How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[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.

[WOSG]

“I see no proof”
You are debating a strawman. I never said anything was “proved”.

“Can you not see that we are discussing faiths and not faith vs science.”

I see you are engaged in sophistry. an agreement on a collection of facts and explanations is not a ‘faith’. I asked a question and you didnt answer it.
All I asked was for your alternative explanation and for what evidence you have to support it.

[WOSG]

“The belief that the evolution of man is a fact is nothing more than a belief and faith. They won’t admit it because...”

Uh, no. Any “belief” in a set of facts or theories is a “belief”. Calling any “belief” a “faith” is different matter.
Are all beliefs ‘faiths’? Is the fact that gravity works and the earth is a sphere and not flat a ‘faith’?

[WOSG]

“Second, the world’s largest religion, Roman Catholicism, has accepted science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, as being accurate. “

And Thank God for that! (Gloria In Excelsis Deo)
For consider if the whole realm of ‘science’, which has enabled modern propserous life, was given over to the atheists. Why would we reject truths arrived at through scientific means? Would Christianity survive if it warred with science? Would we want that?

That would be a question for creationists. many scientists are Christians, do you not favor science?
Even if you disagree with one theory, it is a big mistake to carry that into an opposition to science itself.

[Jaime2099]

Creationism is not a theory, it is a religious belief based upon a specific interpretation of Genesis that has no basis in evidence, namely a young earth and the near simultaneous creation of and contemporaniousness of all living species.

None of the dating systems prove using science that the earth is an ancient, 5 billion year old planet. They simply "think" that it is by using these systems. There is no way anyone could ever say those ages are a scientific fact. Human Evolution is a religious belief based on the beliefs and teachings of Darwin see my previous posts. It may use the scientific method, but it fails to have a true hypothesis, how does that make it any different than creationism in your mind? Would creationism not fail to create a true hypothesis using the scientific method in your opinion? Then if they both fail, where does that leave us?

"Do you consider Pope Benedict XVI an atheist, or lack the soundness of his education in the theory?"

I disagree with him that the clash is an absurdity, he has a right to his own opinion. Just because he gives credit to evolution does not mean he is giving credit to Human Evolution. If someone asked him if we came from monkeys, I doubt he would answer with a, "Yes". He may be speaking of animal evolution (such as horses), but I'm not sure. Human Evolution is what I'm speaking of and it has no proof whatsoever.

[CottShop]

[[What differences are ‘too small’? So how should it be classified is my question?]]

You can find exactly what differences online

[[You are clear on what you dont agree with, but that doesnt say much. how about telling us what your own view on it is.]]

You find out exactly what I’m clear on by doing a search on my posts

[CottShop]

[[Who says it wasnt? What evidence do you have for the earth being less than 4 billion years old?]]

Again, you can find hte info online, as well you can do a search here on fr- it’s been discussed many times

[CottShop]

[[I’ll add a few decimals of precision to the question then. Is it possible that the event itself was misinterpreted at the time, or that the natural laws involved were simply not well enough understood yet to account for it? Is it possible to get a direct answer to this question?]]

The natural laws were misunderstood when Christ healed and restored lost body parts with nothign but a word, and in some instances a little spit? No- I don’t think anyone would have misinterpreted those occurances

Possible to get an answer? Sure- the bible has eyewitness accounts, as Well you can find some secular writings that contain eyewitness accounts

[CottShop]

[[try DC, although I understand it is obsessed with attacking certain people who frequent this forum.]]

You’ve been told right- it seems they spend their freetime (which seems to be quite plentiful there) monitoring this site looking for anythign with which to bludgeon Christians and ID folks with- whether it be mispekllings, an imprecise full explanation, or whathaveyou- anythign is game for ridicule over there

[Raycpa]

what is “that”?

Didn’t I answer the question that we should teach logic instead?

[Dog Gone]

If someone asked him if we came from monkeys, I doubt he would answer with a, "Yes".

And if you asked a scientist whether we came from monkeys, he or she would say no, as well.

The ability to have firm beliefs about something one knows so little about is common.

Obama won the election based on that fact.

