In the meantime......
Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Unfortunately, you appear not to understand the fallacy and it's relationship to belief in the 'theory' of evolution.
What you are doing is observing an existing system and trying to understand it. You may believe that evolution created that system, but the origin of the system is irrelevant for your purposes. You are simply studying the system and trying to understand how it works and adapts.
You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits.
The fact that biological systems do this, that or some other yet-to-be-discovered thing is irrelevant to the 'theory' of evolution without the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.
Eve did the same thing in reply to the enemy creating doubt in her mind....and then she even exaggerated further what God said...which wasn't so.
But I think most are more like Adam...they simply prefer to go ahead without consideration of what God has stated. It's 'easier' doing it thier own way...thus they have the sense it's "their" trophy of accomplishment...."You will be like God" sort of thing.
As opposed to the rest of this thread. Let's all light a pipe, put on our tweed jackets, pour a glass of brandy and curse God for making us SO brilliant that we are unable to become stoopid enough to believe He created the universe and all in it. Why oh why can we not be like the little people who trust and believe on things they cannot see?
"Lovie, come quickly. THe riff-raff are gathering again with their simpleton signs of God and salvation and all that other religious nonsense. They only need to see the point that Cadburry is at our beckon call to understand evolution. Ring him up, dear, and have him explain to the masses how fortunate he is to be at the disposal of brilliant minds. If God had wanted him to be one of the chosen, He certainly would not have given him such perfect driving skills."
My brother who is very scientific and mathematically minded explained to me that very thing. Especially since in our day the tools are avaible to do that, they find the more they splice and dice to the smallest element....the more they are faced with how very limited their understanding really is. Though it's rewarding and exciting to "discover".
I think you should take another look at the 1st Adam. Remember that the 2nd Adam 'knew no sin, yet became sin that we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor 5:21)
I'm thinking that Adam was trying something similar to save Eve, whom he loved. The final fulfillment (Christ) being visible in the initial appearance (Adam).
Unfortunately, most scientists don't have the critical-thinking skills that your brother does and can't distinguish between science and philosophy.
Many even after it is explained to them...
I absconded with the tagline from some other FReeperettes who were using it.
I like it.
Well, Isaac Newton certainly didn’t have any problem crediting God with being the cause of everything. He looked as science as a great way to learn more about God.
Obviously he and modern science have parted ways.
Now he’d just be one of those less intelligent, or just downright ignurint creationists.
He really is quite amazing in that respect. He has also studied philosophy and enjoyed it very much....but he favors greatly science and mathematical reasonings.
He was recently contacted by a foreign business man to solve some of his developement issues. Proud that he declined the offer, though the man was more then generous in what he would pay for that.
It is true foreigners are attempting to "buy" our men and woman of great minds.
The fruit of the public education system which they long to control and have teach evolution only.
It’s probably because he has studied philosophy that he has the critical-thinking skills to be able to distinguish science from belief.
Perhaps scientists should be required to understand basic philosophy for that very reason.
So, you do believe in the metaphysical reality of demons?
Isaac Newton and many of the other great scientists of that time understood that they had a particular philosophical view of reality and could therefore separate the two and 'do science' quite well.
Scientists today do not understand that naturalism is a particular philosophy in its own right and therefore unwittingly practice more philosophy than they do science.
A conversation we once shared was about belief. He articulated that belief is not tangible....that someone might study a system of belief to understand it yet not "believe" what they are researching. That many who fall into cults, new age and such, at some point begin to "believe" what they're researching... and the fall isn't long coming once that "believe" kicks in.
If someone "believes" what they are experiencing is real, even though the evidence proves otherwise, it is very difficult to persuade them otherwise. Which is why so many cults and false religions appeal to emotions and experiences....it baits and traps pretty quickly.
Well we know that the command not to eat was given to Adam....and the freedom to eat all but. Eve on the other hand was deceived, and we know sin came thru Adam's direct disobediance to God's command.
I don't know why God didn't reveal what was Adam doing the whole time the conversation between Eve and Satan was occurring...but we know she simply 'turned' and gave it to Adam and he ate... without resistance apparently. So he likely was there as this conversation took place.
But I don't see any indication he attempted to save Eve in what's recorded.....it's a mystery I am anxious to ask the Lord about when I see Him. Why didn't Adam stop it? Why did he yield?
Not to mention some are now teaching Islam as well. Yet anything which is remotely Christian is slammed. Founding Fathers would be in uproar to have seen this day.
It's more than troubling when liberals want all and every vice and social topic on the educational table....but without any free debate or resistance from anyone. Our colleges use to be known for open discourse....now it's been taken over.
