Skip to comments.
(Vanity) Evolution the Lie
Creationist
Posted on 02/18/2007 11:15:33 AM PST by Creationist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-327 next last
To: Creationist
a person who is told what to think They don't even tell us what history is, or morals, or ethics, or evolution. We have to figure these things out for ourselves.
41
posted on
02/18/2007 12:49:41 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: Creationist
One doesn't inexorably follow the other. A person can be wholly accepting of maco evolution, for example, and very much against abortion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but somehow branding evolution as a liberal view, and anti-evolution as a conservative view, doesn't hold water. It's not a political construct in any event.
42
posted on
02/18/2007 12:55:03 PM PST
by
HitmanLV
("I mean, that's a storybook, man!")
To: grey_whiskers
the theory of revolution Dr Michio Kaku was talking some today about Copernicus' calendar and how it wasn't so accurate after all, which let a person choose whether to go along with de Revolutionibus or not. There was little to choose between that and the epicycles at that point, although the 'least read book' was actually widely read and minutely analyzed as soon as it was published.
43
posted on
02/18/2007 12:55:05 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: Creationist
No it was 6000 years ago. Ok...
If the argument is "God said, I believe it, and that settles it !" there's nothing much for the rest of us to say.
But...did God create the world with overwhelming evidence of billions of years of history as a gigantic hoax ?
Methinks not.
44
posted on
02/18/2007 12:55:39 PM PST
by
jimt
To: Creationist
This lie is propagated to make a explanation for science, as they are to logical to except the fact of a God
Science is not about supernatural explanations. It would be easy to say: why does an apple fall down? Why does the world exist? Because God said it should! But that doesn't explain anything.
I know you want science to validate your faith, but it doesn't work that way.
45
posted on
02/18/2007 12:58:53 PM PST
by
LtdGovt
("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: jimt
But...did God create the world with overwhelming evidence of billions of years of history as a gigantic hoax ?
Absolutely! He wanted to know what humans would believe their own eyes, over what God wanted them to believe.
46
posted on
02/18/2007 12:59:45 PM PST
by
LtdGovt
("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: jimt
A new car has the appearance of age, you only know it is not that old because of the sticker.
The overwhelming evidence you proclaim is what has been told, shown (idiot box called TV), and written as fact. If you except the word of man which is fallible as infallible fact then yes the evidence is overwhelming.
47
posted on
02/18/2007 1:00:23 PM PST
by
Creationist
( Evolution created it all from nothing in 15 billion years. Thats' not religious faith?)
To: Creationist; Coyoteman; central scrutinizer
The TOE requires ever changing hypothesis's to fit the destruction of the last hypothesis. I vote for a new Icon to accompany the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."The TOE":
Seriously, Creationist...have you actually taken a college level science class?
And that is not meant as an insult. It is meant seriously.
There are certain specific methods which are used in science in an attempt to figure out, as best one can, how things work.
From the Hugo-award-winning(+) Science Made Stupid:
The point is, if a hypothesis is shown to have flaws, it is not always thrown out wholesale; sometimes it is modified in order to better fit what is seen.
This has always been part of the way science is done, and those who are practitioners accept that.(*)
What it sounds like is bugging you is that proponents of evolution come across as shouting "Evolution is FACT!!!" and then go around and jigger things behind the scene and expect nobody to notice.
Is that close enough to what you are saying?
Cheers!
(+) The Hugo is for Science Fiction. Science Made Stupid is a screamingly funny satire, you might like it; it skewers everybody.
(*)The difference is that for large periods of human history, people did not always bother to try out ideas to see if they really worked, truth was by consensus, or by dorm room bull session. Even among the great classical non-monotheistic civilizations. For example, try reading a translation of Aristotle's De Caelo. It basically has the same physics as a Road Runner cartoon.
48
posted on
02/18/2007 1:04:05 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: LtdGovt
Science does validate my faith. Science is a real thing.
Science tries to explain extinction as a process of evolution. Extinction is extinction and not a proof of anything except life and death.
The Theory of Evolution is like the history of England unique and unrepeatable, therefore it is not science but a faith based belief boarding on the brink of religion.
