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.

[metmom]

FReepmail

[NicknamedBob]

"When actually, some of us may know so much about science and math, that evolution does not pass the test. Your point is well taken: logic is a beautiful thing."

In regard to that, (math), one point that appears to have been missed, as I was perusing the posts upthread, is that gene reproduction, particularly in the individual, is the equivalent of a digital copying process.

This may help to explain the relatively slow rate of degradation as copies are made of copies.

Of course, life teaches us that there is a limit even to this, and eventually you have to throw away the old model and come out with something brand new.

[CottShop]

[[And on what grounds do Creationists claim that Intelligent Design is a “science”?]]

On the scientific grounds- period- Pure ID is STRICTLY scientific

[[Well, they quote the Bible, don’t they?]]

Who does?

[[Are you serious? I thought the subject here was what should be taught in science classes — evolution or Creationism / Intelligent Design.]]

It is the subjest- Again- did Sister K state that religion should be taught? I sure didn’t see where she did- like it or not, both scientific disciplines, Creationism and ID are scientific methods of investigation-

[SisterK]

Your memory is correct. I did not advocate teaching Creation in public school. My complaint is that evolution is presented as gospel, hard science, and with no options. It shuts the brain down. Bias liberal hooeey.

[NicknamedBob]

"... like it or not, both scientific disciplines, Creationism and ID are scientific methods of investigation- ..."

It's refreshing to note that you leave room in your world view to be so generously inclusive.

[betty boop]

Thank you so very much for the links, Ethan! I’ll check ‘em out....

[CottShop]

When disciplines follow hte evidence, - why exclude them? Other than bias I mean? Creationism simply says that the fossil record more plausibly follows discontinuity, which it does- it’s only when one jumps fro mthe science and asserts that everythign has common descent that we leave the realm of science and start projecting metaphyisical assumptions into the issue-

[Just mythoughts]

676<>3 is not equal to 6760 6760 is the root word, not the word derived to be 6763

I do not disagree about which word came first. I cannot ignore that the Adam was initially formed/created in the image of God. And woman was made from something taken from the man. Given what we do know regarding DNA as the most reliable method of identifying any flesh human that what God was telling us, in spite of the lack of biological knowledge by the translators, that it was not describing a literal rib. Now counting ribs or identifying ribs does not determine paternity, but DNA sure does.

Now when the Bible records a flesh person making comment or statements that is not the same as coming from the mouth of God. Adam had a few other things to say which I continue to hear some preachers claim that is what God said. Say like Adam blaming that woman that God gave him for his sin. I consider it one of the first recordings of liberalism known to we in these flesh bodies.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

In those science classes they must teach science -- not politics, or religion, or philosophy disguised as science.

What about teaching the doctrines of Thomas Malthus? Does that belong in science class?

[BroJoeK]

"Because I do not embrace the evolution conspiracy does not make me scientifically illiterate."

You are obviously illiterate on the theory of evolution. Therefore, your opinion about it is worth nothing scientifically.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The basic problem with most of you Creationist / Intelligent Designers is that you truly truly do not understand what science is all about.

It would be better for them to follow the lead of science-talking people who, knowing what science is all about of course, insist that almost all norwegians either perish or fail to reproduce.

[BroJoeK]

"Scientists do not know for certain what these fossils are, nor can they be certain how old the fossils are. It is merely their educated (by mostly human evolutionists instructors), but unscientific, opinion that these fossils are thousands, hundreds of thousands, or billions of years old."

First, none of your post 1293 is factually true. It's just ridiculous jabbering nonsense, and identifies you as an ignoramus.

Second, on this particular point, I'll say again, there are several different techniques for dating ancient materials, many involving the well known decay rates of various isotopes. And these techniques all support each other.

So we have to ask, if several different scientific techniques all establish the same age for certain ancient materials, on what scientific ground do non-scientists declare those techniques invalid?

[BroJoeK]

"I have opinions about science, and I have opinions about religion. I expect to be able to develop and expostulate my opinions on either without being asked for credentials."

I'll say again, science has NOTHING to do with your uninformed opinions about it.

Sure, anyone can say, "two plus two equals five." If that's your opinion, you have every right to express it.

