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 ...
And I suppose you'd call that a "scientifi argument," to be taught in science classes, along beside the "religion" of evolution??!
I think the only resolution to the science class dilemma is to allow parents to exclude their children from science classes. It could affect college admissions, however.
I believe California universities have already stopped accepting credits for courses based on certain textbooks.
If you’re going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literallyand if you’re going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically.
Let’s be consistent here.
Does that make you Darwin literalists?
Well you have to keep in mind they don’t hold themselves to a thing they demand of others. Literalism, peer review...all of it.
That’s how cults work though.
Thus it is perfectly consistent with a Biblical view that life can come from nonliving matter, at God's command.
The science of abiogenesis deals with the conditions and circumstances that might have unfolded in response to God's command for the Oceans and the Earth to bring forth life.
How many “creation geologists” get work looking for oil deposits?
How many “creation biologists” get work in the biotech industry?
I am afraid an education along those lines leaves you both ignorant and unemployed, other than in promulgating more ignorance.
Evolution is a useful theory because it helps to explain and predict facts. It is taught in Biology science class because that is the theory that professional biologists use in their work. And biology has never been a more productive and informative science than in these days of evolutionary analysis of genomic information and molecular biology.
Creationism is a useless religious interpretation that blindfolds people to the nature of the vast and beautiful and ancient reality that God has created.
[[Obviously our capitalistic corporations do not find any use in Creationism.]]
And that makes what they teach, truth how again?
[[How many “creation geologists” get work looking for oil deposits?]]
If you’re really interested in that quesiton, you’ll research it online=- otherwise your comment really has absolutely ZERO relavence to your claims
[[How many “creation biologists” get work in the biotech industry?]]
Quite a few actually- Go ye and seek- but take off your rose coloured glasses first htough
[[I am afraid an education along those lines leaves you both ignorant and unemployed, other than in promulgating more ignorance.]]
Well now, aren’t you just the most special antagonist around? Your comment holds no credibility.
[[Evolution is a useful theory because it helps to explain and predict facts.]]
Facts huh? I keep seeing you make htese broad generalized statements, but i NEVER see you offer ANY proof of what you claim- You give nothign but empty claims I’m afraid- Which I might add are quite contrary to hte actual facts- but whatever- Closemindedness seems to be a common theme amoung those who can’t stand Christianity-
[[It is taught in Biology science class because that is the theory that professional biologists use in their work.]]
Funny- because a lot of prefessional scientsits dissagree that Naturalism is biologically possible- But I predict you’ll simply deny this and keep spouting empty false claims per usual.
[[Creationism is a useless religious interpretation that blindfolds people to the nature of the vast and beautiful and ancient reality that God has created.]]
No sir- Creationism recognizes the obvious, exposes the blatant lies and outright deceits of Macroevolution claims, and refutes bogus claims made by antagonists such as yourself- but you just keep right on hating on Creationism, meanwhile Creationism and ID will keep right on exposing just how impossible Macroevolution is- all while you try to keep adjusting your blinders.
[[I didn’t say that, but it got answered as if I had.]]
My apologies- As I said, not feelign well, and as result misreading thigns today, so gonna just take it easy for a bit- tuck the Zicam to me, and pretend this day isn’t happening :)
Do you think that the Pope also “can't stand Christianity”?
How about President Bush?
How about the majority of Christian believers who have no problem at all accepting the theory of evolution?
Do you consider the devoutness of a Christian to be directly measurable by how out of touch their view is to reality?
Is a Geocentrist Christian more devout than a Heliocentric Christian?
Is a Young Earth Creationist more devout than an Old Earth Creationist?
Is a Christian who thinks Jesus might have ridden on a dinosaur more devout than one who realizes how idiotic such a premise is?
