof of God. As far as I'm concerned, our spiritual world is as dog-eat-dog as the natural world, and the root of Darwinism in the natural world is: Adapt or perish.

Human civilization on this planet shows pretty clearly that God's law is what our spirits and values must adapt to in order to thrive and survive. There's a parallel with the way people treat each other and live together in societies. Peoples adapt to the law of God, or live in strife until they perish.

[CottShop]

[[Enjoy it, but don’t confuse what you do with science.]]

Why not? You do! I’veseen you ‘list of’ “Solid Science” and quite frankly, there is nothing ‘solid’ about the claims and wild assumptions you point to- Don’t try to pretend they are anythign but, because We’ve investigated them and found them severely wanting for substance and actual scientific evidence- You can keep on with your ‘nose i nthe air’ insults, but it doesn’t do anythign to prop up the assumptions based science you link to

[Gumlegs]

The post of mine which has you so confused was in answer to this post by betty boop:

That, my dear, would be a fool's errand. 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....

Why should the "opposition" (which includes me) argue your (non-existent) case for you?

Do it yourself!

488 posted on Monday, January 05, 2009 7:39:25 PM by betty boop

In case you’re wondering what post of mine I’m now referring to, it’s this one:

It's been done and it's had no effect whatever.

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.

Clear so far?

The link goes to the results of a poster search. The poster is Ichneumon. He posts on a variety of topics, but he’s particularly good on evolution. He’s not terribly polite, but then, this is FR.

If you keep scrolling down his long list of posts, you’ll find many, many posts on many, many threads on many, many topics. Many of those topics touch on the Theory of Evolution. The posts include many, many links.

It is in these links in the posts on many threads covering many topics in which you will find the information for which you asked. Collectively, these are just a small part of the case for the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution as presented right here on FR.

Got it? There is no one thread. The information is in many, many threads, usually on a specific issue.

[NicknamedBob]

"Well of course "all life is related." But when someone says to a NeoDarwinist, "Life comes only from life," probably he will be ridiculed. For the typical NeoDarwinist, it is "necessary" that life be the "emergent" property of matter."

I don't know what a NeoDarwinist is, and please don't explain it. I don't care what it is, or what you think it is. That is an irrelevancy.

I know what Darwin was. He was a scientist, and a researcher.

I know what I am. I am a philosopher.

If someone tells me, "Life comes only from life," I equate that with saying "A is equal to A". Regardless of its truth or untruth, it leads nowhere.

It does not, for example, answer the question, "Where does life come from?"

For if you say, "Life comes only from life," then you haven't answered the question.

You are correct in saying that Darwin did not address this question. We would all be wiser to avoid it also.

However, life did have to come from somewhere. Even if you believe in Panspermia, that supposed extraterrestrial source of life had to have an origin also.

We don't know how, we don't know where. We don't know how long it took. But it only had to happen once.

Once it happened, life begat life. The rest is history ... or biology ... or archeology.

[Revolting cat!]

Philosophy is every bit as dependent on logic and reason as science is.

And all these debates have been philosophical in their essence, me thinks, with neither side recognizing their nature. I suspect that Darwin, or anyone of his age, schooled in the contemptible to our generations "liberal arts" would recognize that.

The "scientists" of today, as exemplified by many here can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" and "its" and "it's", while the Latin names for your posterior roll from their tongues like a McDonald's scientifically developed artificial low everything-bad-for-you ice cream.

Let them stick to developing life saving synthetic sweeteners and leave the questions of Life to theologians and philosophers.

[CottShop]

[[In case you’re wondering what post of mine I’m now referring to, it’s this one]]

No, I was wondering what thread in the link you provided was the right thread- it just led to a list of quite a few threads- wasn’t sure what thread you meant- that’s all- You link goes to a huge list of threads

[[The link goes to the results of a poster search. The poster is Ichneumon. He posts on a variety of topics, but he’s particularly good on evolution. He’s not terribly polite, but then, this is FR.]]

You didn’t mention we had to search for Ichneumon- Woops- My mistake- I thought it was a huge list of many different posters- I see now it’s all Icvhy’s posts- sorry for the confusion on my part- I thoguht your link went to a general forum site with different posters-

Just a side note- I’ve rwad Ichy’s threads and they are just as full of assumptions and unsupported claism as any I’ve seen here- He’s been called on this fact many times, and failed to respond with anythign but insults and more unsupported claims- nothign new under the sun.

