Posted on 12/04/2009 9:55:41 PM PST by Gordon Greene
Arguing with Idiots Part Deaux (A full-frontal assault on the Temple of Darwin) (Link to PDF).
(I know Ive done rants like this before, but you guys are worth it!)
Dear worshippers of Darwin and lovers of self,
My personal (condensed) declaration of faith:
I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I believe what it says. I believe, unashamedly that God is the Creator of the Universe and that He created it just as described in the Genesis account. I believe the only way to receive salvation is to believe and receive Jesus Christ as your savior. I believe that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior then you will spend eternity in the lake of fire, created for Satan and his followers separated forever from God.
My personal (condensed) declaration of allegiance to American values:
I believe that the founding Fathers had faith in and worshipped the God of the Bible. I believe the Founders trusted God and the laws of God to be a guide and to provide the framework for what would become the United States of America. I believe that the Founders incorporated those values into our founding documents including the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe that very same Godly, Biblical foundation is what has sustained us as a nation for over 200 years. I believe the same is why this nation has been blessed beyond any other nation in history. I believe forsaking those principles is what is plunging this country headlong into socialism. I believe if we, as a people do not turn back to God and to His truth, this great nation has seen its best days.
Now, my message to the evolutionists and atheists on freerepublic
You continually disgrace and shame yourselves and this site by purposely attempting to offend those who believe in God and Creation and frankly, I'm amazed it has gone on this long. The honest debate over differences of opinion are welcome on this site (correct me if Im wrong) but even more-so the promotion of the God-centered foundation of our country and government. Yet you make it a playground for your near-pornographic display of anti-Christian rhetoric. Do I and others respond in an other-than kind way from time to time? Absolutely! That's what people do when you offer a constant barrage of insults and deliver responses dripping with hollow, moral superiority. Like many, I tried at first to reason with you. I found that there is no reasoning with the true-believers in the Temple of Darwin (with rare exception, I must note). So I barb its my way of dealing with it.
From time to time one of you may pretend to seek an honest argument or answer only to turn it into a battle of context, performing hopeless and pointless contortions of the English language. Your mental gymnastics are generally childlike and wholly unnecessary. All you would have to do is to say you dont have the mental capacity to understand the argument and that would be that but that is not your goal.
You have this sick wish to see those who literally interpret the Bible and faithful Christians into converts of the radical wing of the Temple of Darwin or, at the very least to make an example of their comments (unsuccessfully, as a general rule). Then you can take their replies to your Darwins Temple websites and display them in the midst of those ungodly freak shows.
Earlier, I was questioned as to whether it was fair of me to say that you lead children into hell. My question is, Is it fair of you to do so? In my estimation, thats exactly what youre doing when you shove your unfounded faith in dry bones down the throats of schoolchildren. You claim we have nothing on which to base our faith in God and Creation, yet I suggest to you there is no evidence of evolution in the way that you teach and believe it no proof of inter-species evolution taking place and no evidence that life was formed in a way that disputes the Biblical account. There is much more circumstantial evidence in the Creation account in Genesis than what you place your faith in, yet that is not my primary argument this evening.
Heres the beef: most of you troll posts with a religious bent for the express purpose of inserting chaos into the equation. In that, you are no better than the community organizers at ACORN. You attempt to confuse, divide, destroy and deride those who believe your religion to be false. Yet, your religion is more than false; it rises to the level of cult. Its followers are brainwashed by manufactured statistics as if Al Gore himself were beating on the pulpit, loudly testifying to the dangers of non-belief. And you not only believe the lies, you are some of its chief priests!
Like the climate mongers and the climatologists at CRU, your actions do have consequences. However, the disastrous effects of your insidious message are far more devastating than the physical and monetary cost of the climate hoax. Your target is the soul of man. Since the dawning of the Age of Darwinism, millions of men, women and children have fallen victim, maybe even you. And for those who claim to be Christian and evolutionists, I offer this from one of my recent responses
If you draw evolution out to its ultimate end it either:
A. Denies the existence of God.
B. Denies His relevance.
C. Boils the Word of God down to a collection of allegory.
Unlike a lot of folks that share my beliefs in God and Creation, I dont believe that faith in evolution automatically excludes you from Christianity. People are in different stages of their walk and some find the truth more slowly than others but that doesnt mean they arent saved. But if you follow the (il)logic of evolution very far, it discounts faith in the God of the Bible.
That is to say most would have to conclude from studying Evolution that God does not exist. Being a priest and a disseminator of the gospel of Evolution is no different than being in a sinking ship and destroying the only life preserver because you believe if you cant have it, no one else should.
