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.

[js1138]

Even with that, there is no consistency in the recording of the temperature data over the years used to determine whether the planet is warming or not.

You should know enough about weather to know the difference between weather and climate. Five or ten years of data are not enough to prove or disprove climate change.

The core of the climate change story is found in the behavior of carbon dioxide. It does not predict the year or even the decade when climate change will be irreversibly accepted, but it does determine the heat economy of the planet.

[DevNet]

“Creationists see it as evidence of common deign. “

If we are designed by a perfect being why is the design so imperfect?

[Gumlegs]

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[.]

Now you've gone and done it; I've completely exhausted my supply of [sic]s.

Anyway, don't bother your pretty little head. Just tell me about "hte mathematical impossibilities." of evolution.

Start with an unknown atmosphere ...
in an unknown climate...
containing unknown chemicals ...
in unknown combinations ...
and unknown proportions ...
and over an unknown period of time...
under unknown and changing conditions ...
in an unknown number of generations...
demonstrate what's impossible.

Please show your work.

[Gumlegs]

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 You lose.

[DevNet]

“because he posts long winded threads that use words too big for most people to understand without effort”

Because learning is BAD.

[metmom]

Maybe, maybe not. Don’t forget that 100 years ago was 1908.

Not exactly the Dark Ages.

Besides, that doesn’t address the miracles in healing the the medical community sees regularly. Or people surviving accidents that no reasonable human could be expected to survive.

The word *miracle* isn’t just a label to slap on something that someone doesn’t understand, it’s an event that violates the known laws of nature.

For the record, Jesus stated that the miracles He performed were a witness for Him, that He was who He said He was. They

[metmom]

Why do you think that the design was imperfect?

[DevNet]

“Besides, that doesn’t address the miracles in healing the the medical community sees regularly. Or people surviving accidents that no reasonable human could be expected to survive.”

And you would have science stop and just stand still instead of trying to add to our knowledge base because trying to understand miracles is BAD.

And the 100 was a typo - it should have been 200.

[tacticalogic]

The word *miracle* isn’t just a label to slap on something that someone doesn’t understand, it’s an event that violates the known laws of nature.

That makes every unexplained phenomenon a "miracle", at least until the laws of nature become better known.

[DevNet]

All the various diseases that we are prone to.

Just look at all the ways our own body can attack itself. A visit to any old folks home will show you this.

[metmom]

Start with an unknown atmosphere ...
in an unknown climate...
containing unknown chemicals ...
in unknown combinations ...
and unknown proportions ...
and over an unknown period of time...
under unknown and changing conditions ...
in an unknown number of generations...
demonstrate what’s impossible.
***********************************************************
How about you provide evidence to support that anything under those conditions is even possible?

Oh, and please show your work....

[YHAOS]

“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.”

And Scientists take it into account again when they declare that no god exists (see Richard Dawkins), citing science as the cause and the source for their conclusion. Then The Masters of the Universe compound their sin of mixing science with theology by complaining that they are being falsely accused of “Scientism”! That’s what they get when they use science to justify theological conclusions.

[metmom]

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

He didn't. He created them capable of reproducing.

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

He did. The seventh.

[YHAOS]

”Throw a stone over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.”

LOL. Now there’s a saying I’ve not heard in years!

[Just mythoughts]

There is no scripture basis that the six days of creation were 24 hour periods as opposed to 1000 years - a day of the Lord is as a thousand years. However, there is a commandment to rest on the seventh day. Not to rest every seventh millennium. Jesus did not correct the Hebrew observance of the seventh day.

That first 'day' of rest as described in Genesis was the rest of the Lord, His time, a thousand year rest, to us. There is no record that any in flesh lived a thousand years, or a day with the Lord. Even though Methuselah came close at 969 years. In Noah's time Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, "My spirit shall not always strive (= remain in ) with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

[NicknamedBob]

" Start with an unknown atmosphere ...
in an unknown climate...
containing unknown chemicals ...
in unknown combinations ...
and unknown proportions ...
and over an unknown period of time...
under unknown and changing conditions ...
in an unknown number of generations...
demonstrate what's impossible.

Please show your work. "

Okay, I'm ready.

What's impossible is that you can't assemble a 747 by cycling a tornado through a junkyard.

Because although you would have tornadoes, you wouldn't have a junkyard to send it through.

[metmom]

If you wanted to direct him to ichneumon’s posts, why didn’t you just give him a link to ichneumon’s posting history?

It would have been far easier in the ling run.

[Gumlegs]

I’m not the one claiming there’s some math that will demonstrate something about the topic.

[metmom]

And you would have science stop and just stand still instead of trying to add to our knowledge base because trying to understand miracles is BAD.

No.

And nobody said that trying to understand miracles is bad. That's misrepresenting what I said.

Understanding true miracles would be an exercise in futility.

Nor would discovering what people thought were miracles 200 years ago, negate real miracles. Just because some incomprehensible things later became understood doesn't mean that everything will and that everything has a *natural* cause, or explanation.

And you evos wonder why you're accused of trying to use science to destroy religion. Because every time something of a religious nature comes up, you try to explain it away using science, the very thing that you deny doing.

[YHAOS]

"If we are designed by a perfect being why is the design so imperfect?"

Bucking for a promotion?