[CottShop]

[[What if “reality” is an illusion...]]

What if the reality of the situation is that what you wrote is an illusion?

[Raycpa]

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.

I took your statements to their logical conclusion. I happen to believe that we can weigh eyewitness testimony and unlike you, i don't believe eyewitness testimony is "lousy". I believe that science has good witnesses and that the religion has good witnesses and that court has good witnesses and each also contain false witnesses.

You know it is a bit frustrating to discuss with you the issue of witnesses and evidence when you do not own your own statements and try to make them mine when I point out to you your own statements contradict your own worldview presumptions. Someone noted that the only eyewitnesses you accept are those who support your opinion and reject those who which contradict your opinion.

[CottShop]

[[ I have to assume that the alternative to evolution is some kind of theistic account.

I think it is reasonable to ask what a theist would teach in biology class that is different from what biologists would teach.]]

Theistic? Says who? The truth can be taught without inferring who the causation is- some ID folks still believe the intelligent Causation is still nature, heck soem still beleive that common descent is true- but again, this goes beyond the truth, the facts and the evidence- I suggested earlier how ID can and should be taught minus the subjectiveness one way or hte other- There are biological truths that simply are NOT making it into our classrooms because they refute what has been taught for a very long time now (Under penalty of law if anythign but naturalistic Darwinism is taught)

[NicknamedBob]

"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."

I think this is called "Solipsism". Only the self can be knowable.

I don't go that far. I believe in "Elipsism", in which you do a lot of what you can call meditation.

It's like the guy who hums "Ommmmmmmmm" only quieter, because you just go "... ... ... ... ..."

[CottShop]

[[It’s pretty obvious that some people trust family and friends before the testimony of scientists.]]

I trust scientists, right up until they step outside their profession and start claiming htings that have zero scientific evidence to back it up, and worse yet, when the scientific evidence actually argues against what is being claimed- and not just slightly against, but very strongly against- then I tend to not have faith in htem beyond the actual evidences

[CottShop]

[[Creationism is not a theory, it is a religious belief based upon a specific interpretation of Genesis that has no basis in evidence,]]

If you’re goign to argue something- try to be itnellectually honest- Creationism DOES have evidence to support it, and you know it- You just a priori reject the evidence- while that is your right, let’s try to be intellectually honest at least when answering folks

[Dog Gone]

I took your statements to their logical conclusion. I happen to believe that we can weigh eyewitness testimony and unlike you, i don't believe eyewitness testimony is "lousy". I believe that science has good witnesses and that the religion has good witnesses and that court has good witnesses and each also contain false witnesses.

You know it is a bit frustrating to discuss with you the issue of witnesses and evidence when you do not own your own statements and try to make them mine when I point out to you your own statements contradict your own worldview presumptions. Someone noted that the only eyewitnesses you accept are those who support your opinion and reject those who which contradict your opinion

Whether it's frustrating to you or not, is not the issue.

You did not contradict me at all. At least not with facts or logic. Earwitness (hearsay) testimony is barred in trials. Eyewitness is barely above that. It's admissible, but it better have some confirmation to be believable.

There would be no controversial calls in football if all it took was one eyewitness.

Now if you can get two or three eyewitnesses, or perhaps 1,000 or more scientists, to say they all see the same thing, that should mean something.

[Coyoteman]

I trust scientists, right up until they step outside their profession and start claiming htings that have zero scientific evidence to back it up, and worse yet, when the scientific evidence actually argues against what is being claimed- and not just slightly against, but very strongly against- then I tend to not have faith in htem beyond the actual evidences

Don't try to fool us. You distrust scientists right up until they even come close to disagreeing with your religious dogma. Then you undergo a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde change and really start frothing at the keyboard.

You simply will not accept scientific evidence when it appears to contradict your religious beliefs.

(Don't even bother posting ten or twenty disjointed and poorly spelled replies. I'm going to bed and won't be reading them. It has reached the point where your posts aren't even interesting any more.)

[NicknamedBob]

The problem with earwitnesses is that they go along with the heard mentality.

[Dog Gone]

ROFL