If you were honest with yourselves you would admit there is no honest scientific evidence proving evolution. Most of you have heard the truth of the Bible and chosen to reject it. I personally believe (again my personal belief) that you and those who promote the baseless theory of evolution will be judged by God for leading others to discount God as well.
Matthew 18:6 (New International Version)
6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Romans 1:22 (New International Version)
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Exodus 20:11 (New International Version)
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
John 1:3 (New International Version)
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (New International Version)
7If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Near as I can figure, peer review isn't about determining the truth of the matter. It's just about determining whether the proper procedures were followed in doing the research. I don't think that there's much else they can actually, technically, objectively determine from reviewing a paper
One correction though: mathematics is not science.
Moreover, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is to me like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
Mathematics claims logical proofs. Science can make no such claim.
The difference is that no one claims infallibility for science. (Well, maybe a few do, like Dawkins, but mostly not, and not here.) That's why peer review exists--to check one another's work. Who checks the work of translators who, we are told, were guided by the hand of God?
Looking at Job 40:17, the verse that's supposed to be about a dinosaur, I see the familiar "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." And also "It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The ligaments of its thighs are intertwined." But also "He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together." So is the tail stiff or swaying? Is it even a "tail" at all, or another appendage? And is the second sentence about leg muscles or something associated with that other appendage? What process is there for deciding which of those translations was guided by the hand of God?
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether that's really true or not (and how you know), it's irrelevant. No one had to know that in order to show that maggots did not spontaneously generate from rotting meat. People did not have to know the correct answer in order to identify a wrong one.
[[And after saying noone has a monopoly on bible interpretations, they act like they do by proceeding to tell us that we’re wrong. ]]
Precisely, and what’s even funnier- they can attack other people’s beleifs in public forums, but when we defend our beleifs, they go mental and insist that we can’t discuss ‘religious issues’ in public places ,and demand that the thread be moved to hte back room where noone really goes. It’s l;ike dealing with kids before hte age or reasoning
Sorry I had to leave your party early yesterday. Thanks for the invitation but I have a life outside of FR.
Despite the fact that the FRevos are not even paid to post!
“I m still here.”
As am I.
You’ve been engaging in a discussion with one of the least mentally proficient creation rationalizers at FR. A follower, really—kind of an Igor or Renfield who simply parrots what the others are posting while entertaining thoughts of greater self-importance.
Now that this thread is winding down, perhaps it would be a good time to inform GG that, in French, “two” is spelled “deux”, not “deaux”.
To claim a special meaning or usage for a word simply because one chooses to apply it in a certain way is the kind of linguistic destruction described by Orwell. If I hold up two fingers and demand that all agree with my saying it is to be called three or four fingers then it becomes impossible for us to discuss numbers at all.
Further if my usage becomes a jargon understood and used only by a rather small coterie its as though they speak a different, isolating language.
This isn't a matter of one person having a larger vocabulary but with meanings of words. If I use a word in a way not typical to my audience then I'm responsible to define exactly what I mean, that is if I wish to be be understood. Demanding that my reader or listener play detective with my usage of words just won't do.
True, certain disciplines have their own vocabularies, a jargon, but that is not the same as assigning an arbitrary meaning to words.
Take the much bandied about “species”. If one is of the Biblical “creationist” view then species will likely be used in the broad sense of being able to reproduce, interbreed, whether with help or on the animal's own, a kind, a common group.
If one is a Darwinist then Wikipedia will provide a dozen different definitions, take your pick.
A dictionary might simply say a class of things with common attributes and name. But what attributes?
Recently a large number of dinosaur “species” disappeared when it was realized they were only already existing animals in a different stage of growth.
Species is the eye of the beholder.
Mathematics, as defined at this source: Princeton.edu is "a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement."
I like your "God's copyright" concept, but I do not quite understand what you mean by "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, as mathematics involves quantitative measurements and "unreasonableness" by contrast is a rather subjective, non-quantitative metric.
Mathematics claims logical proofs. Science can make no such claim.
Where mathematics is defined as it is above, I believe science can indeed make such a claim.
The reason I teed you up to this comment was because I happened upon a thread the other day that I had saved from back in 2005, which I found quite fascinating at the time entitled, 'Theory of everything' tying researchers up in knots" , and I found your writing throughout the thread to be quite profound. So, I do definitely have an appreciation for your perspective on this topic:
This was an interesting article revealing a bit of infighting among physicists wrt string theory.
