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 ...
[[Sometimes a confirmed hypothesis can be reduced to a scientific law, which is usually a mathematical statement of what will happen under certain circumstances. The scientific law says WHAT will happen, but it does not explain WHY.]]
OK- A couple of points here- In this htread- you will find an aerticle which talks abotu htis very issue- the ‘law’ is beign established, and it is showing Naturalism to be imposible, while establishing the fact that there HAD to be mega-informaiton right fro mthe start because a chemical system can not naturalistically gain information until it coems to the point of higher completed information because htere are no ‘higher species’ from which to gain from, and nature is incapable of creating stepwise information- it can ONLY change information already available to it all within specific parameters which exclude Macroevolutionary developement. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2161800/posts?page=239#239
Secondly- Yuo can hypothesise WHAT will happen, AND show HOW and WHY it happens- the article I pointed to above
[[Point is: a theory is not “less than a law,” but rather uses facts and laws to form higher explanations of what is going on in the natural world.]]
That’s all fine and well, but when a theory like Macroevolution consitently violates bioogical, natural, and mathematical laws, it doesn’t ‘explain’ anyhting, all it does it ignore the facts while tryign to ram through a religious belief despite the evidences against it
One minor bit: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."
****I believe that God put a protoza in the mud puddle.****
On what do you base that belief?
Common sense.
"If you don't like naturalism, then by definition you cannot be a scientist." "
We're throwing a lot of fancy words around here -- teological, naturalism, scientism and others -- and no doubt misusing some of them.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of naturalism:
"Philosophical naturalism is, as a position, the idea that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1]
"This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism.
"Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.[2]
"Yet another form of naturalism is the idea that the methods of science should be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum and, hence, the same methods apply to both. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and others have advocated this view.
"Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic."
Note the second basic form above -- that's what I thought I was refering to. ;-)
The Evolution of Man"
Obviously pure hogwash. Look, if you can't understand it any other way, then let me put it to you this way: I will not blame you for every heretic, apostate, witch, pagan, infidel or Jew murdered in the name of Christianity, and you will not blame "Darwinism" for every lunatic who latched on to Darwin's ideas in support of his own insanities?
Deal?
"I'd advise being very careful to explicitly declare exactly which one you mean any time you make a reference to it."
Good point, nice post. I always enjoy reading folks who know a lot more than I do on a subject. ;-)
js1138: "Maybe we could make that into a sticker and put it on textbooks. ;^) "
The point is, by definition, a "confirmed theory" is as high up as you can get.
There are no "proven theories."
A theory can NEVER "graduate" to become a fact (confirmed observation) or a law (mathematical equation).
A scientific hypothesis, if confirmed, becomes a theory. It may later be modified or replaced by some other theory, but theory is what it is, and always will be...
At least, that's my understanding. Maybe someone else understands these things better than I do?
My post had a smiley, indicating sarcasm.
Sorry pal, but your words are complete hogwash -- nothing true in them. They tell me you are either incredibly stupid (which I doubt), or you've spent a huge amount of time studying LIES. My recommendation is, you ought to stop doing that -- just stop it. Learn something true for a change.
I recommend the book in post #1372 above. You don't have to be a freakin genius to understand what she's saying.
Another 100% hogwash post! You've obviously never read a science book, have you? Does it not embarrass you to be so so full of lies?
Again, I recommend the book in my post #1372. It is relatively short, easy to understand and will stop you from telling so gosh-darn many lies.
Sorry, my apologies for misunderstanding your point! Back to you -- ;-)
Pardon Me, BroJoeK.....you don’t know me well enough to insult me.
What exactly is the “lie” in my post?
I’m not trying to be harsh here, Fawn. Merely asking....Do you consider that a legitimate answer or were you being flippant?
Here’s a couple more questions based on the answers you’ve given:
Do you believe the Biblical account right up until the “primordial muck”.....then not after that? You seem to be taking half of your belief system from the Bible and the other half from secular science.
Let me posit this to you....something I read on a blog a while back that I thought was an interesting take. You can make four statements about matter, of which only one can be true:
1. Matter does not exist.
2. Matter is eternal.
3. Matter sprang up on it’s own from nothing.
4. Matter was created.
One of these statements has to be true....none of these statements can be proven scientifically and therefore must all be considered philosophical.
Secular science books teach number 3. Does a philosophical construct have a place in a science text book?
Just askin’.
These "lunatics" you speak of who "latched on to Darwin's ideas" includes a significant proportion of Darwin's family and many famous Darwinians (Darwin Medalists too) including the ones who formulated the Modern Synthesis. Boelshe was a disciple of Haeckel, by the way. Haeckel was a Darwin Medalist.
Deal?
No. By all means, go ahead and blame Christianity for all the evils you can think of, and put it up on your FR page too. See how far that gets you.
I notice you didn’t answer my question.
Because it’s irrelevant.
I think I get it.....
You asked me for evidence to support what I believe and I gave it to you.
When I asked you for evidence you said “Common Sense”...which is not evidence.
When I ask you a difficult question, you say it’s irrelevant.
You’re one of the many on this topic who don’t want to have a reasonable discussion....you just want to hurl insults at those who disagree with you.
Here’s a website you can visit that lists over 700 scientists, most of whom are PhDs who say that there are major problems with the theory of evolution:
www.dissentfromdarwin.com
Perhaps you can find their email addresses and cast insults at them.
By the way...reading a book by Eugenie Scott on the Creation/Evolution Controversy is equivalent to reading Al Gore’s Book on global warming.
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.