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 ...
Here you've wrapped your argument up so tight, I'm having a hard time unpackaging and figuring out just what you're trying to say.
I think you're asking, do I condemn lunatics whether they go under the banner of science, or politics or religion or anything else, and of course the answer is "yes." I'm only here to defend the science of evolution -- not to defend ANY nonsense from any scientists speaking their personal opinions. They have the same rights as anyone else to those opinions, and we have every right to ignore them. So let's do it!
Was that your point?
YHAOS: "What BroJoe realizes or doesn't realize remains to be seen. Perhaps we will find out. Perhaps not.
What I'm starting to realize is that on this particular thread at least, defenders of science are way outnumbered and afraid to stick their heads up for fear of being rhetorically shot down by a bunch of "drunken cowboys"!
I seriously think you must be mistaking me for someone else, because your argument here makes no sense.
Schaef21 made that same complaint to me -- he said I had him confused with someone else, and he never said what I claimed he said.
And my apologies went to Schaef21, because I had indeed just assumed he was your typical Creationist, and I failed to notice the fine points of distinction.
In your case, YHAOS, I suspect something similar, since I have no clue what you're talking about here. This is a long long thread, no doubt it's hard to keep the posters distinctly in mind.
YHAOS: "Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. There’s plenty of that going around. But who started it is a complicated matter that I don’t think either you or I are ever going to adequately explain or resolve."
I think, YHAOS, you don't know quite as much as you think you know about this, and you're shooting wild here. This history is not that complicated (btw, my education is not in science, but it is in history):
The Biblical account of creation was accepted as fact by nearly everyone until the 19th century. Then geologists began to realize that rock strata had to be very ancient, and biologists like Darwin began to see that relationships among species had to date back very far in time.
By the early 1900s, when the theory of evolution became widely known, laws were passed in the US to prevent it being taught in schools, for fear of evolution overturning a biblical world view.
By the 1960s these anti-evolution laws were themselves being overturned, as courts declared them unconstitutional teachings of religion.
Since the 1960s, Creationists and now Intelligent Designers have been fighting politically to get back into the public science classes -- so far without much success.
Back in the early 1900s, Creationists at least argued the truth, which was that the Biblical world view had to be protected from inroads by science.
Today, by contrast, they can only argue a Big Lie, which is that they have a serious "scientific alternative" to Evolution. They don't. None of their so-called science has been accepted by any major scientific group.
If it WERE, then we would have a MUCH different debate here.
So let me mention briefly, differences between the debates over evolution and "global warming."
In global warming there ARE major scientists doing serious work in that field who publish peer-reviewed articles saying, in effect: "wait just a minute here, AlGore is full of beens." We see articles on this almost every day in Free Republic.
So, Global Warming is a serious debate amongst scientists. But Evolution is not. There is no serious debate about basic evolution amongst scientists, because the basic science is completely accepted, by scientists.
And, as always, it's completely rejected by Creationists, who today pretend to be scientific Intelligent Designers, but so far have made no actual inroad into real science.
Here's my opinion: the "debate" over evolution resembles less the true debate over global warming than the fake "debate" over the Holocaust.
Being patient...
That’s what I thought....
There is no mention of the Galapagos finches in Origin of Species.
Wrong answer, ma'am. I said I was willing to answer your questions. I already have the answers formulated. But you have refused to answer my question, which was asked first. Why is that?
If you don't want to discuss your religious views openly, freepmail me and I will keep your answer private. But please don't insult me by pretending that I'm dodging your questions when I'm just looking for a little common courtesy.
I've answered your question, now answer mine.
By the numbers:
#1500
”And now, just like the movies, what are the good Christian citizens of our "town" doing?”
Not buying any part of your “analogy.” It’s a comedy-spoof remake of High Noon.
#1501
”Here you've wrapped your argument up so tight, I'm having a hard time unpackaging and figuring out just what you're trying to say.”
You’re trying too hard. And, it’s not “unpackaging” [sic]. It’s known as “deconstruction.’ See the Post-Modernists, aka Marxist/Socialists, for assistance. They are experts in the art.
”I think you're asking, do I condemn lunatics whether they go under the banner of science, or politics or religion or anything else, and of course the answer is "yes." ”
And, of course, anyone who disagrees with BroJoe is a lunatic.