Now, holding a materialist, physicalist worldview, you assert that your pursuit of scientific methodology as the guiding principle. Yet, to be adfixed to scientific methodology you must rely on philosophy. For example, scientific method relies on logic and numbers to attempt to prove truth, yet science cannot prove logic or numbers (both philosophical, abstract, univeral entities). One cannot use scientific method to prove ethical truths, aesthetic truths or science itself. Materialists physicalists (those denying there is anything other that matter) cannot prove logic, reason, rational thought, or any abstract universal entity, yet they claim to be the arbitor of those very entities while denying at the otological base their very existence, or be dishonest. If you can prove that logic is made of matter, let us know. If you can prove reason and rational thought by scientific method, please let us know. If not, and true physicalist, you must deny their existence or be dishonest and claim their existence. Please choose one, for the two positions are mutually exclusive of the other.
I know you are a bright person, and you do use logic, reason, and rational thought in your scientific studies, you simply cannot justify or warrant the fact that these abstract entities exist in this time, space, matter continuum. But you use logic and reason because you borrow those entities from a theological universe, which you deny. You cannot explain consciousness, sentience, or any other abstraction from the physicalist, naturalist worldview, much less dispose of hubris to claim epistemic superiority. Claiming that a spatio-temporal universe is all that exists disposes of anything which is not spatio-temporal, and therefore logic, reason, and rational thought cannot exist. To explain the naturalist ontology requires a sui generis emergent properties which can only be described as metaphysical. To move to claim epiphenomenalism is to move into the realm of metaphysical entities. Some physicalist lay claim to this as an ontology is to simply misapply and evade the epistemology, and simply use it as a description,...then move on, as if it will be glossed over without a demand by those who hold this to be a theological universe is dismissive and dishonest. First Principles need to be addressed by the naturalist, physicalist, atheist, darwinist or that atheist may eschew irreducible teleology and agent causation in the first relatum of the causal relation is in the category of substance and not event. As physicalist Jaegwon Kim said, "Causal powers and reality go hand in glove. To render mental events causally impotent is as good as banishing them from our ontology".
Now, holding a materialist, physicalist worldview, you assert that your pursuit of scientific methodology as the guiding principle. Yet, to be adfixed to scientific methodology you must rely on philosophy. For example, scientific method relies on logic and numbers to attempt to prove truth, yet science cannot prove logic or numbers (both philosophical, abstract, univeral entities). One cannot use scientific method to prove ethical truths, aesthetic truths or science itself. Materialists physicalists (those denying there is anything other that matter) cannot prove logic, reason, rational thought, or any abstract universal entity, yet they claim to be the arbitor of those very entities while denying at the otological base their very existence, or be dishonest. If you can prove that logic is made of matter, let us know. If you can prove reason and rational thought by scientific method, please let us know. If not, and true physicalist, you must deny their existence or be dishonest and claim their existence. Please choose one, for the two positions are mutually exclusive of the other.
I know you are a bright person, and you do use logic, reason, and rational thought in your scientific studies, you simply cannot justify or warrant the fact that these abstract entities exist in this time, space, matter continuum. But you use logic and reason because you borrow those entities from a theological universe, which you deny. You cannot explain consciousness, sentience, or any other abstraction from the physicalist, naturalist worldview, much less dispose of hubris to claim epistemic superiority. Claiming that a spatio-temporal universe is all that exists disposes of anything which is not spatio-temporal, and therefore logic, reason, and rational thought cannot exist. To explain the naturalist ontology requires a sui generis emergent properties which can only be described as metaphysical. To move to claim epiphenomenalism is to move into the realm of metaphysical entities. Some physicalist lay claim to this as an ontology is to simply misapply and evade the epistemology, and simply use it as a description,...then move on, as if it will be glossed over without a demand by those who hold this to be a theological universe is dismissive and dishonest. First Principles need to be addressed by the naturalist, physicalist, atheist, darwinist or that atheist may eschew irreducible teleology and agent causation in the first relatum of the causal relation is in the category of substance and not event. As physicalist Jaegwon Kim said, "Causal powers and reality go hand in glove. To render mental events causally impotent is as good as banishing them from our ontology".
Then perhaps they should stop giving out PHD’s to people who receive a doctorate in the physical sciences, since scientists have so chosen to distance themselves from philosophy.
And since the rest of the world recognizes that that is a philosophy in its own right, all the while *scientists* deny that they have a philosophical position, they have just demonstrated that their critical thinking skills are more than lacking, thus rendering them unqualified to practice science at all. All their work should be suspect based on their stunted reasoning skills.
In the meantime......
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.