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 ...
**“I repeat as you didn’t answer the point. INSTEAD, you Hypocrites CHANGED THE SUBJECT.”**
Which you just did, AGAIN.. answer the Original Question.
“you mean the evolutionist fantasy that man is not human,...
...ape is man, man is ape creature descended from the greater apes”
There is plenty of evidence of latent ape-like behavior on this very thread!
Your premise that evolution is somehow a liberal principle is simply wrong. It’s a scientific conclusion which liberals or conservatives can either accept or reject.
This site has pretty much run off all the conservatives who accept evolution, but that is more of a reflection of the religious wing of conservatism rejecting science than proof of evolution having any sort of political bias at all.
I hope his papers are a lot stronger than what he posts as solid scientific evidence of his evolutionary claims.
Oh boy do you willfully ignorant ignoramuses not understand a thing. "The law of the jungle," which I take you take to mean knock down drag out battles to the end whenever beast meets beast and "evolution" are not the same thing at all. One of the things that evolves is the emergence of the rules of social interactions (dogs, monkeys, etc.). Survival does not mean being the strongest predator, unless you are a preditor - and being a predator is a pretty tough life actually if you look at lions, for instance. A male lion has about the worst job description in the world, with a short tenure and when the axe falls it really falls.
The evolution of rules of social interaction to ensure the survival of a society is a significant part of evolutionary theory. Ever watch a pack of wild dog, for instance? While they are ruthless hunters, it really is one for all and all for one in the pack with fair sharing of kills and ensuring that the young get their due portion.
> you mean the evolutionist fantasy that man is not human,...
How do you know God didn’t use apes as a prototype when creating Man? It would seem rather wasteful to get it 99% right with the Chimpanzee, only to scrap it all and start from scratch with Adam.
Any sensible Engineer would have the commonsense to prototype. And God has at least as much commonsense as any sensible Engineer.
Actually when posting on internet chat rooms my Ph.D. doesn't count.
The only thing that counts is the quality and accuracy of my posts. This begins with grammar and spelling, and runs the gamut through logic, relevance, and information content.
In this regard I will match my posting history against those of our resident anti-science crowd any day.
“Which you just did, AGAIN.. answer the Original Question.”
Your original question posits a conclusion already. To acknowledge that it is even a question is to get mired within the ignorance of its source.
Use your highly-evolved brain (though not as evolved as most) and ask a question without a delusion attached to it.
There are plenty of arguments of faith, and other arguments of science. If you ponder them carefully you will see that they are actually separate arguments that do not preclude each other.
So, are you going to give us the clever punchline to your original question, assuming there is one?
HS Your knowledge of science is zilch.
I believe that a Supernatural God (the God of the Bible) created man and woman (Adam & Eve).
Condescension is not pretty.
I will not condescend to you even though you believe that a mud puddle created life (violating the scientific natural law of Biogenesis) and that the mud puddle came from nothing (violating the scientific natural law of Conservation of Matter and Energy....the first law of thermodynamics, and the scientific natural law of Cause and Effect)
I stood in the same spot as you....and believed those things for 50 years of my life. Though I thought I believed it based on science (because that’s what I was taught in school), I now know that it was based on faith, just as is what I have come to believe now.
Because I once believed those things, I will not condescend.
“Because I once believed those things, I will not condescend.”
But by not condescending, you condescend.
Something tells me that you would be unwilling to accept any evidence that anyone offers. But prove me wrong - what evidence would you be willing to accept?
Hey look, you’re the guy who used to post images of his perverse fetish for the centaur creature on these threads among other things.
Either it counts or it doesn't, if it doesn't count you can quit bringing it up and directing people to refer to you as 'dr. coyote'
Your first problem is to view the theory of evolution as antithetical to or incompatible with a theory of morality. A vital field of research in evolutionary theory is what is called "the evolution of cooperation" which is what morality is about. You might look it up some time.
If morality were inconsistent with the survival of society it would have died long ago, but quite the opposite has happened. Those societies that are the strongest over time are the most moral, and when morality weakens societies weaken. The mistake you make is to confound individual survival with societal survival and assume that the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" will generate the dominance of the individual over a society.
But that is not even the case in the wild's of Africa. Predators in Africa live a very precarious existence. Troops of baboons protect themselves against leopard quite effectively. Yes leopard survive and capture baboons, but the population density of leopard is quite low because their ability to pick something off is pretty meager.
Second, what you and your friends are attempting to do is put a boundary around what science can study beyond which you have demarked an unknown territory where there be dragons. But that is not what science does. It simply looks at facts and tries to create and explanatory model for those facts which can be elevated to theory or even law if it is broad enough and sustained by all observed facts over a period of time.
You cannot counter a theory by saying one cannot have one on a specific topic but rather you must put forward observable facts that are inconsistent with that theory.
Wow. You certainly told him... er you.
I brought it up, and it does count. Either you respect the knowledge that it necessarily implies, or you don’t.
You can’t maintain that Coyoteman is some sort of illiterate rube spouting liberal lies when he’s not a liberal and is actually a highly-accomplished scientist.
You obviously don’t want to read what he writes, but I think I know whose problem that is.
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.