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 ...
I had one once, but the wheels fell off.
That's really an excellent question.
I'm convinced from these discussions that most of the disagreement stems from differences in our upbringing and differences in the class of people we trust. It's pretty obvious that some people trust family and friends before the testimony of scientists. And vice versa.
No... Next Tuesdayism..
That’s a new one. How’s it work?
Evolution... by being "born again"..
I'd hoped for something a little more original.
“They won’t admit it because, if they do, then they must respect our belief of creationism and give it equal standing in science with their own belief of evolution.”
Which version of creationism?
{ 8^)
I guess it’s easier to find good questions than it is to find good answers.
In the legal world, eyewitness testimony is notoriously lousy.
And the recent numerous accounts of people convicted of crimes because of it, only to be exonerated when DNA evidence was later introduced, is evidence of that.
It’s not a new phenomenon. The “grassy knoll” at the Kennedy assassination, for example. And the problem is testable. Show a hundred people the same slide for a few seconds, or better yet, the same picture from a different angle, and you’ll get all kinds of reports of what they saw.
As a self proclaimed scientist, you have no evidence to support this conclusion other than a bias observation of a small sample size by someone who likes his conclusion. This is what I have been warning everyone who cared to read my posts about.
If you personally arrive at conclusions with such little fragile support, perhaps you are projecting the same attribute toward those who have studied the creation evolution debate and side with the creationists or deists. You may assume they arrive at their point of view with the same level of evidence, thought and reason that you applied in coming to this conclusion.
“Only an atheist, or someone who has been force feed a glamorized version of Human Evolution in the educational system, would accept Human Evolution as a scientific fact or even a sound scientific theory proven true through the scientific method.” Jame2099
Do you consider Pope Benedict XVI an atheist, or lack the soundness of his education in the theory?
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Pope Benedict XVI
According to the science of zoology humans are apes. There is no molecular or morphological difference that would set us apart. The two closest related apes are humans and chimpanzees according to DNA evidence.
DNA evidence is the result of eyewitness reports. An eyewitness extracts a sample, an eyewitness or witnesses maintain a chain of custody over the sample, an eyewitness runs specific tests, an eyewitness observes the result of the test and reports those results.
All evidence comes from eyewitnesses. If all eyewitness testimony is notoriously lousy then all evidence is notoriously lousy.
If we only have notoriously lousy evidence then all science which is based on evidence is notoriously lousy.
If science is notoriously lousy then the only truths we can know is truths revealed by God because any evidence we have is from notoriously lousy witnesses.
Is that what we should put in the science textbooks?
The belief that the evolution of man is a fact is nothing more than a belief and faith.
False. The theory of evolution is based on overwhelming evidence.
They won't admit it because, if they do, then they must respect our belief of creationism and give it equal standing in science with their own belief of evolution.
False. Creationism is a belief, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The former is based on divine revelation and scripture. The latter is based on evidence.
This would cause both to be taught to our children and most will believe in creationism when given the choice and proper education about both theories.
There are not two theories. Science uses the term "theory" far differently than do laymen. While a layman may see a theory as a guess or something similar, scientists see a theory as the current best explanation for a given set of facts. The status of theory is only achieved after withstanding multiple tests and making successful predictions.
Evolutionist know this all too well. That is why they want only their theory and not creationism in schools.
Scientists prefer that only science be taught as science. Ideas based on divine revelation and scripture, rather than scientific evidence, do not qualify as science. This should be obvious to all!
Only an atheist, or someone who has been force feed a glamorized version of Human Evolution in the educational system, would accept Human Evolution as a scientific fact or even a sound scientific theory proven true through the scientific method.
First, your use of "proven" is incorrect. It is more of the way a layman would use the term. In science nothing is considered proven. Theories are always subject to modification or falsification if new data arise that cannot be explained. In short, theories are supported by the data or they are not--but they are never "proven."
Second, the world's largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. It is only the fundamentalist religions (including Biblical literalists and Muslims) who are unable to accept the findings of science.
Finally, I cannot accept that fundamentalists such as yourself are an accurate judge of what science is or should be. When one accepts the Bible as the ultimate authority, and is required to accept every word literally as true, one has abandoned the scientific method. At that point one's opinions on science are no longer meaningful, or even useful, to the conduct of science.
O.K. being humble.... I try to do better..
Primates after evolving to invent or recognize GOD.. there are still some that remain devolved or unevolved that prefer to Ape unbelief.. make verbal noises and shake conceptual bushes.. And posit that the third human on earth did not come from the first two..
I dunno. It’s still not quite there. I think the invective is interfering with the humor.
To take your logic to its conclusion, nothing we can see, observe, or test can be trusted, only what we believe God is telling us.
If that’s the reality you live in, it’s no skin off of my nose. But there’s no way to test what God is telling us, either, which sort of leaves you in a logical whirlpool.
LOL!
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.