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 ...
What I found amazing is that a person could actually state “what _I_ would expect in a created world”, referring to the self as the “Ultimate Authority On Truth”.
Oops, fallacy of begging the question for assuming that reality doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc.
You have it backwards, you are assuming causes where none exist.
You are defining a God for me? Why thank you : ) Sadly your 'God' has no attributes and is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, a brain fart. As are all Gods.
As a scientist, if I am going to try to make predictions based on creation, rather than evolution, I must use, as my starting point, creation as it is described in the Bible. Nothing else. And the hypotheses I would develop using creation as set forth in the Bible would be vastly different than those I develop based on evolutionary theory. As would the experimental design needed to test them.
What I'm trying to get at is that the Bible is not a scientific text, and trying to use it as a basis for scientific inquiry is ludicrous. Conversely, a scientific text is not a religious document, and trying to use science as a basis for religious study is equally ludicrous.
Which again raises the question....
NL, just what is your field of expertise? What scientific field do you have your degree in or in which scientific field to you work?
Exactly. The definition of *species* is so loose and fluid and vague as to be meaningless.
They can get back to me when they have finally bread something that is no longer recongnizable as a fruit fly, providing that they can prove they engaged in no fraud to get there.
Thank you. I kind of figured you were FR savvy enough to know what italics designated.
"You have it backwards, you are assuming causes where none exist."
You have it backwards, you assume no cause, purpose, end, goal, etc where all exist.
How do people have these things independent of reality?
Are you saying that people are supernatural?
You asked me this before. I answered and asked yours, but you never responded. I have a BSME and an MS in Chemistry. Now again, what is your scientific training?
How do people have these things independent of reality?
Are you saying that people are supernatural?
Your 'logic' is truly bizarre. Except as an idea 'supernatural' doesn't exist. Nothing is independent of reality. Obviously your pattern recognition procedures are in over drive (there is a good evolutionary reason for that) so lets put it to the test.
Lets say that I shake a thousand die and they all come up sixes. Can you tell me the cause followed by the effect? That is your premise isn't it, that everything has a cause and effect?
So if a person can't change the fly, change the definitions.
Your logic is truly irrational. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course. Asserting that the supernatural doesn't exist except as an idea is begging the question.
You also say that, "True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do." and then claim that nothing is independent of reality. If nothing is independent of reality, then the 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc. that people have are not independent of reality and it is incorrect to say that reality does not have these properties.
"Lets say that I shake a thousand die and they all come up sixes. Can you tell me the cause followed by the effect? That is your premise isn't it, that everything has a cause and effect?"
Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?
I am seeing a common theme in these threads. It is in those areas of willful and woeful ignorance that those who choose to be anti-Catholics rail the most against that of which they know nothing. God gave you the gift of intellect. You do not worship Him by refusing to use it.
We are dealing with science here so definitions actually serve as boundary conditions. A common species must, by definition, have the ability to successfully breed with other members of the same species. New "fruit fly" species did evolve in the lab that were unable to successfully reproduce with their antecedent species. And, for the record, Drosophila is a genus, not a species, containing many, many "fruit fly" species.
Not only have you failed the science, but your logic is highly flawed as well. You are claiming that because fruit flies did not become mice or clams that evolution was not demonstrated, when the Theory of Evolution contents that gradual changes occur such that the most well suited variant survives to reproduce and the least suited die out and that over time the cumulative changes are significant enough to form new genus, orders, families, etc.
Calling God a liar doesn't win you any points either.
Poor persecuted Catholic. Why do you make this about Catholicism anyway? The thread is about the ToE, not an opportunity to play the religious martyr, which really doesn't wear well coming from a Catholic especially considering the Catholic church history concerning science (read Galileo)
Lemme put that into layman’s terms.
Natural Law:
“You people have no business thinking for yourselves. You weren’t suppose to google Drosophila CONTROVERSY, and once you did, you were supposed to ignore what you read.
Us liberals will determine what’s real and what’s not.
Oh, aqnd do as I say, not as I do.”
Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural exists.
Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?
Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing.
Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural exists.
Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?
Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing.
No, Let me put it in terms even you can understand. The "controversy" exists because some so desperately do not want to accept the results of numerous experiments.
Had you actually read any of the research papers instead of relying on wikipedia pages you would have learned (assuming you are capable of learning) that polymorphism is suspected of causing some male sterility in male hybrids, but does not negate the occurrence of speciation.
By the way, petulantly stamping your feet and demanding that the facts be changed to conform to your ignorant orthodoxy is the trait of the libtards you so frequently reference and emulate.
Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural does not exist.
"Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing."
Nope, just demonstrating that you would define a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing as having no cause and effect. You simply confirm that you accept 'no cause and effect' a priori, no matter what. That's 'begging the question'.
Then why do you continue to do it day in and day out?
While we are at it, why do you continue to challenge my scientific credentials, asking me on at least three occasions, and never provide your own educational or scientific bona fides when asked? Is it because the "reasonable man" would conclude that you don't have a leg to stand on and are fabricating "facts" as you go along?
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.