Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Considering all the social and economic problems, many of which are rooted in science, that have been foisted on us by the so called educated, you've got a lot of nerve to sit there smugly and imply that we're the dumb ones. You really are one arrogant SOB...
What you are doing is observing an existing system and trying to understand it. You may believe that evolution created that system, but the origin of the system is irrelevant for your purposes. You are simply studying the system and trying to understand how it works and adapts.
You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits.
The fact that biological systems do this, that or some other yet-to-be-discovered thing is irrelevant to the 'theory' of evolution without the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
There is no advantage to believing that evolution created the system. Don't know if your philosophy can handle that or not.
What I am doing is using a theory that ties together the known facts into a coherent whole, and informs me as to how I should form the hypotheses that guide my research.
That is exactly what any scientist does with a theory, no more and no less.
You can try to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I chose a field of research in which the theory of evolution is central (instead of, for instance, where the theory of electromagnetism is the central guide). But whatever beliefs and motivations you want to assign to me mean nothing. What I research today can result in improvements to medical practice ten or twenty years from now; better medicine is my motivation.
I have to think that there is a very close relationship between science and philosophy. My degree is "Doctor of Philosophy," not "Doctor of Science."
Let's see... you start off by calling me a "darwinist" as if there is some sort of religion involved, then you immediately ascribe several other quasi-religious beliefs to me. And you don't even know me!
In my experience, most people who hold nutty quasi-religious beliefs are way too whacked out to even consider studying science.
Beyond that, I really can't comment on your post. While I appreciate that some amount of effort went into it, there isn't much I can say when the entire text is derived from a false premise.
Our name is legion!
Here I thought science helped to save lives, stimulate the economy, and dramatically improve standards of living.
Please bring your uneducated and proud of it social and economic analysis to this “problem” of scientific knowledge.
My point is that it was recorded, in the actions of Christ as the 2nd Adam. The actions of the 2nd Adam point back and help explain the actions of the 1st Adam. Therefore, the 1st Adam willfully 'became sinful' out of love for his fallen bride, just as the 2nd Adam 'became sin' out of love for His fallen bride.
What philosophical criteria did you use in “choosing our models” - which of these ‘equivalent’ models do you think accurately reflects reality?
The Earth goes around the Sun.
The Sun goes around the Earth.
Which one?
Cut and paste again because you are too embarrassed to say?
I would be also.
It is embarrassing!
NAILED IT!
As for your Orwell quote (nice to see the intellectual crowd disagreeing without over-the-top ad hominem), I have a question: Were you the mom harassing Perry in New Hamster on Thursday, or were you the kid?
NAILED IT!
As for your Orwell quote (nice to see the intellectual crowd disagreeing without over-the-top ad hominem), I have a question: Were you the mom harassing Perry in New Hamster on Thursday, or were you the kid?
“There is no scientific evidence favoring geokineticism over geocentrism. That’s the point of their quotes. You, however, put the word of men over the Word of God, period.”
GourmetDan
So why the resistance towards telling me what “the Word of God” is on this subject? Obviously because I reject geocentrism I “put the word of men over the Word of God”. Logically (if you are capable) that would mean you think geocentrism is “the Word of God”.
So why try to claim you think the two systems are equivalent and refuse to answer a simple question about a scientific model and its intersection with “the Word of God”?
I didn't think your philosophy could handle it.
"You can try to assign all kinds of beliefs to me because I chose a field of research in which the theory of evolution is central (instead of, for instance, where the theory of electromagnetism is the central guide). But whatever beliefs and motivations you want to assign to me mean nothing."
I guess I'm not seeing what beliefs I assigned to you? I thought you asserted your belief in evolution?
"What I research today can result in improvements to medical practice ten or twenty years from now; better medicine is my motivation."
"You could believe in a created biology with a broad ability to adapt and it would serve you just as well. You are simply trying to understand the system and it's abilities and limits."
So are you saying that you do understand that evolution is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
Great stuff from Gaghdad Bob. I am always amazed at the things he is able to understand and wrap words around.
No need to be ashamed.
No need to insist on models that are not applicable.
But why stop now?
So why continue to imply that the two systems are not equivalent under GR when the quotes of learned men have been provided to you?
This title is BS. It should read......Fake Science.....
Very well said.
They are equivalent.... as coordinate systems.
Gravity on the other hand dictates that the small mass of the Earth is in orbit around the many orders of magnitude larger mass of the Sun.
Why do you continue to deny that you think God’s words have weighed in on the subject and that you DO NOT think the two are actually equivalent at all - that accepting one means you are putting ‘man’s words above the Word of God’ or some such nonsense?
Could you translate that please?
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.