But NO ONE is required to respect your ignorant stupidities. And if you try to IMPOSE them on the rest of us, then expect to be more or less politely smacked down. It's what you deserve.

And even if you and your friends get together and outvote everyone else, that still can NEVER make your claim that "two plus two equals five" factually correct.

[BroJoeK]

"Since precious few of them have a degree in scinece, their uneducated opinion on matters of science are irrelevant as well."

You're being ridiculous and dishonest, and you know it, don't you?

The theory of evolution is a scientific effort, with details developed by many hundreds scientists working over many decades.

So, the uninformed opinions of those defending evolution can all be referenced back to genuine scientific work and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers published in recognized journals, etc.

By contrast, the uninformed opinions of those supporting Creationism / Intelligent Design are only referenced back to one serious source -- the Bible.

[DoctorMichael]

Ongoing-crisis-of-Stupidity-and-Ignorance Placemarker.

(See my ***Tagline***)

[BroJoeK]

"Hi Bob. I am not about blowing my own horn, BroJoe just keeps spouting that anyone that does not agree with evolution doesn’t know jack about science. When actually, some of us may know so much about science and math, that evolution does not pass the test. Your point is well taken: logic is a beautiful thing."

But, of course, you don't know that much, and your posts clearly show it.

Can I ask you to think seriously and logically for just a minute? Listen up:

There are three great denials loose in the world today (you may count others, let's look at these three):

Those who deny the holocaust.
Those who deny evolution.
Those who deny global warming.

Now, consider that of the three, only global warming has a large number of serious working scientists who have studied the matter in great depth and published peer-reviewed scientific articles which say, in effect: wait a minute, AlGore is full of BS.

So ANYONE who wishes to argue against global warming can always reference his arguments back to some recognized scientific study. Point is, global warming is ultimately an argument among SCIENTISTS.

But nothing like that is true with either holocaust or evolution denial. In those "debates" there are NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA serious & recognized historians or scientists who support the deniers' positions.

So people who CLAIM they reject evolution on scientific grounds are LIARS, and sorry, but that's all there is to it.

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK: "[[And on what grounds do Creationists claim that Intelligent Design is a “science”?]]

CottShop: "On the scientific grounds- period- Pure ID is STRICTLY scientific."

You're joking and mocking us, aren't you?

There is NOTHING scientific about "intelligent design." All you did was take your Bible-based "Creationism" file and renamed it "Intelligent Design." There's nothing more there.

No serious scientific work, no peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, no actual debate amongst recognized scientists -- nothing.

I'll say again, I agree philosophically, theologically and religiously that God created the heavens, earth and its creatures. But that is not science, and science doesn't care what you or I think about it.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

There are three great denials loose in the world today (you may count others, let's look at these three):

To your list of three, add a fourth:

The denial of final causes (teleology.)

[NicknamedBob]

"Creationism simply says that the fossil record more plausibly follows discontinuity ..."

Of a certainty, discontinuities play a big role in the study of fossils. After all, why go to the bother of tediously digging out the midden of a remote cave, with its layers and layers of disgusting filth, when you can simply put on your hiking boots and go for a pleasant stroll through the broken lands of Colorado, ostensibly looking for bits and pieces of dinosaur skeletons.

Those discontinuities formed by earthquake and subsidence, even by our own activities, as we dynamite our way through the folded mountains of the unmade bedcovers of a sleeping giant, are much easier to examine.

And what is the K-T boundary, with its planet-girdling sprinkling of Iridium, but a discontinuity?

It is a most tedious "undertaking", to sort out all the convolutions of a writhing, living planet, as its very continents go on walk-about, colliding with each other from time to time like the lumbering blind amoeboid creatures they are, but hey, what else is all that high-falutin book learning good for?

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK: "There are three great denials loose in the world today (you may count others, let's look at these three):

Ethan Clive Osgoode: "To your list of three, add a fourth:

The denial of final causes (teleology.)"

I notice you've posted a number of pretty random off-topic comments, so I let them go. This one slightly relates to the point.

Teleology is a branch of philosophy or metaphysics, and should be taught in school classes on such subjects. But it is not a branch of science, and should not pretend to be.