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 ...
Definitely about six thousand years ago.
I am too old to embarrass easy. Or am I embarrassing Free Republic?
I know exactly what “faith” and “science” mean and human evolution is unprovable and cannot be tested. If something is unprovable and untestable then it is not science. It is a belief, faith.
Evolution is faith, not science. Many scientists, by faith, believe that man evolved and was not created in current human form. This has never been proven, this has never been tested, yet somehow it’s science. Human evolution is not science, it’s an incorrect and false religion.
None of my ‘crevo’ friends would dare attempt that argument. Indeed, I suspect that were such an argument to be advanced, they would join me in calling the psychiatrist treating the person advancing the argument and ask that said persons’ meds be adjusted STAT.
“Evos = Commies ? ? ? ? ?
On the other hand the evos are relegated to defedning the indefensable: the godless liberal NEA.
Every year paleontologists dig up new "in between fossils" which until then did "not exist." Who can say how many more "in between fossils" they will eventually find?
More to the point, how many would they HAVE to find, before even the most skeptical will admit the basic idea?
Are you concerned that we've built a facility for the long term storage of nuclear waste on top of a supervolcano that was active within the last 6,000 years?
Every statement in this is false.
Evolution is a fact that has been demonstrated in the laboratory, as well as in the natural world.
The theory of evolution seeks to explain the facts of evolution.
Many scientists, by evidence accept that man evolved and was not created in current human form.
Science does not deal in proof. Science deals in increasingly accurate explanations. No theory in science has been, or can be, proved.
Science does not require laboratory testing or star formation would be beyond science. Your view of what is and is not required in science is incorrect.
And finally, your claim that evolution is not a science, but religion, is simply wrong. Religion relies on scripture and revelation, and accepts its conclusions without evidence or the need for testing. Science is based on facts and theories which seek to explain those facts, and is constantly undergoing testing and retesting.
We creationists understand that we believe it by faith. Evolutionists pretend that they are not doing the same thing. They have no transitionary fossils or concrete proof and need faith to fill in the gaps. It is the religion of Darwinism/science.
Pray for W, America and Our Troops
"And the layers and layers of rock - do you see no aesthetic value in them?"
I'll say again, evolution is science, "creationism" is not. I think it's TRUE that God created the heavens, earth & all its creatures, but that is a religious and philosophical statement, NOT SCIENCE.
The real problem is, you people have NO CLUE what SCIENCE is. You need to go back to school, and get some education, so you stop embarrassing yourselves with stupidities.
Yes, I see the aesthetic beauty in ALL of God's works, including the layers of rocks, and all the fossils buried in them!
Then the assumptions we made about the safety of nuclear reactors are invalid. They could go critical at any time and there is no guarantee the cooling systems will be able to control the heat generated.
After 150 yrs of lifetimes looking for transitory fossils, shouldn’t they have found some? After all the one who found it would be as famous as Darwin, yet nada. Maybe they don’t really exist.
Pray for W, America and Our Troops
Carbon dating LOL, say hi to the tooth fairy for me. That is not science either, pure garbage. The rate of decay is unpredictable, no one knows how old the earth is. Fantasy of fantasies is carbon dating.
Your abject ignorance is showing. Carbon dating has an upper limit of about 50,000 years. It is not used to date fossils or the age of the earth.
Why don't you actually learn some science before you go trashing it? You only make yourself look silly with these posts that are so laughably wrong.
There are some good links explaining carbon 14 dating on my FR home page. And if you have any legitimate questions, I would be glad to answer them for you -- I use carbon 14 dating extensively in my work as an archaeologist.
In order to believe the world is 6,000 years old, then you have to believe that God created it then with all the evidence to support it looking as if it's 4.5 billion years old, including burying fossils of creatures that never actually existed.
And he created the stars that we can see that are 13 million light years away at the same time.
He did this, apparently, to fake us out.
Here’s a “nifty” question for Evolutionists...With every “Leap Forward” on the Evolutionary ladder, the arising Life Form needed a more complex Protein and Nutritional chain in order to survive, let alone thrive. Since this would involve the “fine-tuning” of the entire environment, how we accept that this PRE-EVOLUTION EVOLVING could transpire successfully thousands of times su the ecosystem would be ready to support the newly arisen form?
The utter denial of the facts does not make this absurd statement true. Yet it's a constant refrain. It's ridiculous.
Just Google "Horse Evolution" and explain to me that what you see are not transitional fossils. You can't do it, because it would completely obliterate your contention.
Horses are just the easy example. There are thousands of other transistional fossils.
What the hell is Lucy? It's not a chimp, so what species is it that Noah put on his ark?
No transitional fossils, indeed.
Of course, you're making a ludicrous argument, and why? Is the truth of the matter not perfectly obvious?
First of all, when most animals die, they get quickly eaten -- so whole species could rise and go extinct without leaving a fossil record for us to eventually find.
Second, there's no such thing as "right direction." Species adapt to survive in their environment. If the environment changes, then the species must either change or die out. To adapt incorrectly is to disappear.
I was actually told once that it was Satan that planted all that silly old earth evidence to fool us and lead us away from God. So I guess the jury is still out as to whether God planted the evidence to fake us out or Satan did it to lead us astray.
Horses are all the same species. That’s like saying dogs evolve or humans evolve. The closest horses have come is mules and they are sterile.
The only things that truly evolve are the excuses for evolution.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Their is zero real world proof of such that that is true as well as zero support in your Bible so exactly how are you determining that to be true?
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.