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 ...
I don't blame them for rejecting what they've set up as God. I'd reject it too.
They need to try the real one.
No link, eh?
Couldn’t prove it, just as I knew.
Not my definition. You screwed up again unless you can provide a link to prove that I said that, which you can't.
Try again.
No definition of *supernatural* forthcoming, eh?
Can’t say as I’m surprised in the least.
Your evasion of the request has been duly noted and added to your list of epic fails on this thread.
You’re really batting 1000 on this one.
Congrats on being such a persistent loser.
Even David Hume said that he never profered that anything came to be which was not caused.
Even David Hume said that he never profered that anything came to be which was not caused.
Some may insist that claiming 'no cause or effect' should be considered progress then?
Well, since LG keeps talking about supernatural, I thought it would be nice to know exactly what he meant by that.
He obviously doesn’t want to commit himself and risk actually getting pinned down on something.
But that’s what you get from someone who admits to having a brain filled with waves of nothingness.
He indeed has nothing to say by his own admission.
My guess is that he thinks The Lathe of Heaven is a factual account of reality.
Thank you for the plausible explanation of why transitional forms are scarce in the fossil record, and the problems of interpreting what is found — or not found as the case may be. However, it seems to me that a "plausible explanation" is not necessarily the same thing as what actually occurred. Your explanation is further freighted (it seems to me) with the problem of how to prove "absence," of how to prove a negative....
Keep in mind that we will never have a full and complete picture--of anything. That is pretty much the state of all science. I do not think we will ever reach a point where we know everything, and we can unequivocally say, "This is exactly how ___ works." So, there are gaps in the knowledge that supports the theory of evolution. There are gaps in all scientific knowledge. This is why, after thousands of years of scientific inquiry, we still have scientists.
You wrote: "The mechanisms of evolution are well-characterized; we can see those mechanisms occurring in modern living species." This may be a stupid question, but are you here suggesting that evolution is entirely "mechanistic?" That biological organisms — thus modern living species — are essentially "machines?" Well, if so, how does a machine become a living being? Yet Darwinism can't tell you what life is.... So why are we justified in concluding life forms are "machine-like?"
In a way, living things are very much like machines. Whether you look at the tiniest components of living things (which is what I do), or look at the gross structure, there are elements--biomolecules, organs, and everything in between--that exist to perform one specific function. But that's not exactly what I mean by "mechanisms." In biology, and, I suppose, in other sciences, all processes are called "mechanisms." In the context of evolution, one such mechanism would be the spontaneous mutation of DNA, which, itself, occurs by well-known mechanisms.
I won't use the word "Darwinism" because Darwin is not the center of any religious belief, he was a scientist. No, the theory of evolution does not explain what life is, or how it exists. It explains how life exists in its current diversity, and how life became so diverse.
The problem is that the Faith vs. Reason problem gets further reduced to a conflict between "science" and "religion." "Reasonable" people [e.g., scientists] are not supposed to be "religious" people [e.g., Christians]: Faith and reason cannot be combined without tainting "science." Or vice versa. They must stand apart forevermore!
There is no reason a scientist can't be a person of faith, or vice versa. The only real problem comes in when some people insist that religion can only be valid if we take creation as a literal account, and then, furthermore, try to force scientists to treat it as such. I've been trying to say, in a roundabout way, that we can't do that. Attempts have been made to bend science to ideology (Lysenko), but science cannot function in such an environment.
Graduate school is very stressful. In times of stress, people turn to God for support. It was not uncommon where I attended grad school--UC Davis--for students to place religious symbols in their labs or on their desks. Candles with the picture of Mary and baby Jesus were ubiquitous. Yet I don't recall anyone ever expressing doubt about the theory of evolution.
You wrote, "there are so many signals, from so many sources, that it is impossible to state where they all come from, or what all the feedback mechanisms are." So is the task impossible?
Yes. Both because there are many thousands of signals, making finding all of their descriptions in the literature and listing them all a monumental task, and because not all signals have been identified (and very likely, some will never be identified).
I suppose the first point that needs to be considered is the nature of a signal. By definition, a signal is "…a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned…." [Oxford English Dictionary On-line]
Scientists often use words in ways that aren't really covered in dictionaries. In some cases, such as between living organisms, or from one system to another within a living organism, the signal is sent because a specific response is desired (much like the Oxford definition).
In other cases, though, the signal is not intentionally sent. If you touch a hot pan, you receive a signal that tells your body to respond a certain way (which typically involves a lot of movement and vocalization). Although the heat was a signal, it was not intentionally sent. Now that you have a burn on your hand, the tissue damage is also a signal that various systems in your body need to spring into action to fix the damage. Anything that you sense in the environment that has an effect on you is a signal.
Wrong as usual, the controversy exists, as in countless desperate missing link cases, because liberal evolutionaries don’t know science and/or reach objective deductions because of their forced conclusions.
Once again reading is fundamental, had you actually read my link you would have understood it was from a scientific website and not wiki...there you go with your sad projections again.
And your last panty bunch multi-projection paragraph was pathetic even for you!
Why don’t you simply give up on your late 80’s multi-failed idea that some silly liberals couldn’t get some fruit flies to produce offspring in a lab and therefore concluded they created a new species?
My bet is the flies were so shocked at liberal arrogance and ignorance that they were shocked to the point of being sterilized.
We feel bad for you. Really.
I think the clue wouldn't have been absorbed had it fallen from the sky and landed on sir-project-alot's head metmom.
Good post...I’ve said that it wouldn’t surprise me that God could come down and sit some of these libs down on His knee and try to explain He exists to them and the response would be something like:
NO you don’t exist! I’m dreaming, or it’s a trick or I was drugged, or I’ve lost my mind...anything and I mean ANYTHING but acceptance of the truth.
Sadly, this is eternity for some of ‘em. Or so it would seem, but God did say ALL would know who He is, eventually.
Which is even worse, spending eternity wishing they had listened instead of heard! And even listened instead of talking just to arrogantly hear themselves talk at any and all costs!
Back to the can’t get this or that right in Genesis?
You’re right Mind-numbed robot, LaGrande expends a profound amount of time and energy obsessing over that which doesn’t even exist and gets all twisted up with others beliefs.
LaGrande, do you recall several posts back about being unable to understand the Bible if you are arrogantly reaching pre-determined conclusions of your own? No matter how well you understand the (English) language or words?
You simply won’t EVER understand the spirit of God if you demand to deny Him.
And make no mistake, He will give you your free will and your self-deception is yours as long as you demand feeding it.
You might be better served in concerning yourself over your own lamentations!
Another good post...I've asked this of the God rejecting libtards for years now...how to prove or disprove Love, scientifically speaking.
And my tagline arose out of this very subject.
They don’t want God. He’ll give it to them.
But they’re not going to like it very much and they have no one to blame but themselves. It isn’t like we didn’t warn them.
I enjoy puns and sometimes comments seem just to demand one.
I appreciate your mind is subtle enough to grasp it.
I agree with your tag line. I have no dispute with the teaching of evolution as a theory. I do object, though, when the left teaches it as fact and refuses to allow any competing theories such as intelligent design. That seemed to be the subject of this thread originally but it seems to have veered off course.
Your failure to answer proves it : )
Can't read or do math? I can't say that I am surprised, homeschooling certainly has its limitations doesn't it.
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.