[[Collectively, these are just a small part of the case for the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution as presented right here on FR.]]

As I’ve said, No they’re not, I’ve read a great many of Icchy’s posts, and as mentioned, they rely HEAVILY on assumptions and claims made that are NOT scientifically supported- I’ve also been to the site He’s on, and read a great many there as well, and it’s ALL the SAME old tired out claims- I’ve responded to him several times and got nothign but more of the same unsupported claims to ‘back up” his previous claims-

A CRITICAL and OBJECTIVE look at the evidences he presents wil lreveal this fact to anyone.

[metmom]

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.

This is where the interpretation of the evidence comes in. Darwinists see it as evidence of common descent. Creationists see it as evidence of common deign.

It only stands to reason that creatures sharing the same environment and food would be created using the same materials in much the same patterns.

[valkyry1]

OK, I see where this is going.

No where its going is you do that you does that with everything you post, that way you are off the hook in the inevitable event some of it turns out wrong false or fraudulent. 

[CottShop]

I don’t have time to go through his posts tonight, but I’ll tackle it tomorrow- not that you’ll be itnerested- but I’ll expose, once again, how riddled with ASSUMPTIONS and claims that are not supported by the actual evidence his claims are, as well as remind you that he’s making these claims while ignoring the biological impossibilities and hte mathematical impossibilities ofMacroevo- again, not that you’ll even cede to any of hte facts

[Gumlegs]

Let's see ... there's a poster who understands and is conversant with the latest science as presented in the journals that cover it ...

... versus a poster who has demonstrated slovenly thought, contempt for accuracy, and a distinct lack of reading ability. (I quote from your last post to me, "You didn't mention we had to search for Ichneumon." I didn't mention it because you didn't have to. That was the point of the link. Or didn't you notice?)

I'll go with the first one.

By the way, your typing is greatly improved. Who's doing it for you?

[metmom]

But it does mean that whatever it is you're doing it with isn't science.

So what?

Does everything we do have to be science?

[CottShop]

[[versus a poster who has demonstrated slovenly thought, contempt for accuracy, and a distinct lack of reading ability.]]

Swell- bust out hte insults- ‘contempt for accuracy’? BS- you show me where I have ‘contempt for accuracy’ infact I DEMAND accuracy- somethign that is in short demand aroudn the campfires of Macroevolution

[[I didn’t mention it because you didn’t have to. That was the point of the link. Or didn’t you notice?)]]

I made it clear I didn’t- Now who’s not paying attention? Shall I accuse you now of slovenly htought?

[[By the way, your typing is greatly improved. Who’s doing it for you?]]

tee hee hee hardy har har- Thought I was conversing with a grown up- apparently not

[tacticalogic]

Does everything we do have to be science?

Of course not. Nor does everything have to be "religion".

[valkyry1]

But it does mean that whatever it is you're doing it with isn't science.

That goes for the majority of mainstream science nowdays 

[tacticalogic]

That goes for the majority of mainstream science nowdays.

Drive by.

[NicknamedBob]

" This is where the interpretation of the evidence comes in. Darwinists see it as evidence of common descent. Creationists see it as evidence of common deign."

One design; common descent.

This is called Occam's razor. The simplest hypothesis is assumed to be the correct one.

The reason the simplest hypothesis is assumed to be the correct one is that more complicated hypotheses have more opportunity to run into a mode of failure. In a Rube Goldberg contraption, what happens if the cat wakes up before the spoon taps it?

Life only has to begin, and find a niche where it can survive. Then it will go forth and replenish the land.

You still need a Creator, but you don't have to stick Him in a sweat-shop cranking out almost-duplicates for eons.

He can push the button and take the rest of the day off.

[CottShop]

[[Let’s see ... there’s a poster who understands and is conversant with the latest science as presented in the journals that cover it ...]]

Translation= A poster who has the same a priori assumptions as the scientists that he cites, and who ALSO ignores the impossibilites associated with Macroevoltuion Vs. Someone who consistently exposes this FACT and provides evdience on a daily basis that exposes the fallicies of the claims made by those same said scientists

I’m betting $100 you’ll go with the first one because he posts long winded threads that use words too big for most people to understand without effort, and which make his posts ‘look official’ because they carry the estemed title of ‘science’- despite hte FACT that this same said sciecne lacks ANY evidence to back it up and worse yet, the evidence which does exist refutes the assumptive driven claims being made in said scientific articles! But no worries- they have ‘big words’- tyhat’s all that matters apparently