Science does not validate evolution, every discovery proves contrary and requires new untestable theories to keep the faith alive.
49
posted on
02/18/2007 1:06:59 PM PST
by
Creationist
( Evolution created it all from nothing in 15 billion years. Thats' not religious faith?)
To: Creationist
Science does not validate evolution, every discovery proves contrary and requires new untestable theories to keep the faith alive.
Nonsense.
Paging Captain Hyperbole.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they please, be it evolution or religion. Absolute proclamations that are demonstrably incorrect such as yours does not help your argument.
50
posted on
02/18/2007 1:11:42 PM PST
by
Pox
(If it's a Coward you are searching for, you need look no further than the Democrats.)
To: RightWhale
Dr Michio Kaku was talking some today about Copernicus' calendar and how it wasn't so accurate after all, which let a person choose whether to go along with de Revolutionibus or not. There was little to choose between that and the epicycles at that point, although the 'least read book' was actually widely read and minutely analyzed as soon as it was published. Fascinating.
I have been meaning to get ahold of a copy of C.S. Lewis' Discarded Image on that subject, but haven't done so yet.
And there are analogies to the Bohr atom vs. quantum, or IIRC Mendel, err, um, massaging his data to better fit simple laws.
Perhaps one should re-visit The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to suggest a visionary who doesn't let minor flaws get in the way of a good theory.
The clue to genius would be knowing when discrepancies were irrelevant and when discrepancies signaled a serious flaw in a theory...
Cheers!
51
posted on
02/18/2007 1:13:34 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Creationist
the history of England unique and unrepeatable The history of England might be unique, but it is different for each and every historian. What is history?
52
posted on
02/18/2007 1:14:42 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: Creationist
You can collect enough empircal evidence to be 99.9% certain that there has been macro-evolution. You can't have mathematical certainty, like you don't have absolute certainty with many sciences. Examples are sociology, political science, psychology (the psychoanalytic approach).
53
posted on
02/18/2007 1:14:53 PM PST
by
LtdGovt
("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: Creationist
54
posted on
02/18/2007 1:19:44 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: LtdGovt
you don't have absolute certainty with many sciences Not even physics or cosmology, about the hardest of hard sciences. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity allows calculation of the charactistics of black holes to 0.1%, which is not total certainty. Newton's theory of gravity allowed calculation of observed effect to a part in ten million, which is also not total certainty. The day they reach certainty to as many decimals as everybody wants, then they will have total certainty, but this does not appear to be happening anytime soon.
55
posted on
02/18/2007 1:19:51 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: Creationist
What I find very interesting is that so many evolutionists do not have the courage of their convictions and are still willing to call themselves Christians.
It is very easy to prove that a virgin birth is impossible.
It is very easy to prove that a person can not be raised from the dead after three days; especially around 50AD.
Why don't they attack the easy stuff and prove the entire Bible to be a fable? But if Christ was born from a virgin and was raised from the dead after three days, the young earth theory would seem not beyond the realm of belief.
56
posted on
02/18/2007 1:24:49 PM PST
by
sbhitchc
(Now go to your room and don't come out until dinner)
To: RightWhale
The day they reach certainty to as many decimals as everybody wants, then they will have total certainty, but this does not appear to be happening anytime soon. Heisenberg is deeply saddened.
Cheers!
57
posted on
02/18/2007 1:26:30 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: sbhitchc
Many religions claim virgin birth. This is not unique to Christianity. The moslems even now have a considerable number of virgin births all the time.
58
posted on
02/18/2007 1:31:02 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
To: grey_whiskers
With our current technology, Heisenberg still has a valid point.
Perhaps a few hundred years down the road, with significant technological advances, we will be able to shed this uncertainty principle as archaic.
59
posted on
02/18/2007 1:31:20 PM PST
by
Pox
(If it's a Coward you are searching for, you need look no further than the Democrats.)
To: RightWhale
That might be true but how could an evolutionist claim to believe it?
60
posted on
02/18/2007 1:32:52 PM PST
by
sbhitchc
(Now go to your room and don't come out until dinner)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 321-327 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson