Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU? It is because American society is engaged in a war between those who believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong – and those who hold more traditional views. Those who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (whom Bill O’Reilly calls Secular-Progressives or SP’s) believe that the only thing that matters is what feels good, and that their behavior is nobody else’s business.
Although many people do not make the connection, this attitude and the behavior it promotes can be traced to Darwinian theory that we are all just accidental products of random happenings – in a straight line down to the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin – down to the communist and Nazi writings and exploits of Stalin, Mao and Hitler – and down to the ACLU and to modern liberalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
However, evolutionists use this method to convince themselves because they are scared of the alternative. That is what it all amounts to. For if the theory of evolution were thrown out, what would they have left but ID, and to them that is to be denied to their dying day. As long as they have a fallback, whatever it may be, that is what they will believe.
Now that's funny. What's your talent, writing?
And IDers say, "God demonstrated His power by forming man from the dust of the earth". And it is verified thru His Holy Word.
Actually, that's one of them.
I currently have a couple of books with decent sales ranks on Amazon.
When I encounter someone I suspect is a troll, I simply stop responding.
I suspect many others have the same view, and likely deal with it the same way.
If I am a troll, why keep responding? Know ye not that trolls thrive on response?
Truth is, you don’t view me as a troll. You view me as an unbeliever... which you as a born-again spirit-baptized member of the church of evolution have a righteous heavenly-decreed duty to convert.
For you this is not an intellectual nor scientific discussion. It is a conversion attempt... to your religion.
You’re not an intellectual. You’re a crusader.
I rest my case. Buh-bye, troll.
You seem to be under the impression that I was ever barred from entry. Not so.
Good heavens, when are you ever going to get around to addressing my thorough dismantling of the Behe claim that you had parroted? Here are the final paragraphs as a reminder:
There, Dave -- now that I've helped you out by providing you with "signposts" that help you navigate that terribly, terribly long multi-page post, such that you won't get so easily lost and confused trying to read it due to your MTV-ruined attention span, I look forward to your response wherein you identify anything seriously wrong with my deconstruction of Behe's argument (and be sure to do it in your own words, since you several times have viciously attacked other people for using mere "cut-and-paste" and since you stated that you value "original content").Surely you must be tired of running away from that by now, and tired of writing long posts full of one excuse and snide remark after another which take more time than an actual discussion of the issue itself would have. So I'll be looking forward to your upcoming post which actually discusses the science for a change, because we all know how able and competent you are when it comes to a straight discussion of the science, right? We all know how out of character it is for you to be tossing off self-righteous denunciations and making excuses for why everyone who actually knows the science is too much of an uncivil brute for you to lower yourself to deal with the science they present, right? We all know how you're just itching to actually take a stab at showing scientific support for a change for your bluster about how evolution is bunk and creationism is scientifically supported and most of the scientific evidence supports a 6000-year-old universe, right?Or if you can't do that, I look forward to your admitting that I have successfully identified serious flaws in Behe's "IC" definition and argument, and your promise not to use it anymore nor post anything bogus enough to include Behe's "IC" as part of its argument.
Um, right?
Dave, you keep saying things like this:
We've got a LOT of great things coming down the pipeline in this campaign, and the ultimate goal is to stage a series of nationwide debates in high schools and universities everywhere....and yet, I (and others) keep trying to engage you in a debate, while *you're* the one who keeps trying to disengage and dodge and refuse whenever I try to get you to discuss the actual science. Funny, that...This will be terrible, because Darwinists have been sending out memos that insist you NOT engage creationists, because despite being knuckle-dragging fundamentalist nutzies, they can still somehow pummel evolutionists in debates enough for the evos to want to steer clear of them!
Dave, you have my promise -- if you agree to actually debate the science with me, I won't say a single unkind word, make any insinuation, or say anything in the least bit personal, I won't even use the word "you"; I'll stay strictly on the science, as long as you do the same. The first person to even make a vague insinuation instantly loses the debate. Deal? What reason could you have for possibly turning down that offer? It's the very "debate on evolution" you keep saying you want. We can start with the age of the universe, or Behe's "IC" argument, or some other topic if you like.
Come on, Dave, show us what you've got. Or is that what you've been doing all along when you've been desperately avoiding head-to-head discussions of the actual science?
Dave, do the debate you keep saying you want, or finally admit -- not just us, but to yourself -- that your claims of wanting a debate are just bluff and bluster. I'll accept either.
But I'm not going to let you slide on continuing to evade discussion while you continue to "declare victory" and post quote-mined claptrap about how science-competent people don't dare debate. We've been debating since before you were born, and we'll be debating long after you're gone.
You haven’t learned the “rules” of argument for evolution. Special creation violates the “rules” of science (as defined by evolutionists) that all phenomena must be shown to be the result of natural processes. By this definition, they rule out creation, but they don’t tell you that outright. That’s why they say creation is religion and not science, because they make the “rules.” One billion pieces of truth will never convince them if they don’t fit the profile that they have set up. It’s not a level playing field.
Thanks for the ping. I see the crevo flamewars are heating up again. The mods seem to allow more invective on these threads for some reason.
You're right, he doesn't understand how science is done.
Special creation violates the “rules” of science (as defined by evolutionists) that all phenomena must be shown to be the result of natural processes.
Oops, you've got it wrong also. Sorry, that's not how it works. Science works by *looking for* natural processes, not by having a "rule" that "all phenomena must be shown to be the result of natural processes".
Like many folks who are critical of evolutionary biology, you have mistaken methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism. They are not the same, and you commit a major misunderstanding by confusing the two.
Please try to learn the basics of a topic before you attempt to "educate" anyone on it.
By this definition, they rule out creation, but they don’t tell you that outright.
Wrong again. Science does not "rule out creation". Nor does a belief in the validity of evolutionary biology. In fact, the majority of US "evolutionists" are also Christians.
Supernatural creation would, however, be beyond the ability of science to explore, as science is about learning how the *natural* world works when it is left to work, well, naturally. Supernatural intervention is obviously outside of this field of study.
That's not to say, however, that specific claims of a religious sort cannot be examined and validated or falsified scientifically. For example, even before Darwin ever set pen to paper, Christian geologists had come to realize that the literal account of a global flood was strongly at odds with the physical evidence. In 1857 Hugh Miller -- a creationist geologist -- wrote of his conclusions that at most, the Biblical flood was the embellished record of a local flood in the Mideast, since geology showed no signs of a global flood. On page 327 of his book, "The Testimony of the Rocks", he wrote:
"No man acquainted with the general outlines of Palaeontology, or the true succession of the sedimentary formations, has been able to believe, during the last half century, that any proof of a general deluge can be derived from the older geologic systems, -- Palaeozoic, Secondary [Mesozoic], or Tertiary."
That’s why they say creation is religion and not science, because they make the “rules.”
Um, no, we say that creation is religion because of course it is. If you'd like a straightforward demonstration, just try to say something critical about "creation" and see how fast people pop out of the woodwork to tell you that you're "bashing their religion" or must be one of those anti-religion atheists, blah blah blah...
One billion pieces of truth will never convince them if they don’t fit the profile that they have set up.
Of course they will. Feel free to present a billion peces of truth as soon as you happen to have them available. Unlike religious True Believers(tm), we're perfectly happy to change our minds when new evidence becomes available. Following the evidence wherever it leads, instead of where someone might *hope* it leads, *is* what science is all about. Science is about finding the truth by examining the real-world to find out what the truth really is. If you've got a truckload of evidence indicating we're currently on the wrong track, we'll be the first ones to have a look at it and thank you for bringing it to our attention.
So what *have* you got? Or were you just being rhetorical?
It’s not a level playing field.
Of course it isn't. Science insists on doing repeated reality-checks, as thoroughly and often as possible. Religion doesn't. Those are very different playing fields, with different "rules". You'll note, however, that human advancement only began to take off at a rapid rate after a substantial number of people began adopting the rules of science versus the rules of religion.
It needn't be that way. If the anti-evolutionists would stop telling ugly falsehoods about the pro-evolutionists, then the pro-evolutionists would be happy to stop pointing out ugly truths about the anti-evolutionists.
What kind of evidence would convince you that God created the earth?
Oh and by the way I am grateful to God for His salvation. He has done a million times more for me than Darwin has or could. I’d certainly trust Him before I’d trust any human, so I believe His Word.
What kind of evidence would convince you that God created the earth?
Different people have different thresholds of evidence, of course, but I think you're missing the fact that many of us ("evolutionists") are already convinced that God created the Earth, we just realize that he used evolutionary processes to do so.
Even most atheists I know, at least the ones who are science-literate, would accept evidence along the lines of a copyright message in the genome, or an email message from the deity with confirmable information beyond the ability of humans to craft (such as a 4096-bit cryptographic key to a previously encoded file), etc. Although even in those cases there would be alternative (but equally incredible) potential explanations, but "God did it" would be one of the most likely frontrunners, especially if accompanied by other lines of additional evidence.
How about you? What kind of evidence would convince you that life on Earth reached its present state via evolutionary common descent?
What exactly do you mean by common descent?
With all due respect to the scientific community, this statement from Cal Tech's website has an element of parsing. I realize that some theories are harder to prove than others and that scientists are wont to leave a door open in case an unforeseen circumstance might change an expected outcome, but to simply dispense with the idea of proof seems either shortsighted or convenient.
Of course, Coyoteman makes the deliberate error of failing to acknowledge that 'science' is based on the assumption that naturalism is the ultimate arbiter of truth. He cannot prove this, but must assume it 'a priori'.
He knows better but he likes to play that game because it makes him feel like a 'winner'.
This, of course, is the well-known fallacy of argument from ignorance. Coyoteman is saying that he gets to believe that evolution is fact until science 'proves' otherwise.
"But I guess if you can't argue against the science, you have to do something, eh?"
Having said that he gets to believe until 'science' *proves* him incorrect, Coyoteman now pretends that science uniquely supports evolution; which it does not.
Were there actually some scientific fact that uniquely supports evolution, he would present it.
For his next trick, Coyoteman will equate fact and opinion.
I know the creationist websites keep claiming that, but they have been known to distort, misrepresent, and selectively quote, as well as to ignore evidence which contradicts their beliefs.
If you are looking for accurate portrayals of what science is discovering, creationist websites should not be high on your list of sources.
Of course the evolutionist's web sites are the epitomy of truth and accuracy, aren't they?
HOGWASH! The very same can be said for evolutionist web-sites. A large segment of the evolutionist community is made up of a bunch of scared, grant-begging frauds who have cornered the market on a nice sounding theory, shown that it looks kinda logical, and will damned well brook no interference with their claims of having proven it as THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
And they do not hesitate to publish a bunch of lying, twisted twaddle to keep the scam going and the cash cow mooing.
Scientists?? True scientists do not arbitrarily call any and all other theories or hypotheses un-scientific without adequately backing up the claim. They do not claim that there is no way that other ideas may even be a part of what they are observing and investigating. No, they have staked their claim on the whole field -- claiming anyone who seriously advances an opposing theory to be either a deluded fool or an outright charlatan.
I'm sure glad I'm not that closed-minded.
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.