How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[js1138]

It is amusing to see people who are promoting religion turn the words religion and belief into pejoratives and turn the word science into the highest compliment.

So evolution becomes “religion,” meaning false belief, and intelligent design becomes “science,” meaning TRVTH.

That’s an amusing spectacle, but it isn’t exactly what I had in mind.

My idea is much simpler. Just see who could do the best job of arguing the opposition’s case.

[NicknamedBob]

"My idea is much simpler. Just see who could do the best job of arguing the opposition’s case."

I'm pretty sure I could do a better job of defending Creationism than I do suggesting that it is a difficult thing to study dispassionately.

Among other things, there's less study material to deal with.

[SisterK]

Glades Guru, while I agree with you that morals, ethics and religions are separate concepts with similar goals, I refuse to budge from my six days of creation belief. A child like faith is sanctioned by my Maker. Plus I am not going to add to nor take away from the Bible (though I do confess owning copies the apocrypha and books from the Dead Sea scrolls). I will put African Genesis on my list of books to read because I am a curious and voracious reader. However, the older I get, the more comfortable I am with six days of creation. Believe it or not, my rejection of the theory of evolution is quite scientific (I was raised to be pagan): it is mathematically near impossible, there are too many missing layers of fossils, too many missing links, the strata is not even in the correct order to prove evolution, and there are too many complex symbiotic relationships. Plus, the darwinists seem to be flying by the seats of their pants. Take the eohippus for example. 1950s and 1960s science books present the eohippus as the first horse. It is about the size of a golden retriever. I forget the names of the transitional horses till you get to present day horse. But, new books do not have eohippus because it never existed. It was totally contrived. An economic collapse totally based on bad mortgages immediately before the election of a muslim thug was totally contrived, likewise Satan is quite capable and willing to contrive a hoax which discounts the Bible. Just another conspiracy. Remember, the faith of a child. Also know that wise men (and women) still seek Him.

[betty boop]

If you could replace the current scientific method, which relies on methodolical naturalism, with some other methodology what exactly would it be?

Methinks you are trying to change the subject, tacticalogic. Why? Why not directly engage the points I raised instead?

At least you could spend some time actually thinking about them....

Was there anything I said that does not stand up to reason, on your view?

[SisterK]

Or DNA shows that God used a limited number of building blocks. Simplicity and elegance of design.

[SisterK]

I Timothy 6:20
Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called science

[CottShop]

[[I’m not going to forcast doom and gloom, but I will note that 90 percent of the crap science is on the side of the deniers.]]

You may want to check your facts on that- And let’s clear this up- Are you asserting that people that doubt that global warming is man made are ‘deniers’? Or are you claiming that those people beleive global warming didn’t happen over 10 years ago? Because if it’s the latter- then you are mistaken about what we who oppose ‘global warming mandates’ are protesting- the FACT is that we are NOT responsible for global warming- it is purely cyclical, follows solar cycles, and htere isn’t a darn hting we can do about it one way or hte other- EPW.Senate.gov has a TON of valid scientific evidence proving we are not responsible- Infact, many of hte original 50+ scientists who wrote up the alarmist IPCC report that the UN is using to try to scare us all into htinking we’re to blame, have since recanted their claims, and have exposed the fact that they werre PRESSURED into making those completely FALSE claims.

You will find all you need on the epw.senate.gov site- You will also find out that even the UN quietly admitted that it’s cyclical and that there’s nothign we can do about it- but by golly the mainstream media completely ignored that confession!

[betty boop]

My idea is much simpler. Just see who could do the best job of arguing the opposition’s case.

That, my dear, would be a fool's errand. For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far....

Why should the "opposition" (which includes me) argue your (non-existent) case for you?

Do it yourself!

[SisterK]

I Timothy 6:20
Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called science

[metmom]

js post 466:The findings of science are limited in scope, but they are found the same by everyone who applies the methods of science, regardless of race, religion, nationality or politics.

js post 471:I did specify applying the methods of science.

No, you said the FINDINGS of science are found the same by everyone who applies the methods of science, and that is simply not true.

Some things in science are consistent where ever science is done, but science is replete with different FINDINGS by interpreting the evidence and global warming is just one of those examples.

Even with that, there is no consistency in the recording of the temperature data over the years used to determine whether the planet is warming or not.

Global warming deniers are not using crap science. The crappy science is what the global warming alarmists were depending on.

Since you made that comment, is it safe to presume that you buy into global warming?

Remind me again, what field of science is your degree in?

[Jaime2099]

"The theory of evolution is a science, and follows the scientific method."

That is an incorrect statement.

Scientific Method (answers.com) - generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis

If you tell me human evolutionist have that, then I I'll say prove it! They observe different types of old bones that's it, they have not conducted experimentation that proves truth of the hypothesis (man has evolved due to bone differences found), and their hypothesis is incomplete and faulty. If that's the proper scientific method then every stupid idea in the world must be true.

"More traditional and established religions (e.g., Catholics) do not see a conflict with scientific facts and theories."

Are you saying Human Evolution is theory or fact because they are two very different things? I have no problem with scientific facts or theories if they are proven through the scientific method. Human evolution has not been proven using the scientific method; therefor, I reject it.

"Perhaps you could provide evidence for your claim next time?"

I already did in previous posts, Darwin was a spiritual leader whose ideas of Human Evolution are followed because they help to overthrow the belief of creationism. Higher education (where many scientists are) is full of atheists who would stop at nothing (even removing real science methods of testing and proving) to disprove creationism. They forced an incomplete and faulty hypothesis on the academic world just to get rid of and discredit creationism. Human Evolution, founded by a spiritual leader named Darwin, is a religions faith, but really nothing more than an anti creationism religion. So it's more like a bastard religion at best.

[metmom]

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method in and of itself.

The problem is with the presuppositions that the scientists make and incorporate into interpreting the data that the scientific method provides.

The philosophies that the scientists adhere to color their analysis and make it impossible to be entirely objective.

[SisterK]

I Timothy 6:20
Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called science

[DevNet]

Seeing as how Creation is considered a Gods work perhaps that verse is referring to groups like AIG who distort to prove a point.

[SisterK]

I Timothy 6:20
Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called science

Okay. You may have evolved from an ape, but I did not.

[DevNet]

Precisely how does one test for God and how does one factor in his influence into equations and formula?

[CottShop]

[[What I don’t understand is the tactic of using “guilt by association” arguments to link science to eugenics, Naziism, Communism, etc.]]

I don’t agree with trying to mount arguments based on that tactic either- NOT all scientists are Atheists, some do believe in (As opposed to accepting Christ as Savior) a God, some don’t beleive there is a God, some just aren’t sure- Soem beleive God got the process started, soem don’t Beleive God did anything- etc- all these beleifs don’t make htem athiest Nazis- While htere ARE soem that are ardently rejctfull of the idea of God, their minority opinion certainly doesn’t vilify the whole lot no more than the opinions of some Creationists or even ID scientists should villify the whole of ID/Creation as soem on this thread try to claim.

[metmom]

And what does that have to do with the comments in the post you are responding to?

[tacticalogic]

Methinks you are trying to change the subject, tacticalogic. Why? Why not directly engage the points I raised instead?

It seems to me that all the points you've made amount to an indictment of the scientific method, as it is currently defined and applied.

[DevNet]

You bash science because it doesn’t take the supernatural into account yet refuse to say how science could do so.

You setup the arguments in such a way that you win no matter what - the truth doesn’t matter - only winning.