What I am telling you is that a very great number of the people you defend don’t believe the hokum you would give up your honor for. They are, indeed, lunatics. They think their considerable accomplishments in Science entitle them to declare with absolute certainty that God (most specifically the Judeo-Christian God) doesn’t exist. Or to determine that 90% of the Human Race must be eradicated and to contemplate the most ‘efficient’ way of going about accomplishing that laudable end.
So, tell me, BroJoe what credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of these distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?
That was a question.
#1502
”What I'm starting to realize is that on this particular thread at least, defenders of science are way outnumbered and afraid to stick their heads up for fear of being rhetorically shot down by a bunch of "drunken cowboys"!
Put down that heavy clock of martyrdom you have on. It doesn’t wear well and it makes you look silly. And, quit stealing my lines { 8^). If The Masters of the Universe were the vastly superior people they make themselves out to be (maybe even a different species), they would be fearless in facing down a bunch of lowbrow, knuckle dragging Jesus freaks. No more troublesome than defeating a band of howling apes (oh, wait . . . that’s what they say we all are).
#1503
”I seriously think you must be mistaking me for someone else, because your argument here makes no sense.”
Oh, no mistake here. It’s you I’m addressing. Pretended incomprehension is something I encounter frequently when I present a forum member with a proposition that he/she cannot admit to.
Stop the dancing or end the discussion.
#1504
”This history is not that complicated”
Spare me the recitative of Darwinian talking points.
As I said, stop the dancing or end the discussion.
****Bottom line: Darwin’s theory of evolution is very simple in concept: more or less random genetic mutations (some less random than others) cause some individuals to be better or worse adapted to their environments, which can lead whole species over time to change in the direction of those better adapted.****
I asked this question earlier BroJoe.....Why would a fish, who’s adapting to a water environment grow legs and walk out on land?......by the very mechanism that you profess, that being natural selection, the legs would be selected out of the process....they are useless in a water environment.
I could go on a huge tirade here about how mutations are harmful. Sometimes there’s a benefit but it comes at a loss of genetic information, not a gain.....but you know that right?
****But to go even further, and insist that science is all a lie, that PHYSICAL evidence somehow “proves” evolution invalid or the tenets of Creationism / ID-ism correct, is just, imho, well, outrageous, despicable and unacceptable.****
You keep saying that I say all science is a lie, which I’ve never said. The scientific method (To meet it a theory has to be Testable, Observable, Repeatable & Falsifiable) was established for the specific purpose of keeping bias out of the process.
Argue all you want, the theory of evolution does not meet this criteria....let me be more specific....macroevolution does not meet this criteria and after all, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? Macroevolution? I agree wholeheartedly (as will anyone on the Creation side of the argument) that change occurs WITHIN a species. You can’t prove macroevolution using the Scientific Method. I can’t prove Creation that way either, so where does that leave us?
Evolutionists start with the premise that evolution is true and then look at the evidence. Circular reasoning, BroJoe. They use evolution as a premise to validate evolution. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Hey Mr. Silverback, just catching up on this thread....Fawn and I started down this road a while back. I gave her my answers and then asked a few questions she couldn’t deal with and she took a hike.
I’m sure she’ll do the same with you.
Thanks for the heads up.
Hey BroJoe....
I hadn’t been on in a while, I see where others have joined the fray.
I’ve included them on this post so I can clarify a few things.
1. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior
2. As noted earlier by YHAOS, if Genesis isn’t true and Adam didn’t sin, then I don’t need a savior.
3. Based on 1 & 2 you know then that I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate historical account written under Divine Inspiration.
4. I came late to the party on this, I didn’t accept Christ until 7 years ago at age 51. The last (approximately) 4 years of my life have been devoted to understanding this whole debate better and I’ve come to a lot of very strong conclusions.
Having said that let me respond to some of what you’ve proclaimed:
****Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought I was “debating” a Creationist / ID’er, whose purpose in life is to get “Creationism” by some other name taught in public science classes.****
You are debating a Creationist. I don’t want it taught in public schools because it is my belief that they will not do it correctly or with much conviction.
I believe the theory of evolution is a farce. It is not science even though it masquerades as such. It is not provable by the scientific method and is therefore not science and incidentally...Irradiating a bunch of fruit flies in a laboratory in order to create “new species” (remember that men decide what is and is not a new species) is not macroevolution....they, in the end, are still fruit flies.