IMHO, it points to an ideological difference which would stem from the priority given to pure mathematics in physics. Indeed we've seen similar disputes here on the forum between those of us who center on the mathematics (information theory, complexity, etc.) related to evolution and those who center on the sciences (biology, chemistry, genetics, paleontology).
It is a philosophical difference which I believe we would all benefit from exploring.
Personally, I fall on the math first side of the debate I put mathematics above all sciences - and physics at the top of the science heap because of its integration with the mathematics.
The thing I like about dialog with you is that while we agree on much, where we disagree with respect to whether Schroeder's view of Genesis days is correct or our respective inclusions or exclusions where it comes to the meaning of the term,"science," is concerned we are able to do so pleasantly.
Be well, Sister!
“Sorry I had to leave your party early yesterday. Thanks for the invitation but I have a life outside of FR.”
Yesterday was an unusually slow day for me so I got to hang for a while. Unlike some, my life is full enough that I don’t have time to post back and forth often, but the debate was plentiful so I stuck it out. Wish you could have been here more, but alas... I’m sure you are the social butterfly.
May God in His vast Creation and endless bounty grant you blessings beyond your capacity to receive and leave you with no human explanation as to how... that’s all I got, man.
Evolutionists have routinely credited their "peer-review" process with having been able to ferret out such things as the more recent van Zeiten frauds of 2004-2005, and even the the Pildown frauds of the '20's.
I know, it wasn't "peer review" either, just hoaxes busted as hoaxes, while the academic "peer review" community was busy running interference or looking the other way.
The only thing materialists haven't yet seemed to subject the "peer review" process to are such age old questions like "Jif, or Skippy?" "Coke or Pepsi?" and, "Stripes or Plaids?"
Again, since when it all comes down to it in their view it's neither right nor wrong and "peer review" is all about establishing consensus, we'll just have to see which researchers make the loudest political belch for which.
I (very) humbly appreciate the encouragement. I’d like to have more confidence, but my intellect and lack of education constantly remind me of my insufficiencies.
If I didn’t have God, I’d have given up long ago (seriously)... I’m so glad He uses us in spite of our limitations.
God bless.
GG
I just thought it was an equally misspelled Freudian slip telling us that his little morality play requires a deus ex machina plot twist to tie all of the loose ends together.....
You have a few options available to you to find out more for yourself.
You can study Hebrew (and/or Greek) and learn the language yourself.
You can access any of the many online Bibles and study guides.
Here’s one link...
Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
There’s also the old standby of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/
There are also translations which are easier to understand because they are in more contemporary English.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=
The words *stiff* and *swaying* are not mutually exclusive.
Trees sway in the wind. Buildings sway in earthquakes.
Have fun.
Thanks for the pointers. I like the sites that explore the different meanings of the Hebrew words—that’s how I learned that the word translated as “windows” in “windows of heaven” always means an opening in a physical barrier.
I was going to take some Hebrew in college—it would have been my first non-Romance language—but the semester I’d made room for it, they didn’t offer it for some reason.
But it seems like a corollary to your recommendations is that some Bible translations might contain errors. Which means that we can’t necessarily rely on them to have been guided by the hand of God. I wonder how everyone here who insists on the infallibility of translations decided which one to put their faith in.
“The words *stiff* and *swaying* are not mutually exclusive.”
True. But if someone wants to use that verse to show that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, it pretty much has to be “swaying.” Stiff tails—much less the other thing “tail” might refer to—are hardly unique to dinos.
The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" is the title of a major essay by Wigner. If you'd like, you can read it here
Wigner and his essay are also cited by Cumrun Vafa in a lecture he gave on geometric physics raising even more examples of the phenomenon.
As to mathematics not being science, that's the claim most of the scientists around here have made for years. And the meaning of the term "science" has also changed over time. Originally it was philosophy, but now of course scientists insist that philosophy is not science.
Beginning of Modern Science and Modern Philosophy
You claim that, because mathematics can and does, in at least many of its results, achieve certain truth, we should expect the same of the natural sciences.
You don't use the term "natural" science, but this is precisely the problem. You ignore the critical distinction that mathematics, even if it is a science, is not a natural science.
We can achieve certainty in mathematics precisely because we know the "laws" that govern all possible operations of the relevant systems in advance. In the natural sciences we do not have this information in advance. IT is, rather, those laws what we are trying to discover by doing science. The whole process is almost exactly opposite. In mathematics we start with the rules, and investigate their consequences. In natural science we start with the consequences, and try to infer the rules that cause them.
To claim that we can achieve certainty in natural science the same way we can in mathematics, is to claim to know all the laws of nature, IOW to claim to have the knowledge of GOD.
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.