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 ...
Eyewitness testimony, therefore, by your own standard, not credible. If we all comported ourselves in this manner, conversation on this forum would not be possible. Now it’s time for you to exaggerate the point and deny, deny, deny.
True.. Now.. but may not be true in the future.. for some..
Or possibly partially knowable.. There could be dimensions(realms) "we" will never know..
Micro and Macro Universes are even possible..
The possibilies (of what can/could be) are endless..
If eyewitness testimony can be held to always be credible, then that calls into question wheater there can be such a thing as an illusion.
No sooner does a science discussion start than someone shows up and calling scientists God-haters. So I think you have nailed the state of things when religion gets into a public discussion.
But science is a bit different. There are, of course, personal feuds and power plays, but most people sit back and look at the evidence. Things sort themselves out over time. It's really pretty rare for a controversy to last a hundred years, much less a thousand. Controversies are more about the leading edge of research than about history.
If eyewitness testimony can be held to never be credible, then that calls into question whether there can be anything but illusion. I'm sure that you will protest that you do not hold an opinion to that extreme. Yet your statement above indicates that you propose, indeed, to hold me to nothing less than that extreme an opinion. As I observed earlier, exaggerate and deny, deny, deny.
“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”
Really. Did Hitler believe in thermodynamics as well? Newton’s Theory of Gravity? Shall we add those scientific theories to the list of theories to be blamed for totalitarianism? and if the Islamic mongol Tamerlane was a believer in creationism, do his brutalities cast a black eye on belief in Godly creation?
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/tamerlane.html
The logical fallacy here is one of rhetorical ‘guilt-by-association’.
The "observer problem" persists depending on the vantage point..
What you(or I) see at some point is partial.. based on partial knowledge..
Unless you can "see/observe" the whole system even though valid, its partial..
Which makes the metaphor of the "body of christ".. even more significant..
Requireing many vantage points merged into one a "fuller vision"(more complete image) of reality..
It could take all of "us" to even see reality..
You seem to find it reasonable to say that someone has declared eyewitness testimony to not be credible if they say they've seen things the know weren't there.
Anyone who's ever been to a magic show can probably make that statement.
“Nonsense. Evolutionary theory today is far advanced from what Darwin originally proposed. Just to mention one item, Darwin had no concept of DNA analysis showing how closely various species are related.”
Right. He had no idea of the specific mechanisms of genetic mutation that can make evolution possible. Now we do.
But what we have is the author, which is one source.
I really don't have any interest in arguing about religion. My interest is in what's taught in science class, and science is skeptical.
If an established principal or formula ceases to provide reliable answers, the formula is questioned. Established principles are continually being revised and updated. There are current tests being proposed for Einstein's general relativity, even though every experiment so far has confirmed it beyond ten decimal places.
There are always gunslingers who hope to make a reputation by finding a discrepancy in the eleventh.
“Mankind didn’t need Darwin to practice evil.”
“Not to practice it, to justify it.”
Darwin justifies NOTHING that humans do or dont do. it merely is an explanation for the observations seen in nature wrt different species over time.
Just because stars explode in violent neutron supernovae and becomes black holes - which is science and fact - doesnt mean humans should go around replicating that on earth (ie wipe out the planet).
Nothing Darwin describes takes away from the dignity and sanctity of human life.
Or not, depending on the circumstances.
Maybe some simple questions would suffice:
How old is the earth?
And how would you go about determining how old it is?
When you say ‘theory of evolution’, what does it mean to you?
Do you agree that some species that existed on earth are no longer here?
Do you agree that some places in mountains were once under water?
“Genesis until the birth of Christ is about the lineage a protected bloodline to the birth of Christ.”
Really? The Holy Spirit came up the Virgin Mary, so Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus’ real lineage.
Jesus was in the House of David but was the Son of God.
“Noah and his family had perfect pedigree” Um ... who in the human race did not? were they not all descended from Adam and Eve?
But if it was all just Adam and Eve and Cain ‘knew’ his wife, where did she come from. An un-named sister?
Maybe some of those holes in Genesis are an indication that maybe part of the Genesis story is metaphor.
Ponder that.
Try to avoid the use of ALLCAPS.
Try also to understand the difference between a scientific description of what happens in nature and a prescription of what we SHOULD do in human society. Not the same thing!
Black widow spider females eat the males after having sex with them for example. Strange but true. If a scientist described this fact, surely you wouldnt then assume that he was advocating murder and cannibalism for humans?
Likewise, Darwin and evolutionary theory tells us nothing about how humans should behave.
” That is not science either, pure garbage. “
The issue is not whether it is ‘science’ the issue is whether it is TRUE. Is it?
“The rate of decay is unpredictable,”
Why do you say that?
C14 is different ratios in different situations? Why?
If you dont know, why do you dispute the standard explanation?
” no one knows how old the earth is.”
If you dont know, why no go with this evidence as the best estimate (4b years)?
“Fantasy of fantasies is carbon dating.”
There are other radioactive decay mechanisms as well. Do you disagree with ALL forms of radioactive decay based dating? Why?
That’s about the same time that someone also shows up calling somebody else a science-hater.
”So I think you have nailed the state of things when religion gets into a public discussion.”
I’ve nailed the state of things in circumstances where scientists propose, under the color of a “science discussion,” to come to conclusions about public policy, or religion, or philosophy generally, and seek to disqualify any opposition by declaring it excluded from the “public” discussion by reason of its “non-science” status.
True Christians are those who ask Christ to save them and ask forgiveness for sinsduring the salvation asking- One can not lose salvation- but htis is a topic for another day
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.