Not sure wherer you pulled that from? As mentioned, I’m having trouble following linesof thought today- I’ll check back later & see if I agree or not- Did you read Wallace’s conversation with the scientist who claimed because static elements can form basic geometry patterns, then therefore an open system should allow for Macroevoltuion? It was quite humorous- apparently, snowflakes are ‘evidence for macroevolution’ in Schneider’s mind- here’s the link- be sure to also read through the links to the rest of the conversation to see how shallow Schneider really was, and also note how he tried consitently to AVOID the questions Wallace asked him, and to instead zero in to an irrelevent issue as though it would bolster his argument for Macroevolution- A common diversionary tactic by people from Talkorigins and DC & other liberal Creationist hating sites:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_01.asp
Her’s a teaser:
“My suggestion that we “cut to the chase” was intended precisely to bring Mr. Schneider’s line of reasoning to its logical end (without my agreeing to it), and then to invite him to substantiate his arbitrary conclusion (i.e., that “since the Second Law does not prevent decreases of entropy, it cannot be an impediment to evolution”). More than once I deliberately gave him opportunity to substantiate his conclusion as something more than a tautology of his beginning assumption by presenting two fundamental questions, [LINK: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_01.asp#twoquestions] the answers to which would determine the plausibility of the very same specific class of entropy decreases that he was inferring were commonplace in nature.
Regrettably, Mr. Schneider chose to react to those clear and thorough questions by doing precisely what he now has accused me of doing: by avoiding the issue and sidetracking the conversation. Can one really be blamed for refusing to continue an exchange with an opponent who practices such tactics?”
You questions and acusations are becomming more and more petty and worthlessly irrelevent- Either step it up a bit- or go play by yourself- not interested in engaging someone who displays such childish vitriol and empty accusaitons- Comprende?
Like when you suggested that I “can’t stand Christianity”?
That is not a childish and vitriolic empty accusation?
Go cry yourself a river.
[[It was further submitted in a subsequent post that this what the “evos” accuse the “biblical literalists” of doing with the Bible. I asked for an example of someone acutally saying that.]]
Hm- unless I’m reading htis wrong again- it woudl seem that you want ot know if anyone accuses Christians of either beign too literal, or not literal enough? If I’m correct? You will find quite a few threads that devolved into non christians attempting to use God’s word agaisnt hte Christians by exclaiming that since Christians take every word literally, then they MUST take even the parables literally blah blah blah, and hterefore, if they don’t take them literally, then the bible couldn’t possibly be reliable because ‘who knows which parts can be trusted as literal and which parts cant’ blah blah blah”- I’ve seen it here many times on FR- you’re askign for names? Sorry- don’t recall, and not goign to go through hundreds of threads looking for htem, but I know folks here will also recall such conversations and accusations against Christians.
[[That’s on Ken ham’s list of arguments that creationists should not use.]]
First of all, I am not a big fan of Ham- Secondly, Ken Ham isn’t the voice of ID, thirdly, Christians absolutely CAN use hte second law with confidence and valid credibility because as you’ll see on Wallace’s site- the argument by Macroevo’s simply is NOT a valid arguement to make, and hte second law STILL means Macroevolution can not happen which you’ll discover by readign the link provided, as well as the links throughout hte article. The accusation that ‘Christians simply don’t understand the second law’ “Properly” is a bogus claim, and when the claim is investigated, it is foudn that it is apparently the Macroevos who do not understand hte law very well, and beleive that a snowflake somehow validifies Trillions upon trillions of upward moving and increasing self assembling complexities that somehow totally escape the second law at every single step of hte way apparently.
No problem. I’ve been there and done that, and it ain’t no fun. Take the Zicam, drink lots of water and get some rest.
Still not goign to step it up eh? Buh Bye!
[[And I suppose you’d call that a “scientifi argument,” to be taught in science classes, along beside the “religion” of evolution??!]]
did SisterK State that this is what should be taught in schools? NO! She did not- so why are you even askign her this? Just looking for an argument that is irrelevent to what she posted and her intent for doing so?
The argument was that if you read any part of Darwin's writing as being metaphorical, the you must read all of it as being metaphorical. If you read any of it as being literal you must read all of it as being literal. The reason for this is that this is how "the evos" demand that "biblical literalists" must read the Bible.
Maybe I should resist the urge, but sometimes the claims get so wild and irrational I just stop and say "OK, show me where that happened".
We just had pretty much the same spitting match here over "eyewitness evidence", and it wasn't any prettier.
They can use it all they want, but they will be incorrect.
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.