The Theory of Evolution was widely accepted precisely because it was a way to remove God from the equation. He told us about that in Romans 1. If there’s no God, then there’s no accountability....and who wants to be accountable?
I ignored God (at my peril) for 51 years. I won’t do that anymore.
The argument that you have made throughout this long-running debate we’ve got (other then the one about me being a liar) is that science deals with the natural world.
I’ve said I’m ok with that, others have eloquently pointed out that this is an arbitrary definition and I agree, the root of the word science is knowledge....but I’m still fine with it. The problem, as I’ve stated, is that science does not, as you claim, admit it when the answer to a problem may not lie in the natural/physical realm.
More and more scientists are looking at the theory and saying that it is built on presuppositions and pre-conceived notions that cannot be validated anywhere except in their own worldview.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Teach the theory in science class if you want but have the courtesy to do this......
Teach the problems with the theory (believe me when I say that these are plentiful and God doesn’t even need to be mentioned) and admit that, under the current constraints of science, it’s the best you can come up with.
That used to be what was known as teaching critical thinking...you know, teaching everything and letting the students process the information and come to their own conclusions.
I’ll end this with two quotes. This first one is from a famous evolutionist:
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Charles Darwin in the Introduction to Origin of the Species.
“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them”
George Orwell
It’s getting late so I’ll have to deal with some of your other stuff at a later time....but I just thought that I’d give one more refutation to the “Schaef21 is a liar” refrain.
****My statement above is literally true, and so you are a liar, despite your quotes, for attempting to deny what is obviously the case. The fact is, the geological column inerrantly shows life moving in only one direction: from primitive to more advanced.****
Science Magazine and Nature Magazine...they play on your team I think:
“It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anmone - a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal-is almost as complex as that of a human.”
U. Technau, “Evolutionary Biology: Small regualatory RNAs Pitch In” Nature 455 (2008) 1184-1185
“Nevertheless, comparative genomics has confirmed a lesson from paleontology: Evolution does not proceed montonically from the simpler to the more complex.”
C. G. Kurland, L. J. Collins, D. Penny, “Genomics and the irreducible nature of eukaryote cells” Science 312 (2006) 1011-1014
As I’ve told you, BroJoe. I won’t say it if I can’t back it up.
****This is what the fossil record obviously shows, and to deny it is to deny what’s obviously true, and does not speak well of your character.****
Do you really want to get into the fossil record with me? The fossil record is not something that can be observed in the present it is therefore forensic and subject to bias in interpreting the findings. I’ll play if you want.....It might poke a hole in some of your pre-conceived notions....bring on the argument.
Thank God for common sense. Which evidently you have in spades, schaef21. Thank you so very much!
To God be the glory!
The funniest one I ever saw in this vein was from a 1928 evolution book full of essays by top-knotch evolutionists. It was an empirical laboratory demonstration of evolution: the evolution of amoebas. Now, have you ever heard about amoeba evolution experiments since then? But back then it was offered to the public as convincing hands-on laboratory proof. And then it quietly disappeared.
The argument that you have made throughout this long-running debate we’ve got (other then the one about me being a liar) is that science deals with the natural world.
He said something further than this: "a scientific theory on the origins or evolution of life, by definition, must be a materialistic - natural theory." This means that a "scientific theory" of mind would be a reduction of your thought processes to purely materialistic-naturalistic ones. In other words, when science faces something it does not understand, the proper response is not to simply say 'I don't know', but to offer the public some rationalistic fairytale. And, of course, to insist that it be believed as a fact, on pain of being cast out with the science-deniers.
Correction——I could deal with it...but I had enough of listening to your personal beliefs and interpretations. I heard enough of both of yours....so I’ll keep my own thanks.
****Correction——I could deal with it...but I had enough of listening to your personal beliefs and interpretations. I heard enough of both of yours....so I’ll keep my own thanks.****
Here’s the specific question I asked you (cut and pasted from a previous post):
****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’.****
No matter how you rationalize your failure to answer....you ducked it.
You demanded that I answer a certain question before you answered mine. I answered it gladly, and in detail. I was willing to answer your other questions gladly and in detail.
Are you just another of the many intellectual cowards populating these crevo threads, or can you answer a simple question?
Are you a Christian?
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.