Posted on 04/17/2008 10:54:25 AM PDT by Boxen
No. It started out on this thread that the people at SciAm who wrote this piece on the Expelled movie, also have embraced gobul warming.
I find it odd that those who wish to treat a group of people, believers, as idiots and yet point to a magazine that is not scientific in the various positions it holds to.
To say that all evo’s are also environuts is not valid. But for those who wish to hold this article up, written by a recognized science magazine as some sort of proof of scientific validity, well, that’s sad.
It was more of a comparison.
I also find it odd that in general, the attitude of evo’s tends to be that the creationists are the problem when it comes to science education. I feel that the environuts are the real problem. There policies will kill people. The debate about origins does not. Nor does the debate about origins lead to policies that hurt our economy, or starve people. Gobul warming is a very dangerous creed that kills.
Yet it's said about how you will not see that the article has none of the "rage" or dis-proportionality you pretend it contains. Just like with the video, if you had the evidence you wouldn't need the deception. Keep it up, it only works against you.
Workin fine for me. It seems the so-called “scientists” who are the ones who don’t like a challenge. As for deception, hmmm. Freedom of information is the first way to challenge deception. Looks like Sci. Am. is trying to shut down freedom of information, unless it’s their view.
"That's fine, but the people who were and are in favor of eugenics and the Holocaust definitely pointed back to Darwinism as part of the justification of their ideas."
As far as Matthew 7:21 - I was not making a case that Hitler was or was not a true Christian. It was to show that if someone tries to assign blame to Darwinism for Hitler's atrocities, then it is equally valid to assign blame to Christianity.
LS said: “Workin fine for me…”
I’ll take that as your second admission of dishonesty, and still "workin fine".
LOL. Pretty funny. The only “dishonesty” here is on the other side. But, repeat a lie often enough and maybe you’ll believe it.
Evolution proponents generally don't have a quarrel with creationists. We only have a problem with ID proponents attempting to distort the methods of science in order to force it to accommodate something distinctly non-scientific. That’s explained pretty well in the Talk Design FAQ, starting with the 3rd one down.
I don’t know which is worse, global warming activists politicising scientific results or of ID activists distorting scientific methods, but one does not negate the effects of the other.
Maybe you have that taped to the top of your monitor, I don't know, but it's the core of your MO here LS. Keep thining you're escaping, keep "workn fine".
Paul Popenoe argues the opposite:
O.K. But I don't see how that opposes or gainsays anything I wrote about Nazi race theory.
Your quote suggests that Hitler was concerned with "racial hygene". I don't see how any of it relates particularly to evolutionary theory generally or darwinian evolution particularly.
In fact subsequent advances in evolutionary theory -- particularly the reconciliation of Mendelian genetics with classical darwinian selection in the "neo-darwinian synthesis" -- seriously undermined eugenics by showing that it's assumptions about heredity were simplistic and therefore it's program unrealistic.
It’s you who apparently think you are “escaping.” And THAT must be taped to your monitor.
a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
You can't be serious. This reads like the plotlines of some inane sci-fi movies like would be shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
I didn’t say the Nazis didn’t draw inspiration from the eugenics movement and Darwinian theory - clearly they did. I’m just pointing out that Charles Darwin shouldn’t be personally blamed for the misuse of his theories after his death.
Good. Sounds like you haven’t learned a lick then, still trying to argue with someone after not getting the answer you wanted FOUR YEARS AGO. Talk about stuck on stupid. LOL.
I don’t expect that either position would negate anything.
I only point out that the gobul warming is very dangerous, because it is killing people, and killing our economy.
Disagreements about scientific methods can be a valid argument. I am certain disputes about methodology has been with science from the beginning. It is how science got here in the first place. But the material view is a distortion of life, love and what makes us human. Any world view the ignores part of what life is about, is a distortion, and not complete.
Disagreements about the politicizing of hand picked facts, the way environuts do, has nothing to do with science at all. Keeping models that predictions are based on secret is not science either. There is not any science going on in gobul warming at all. That is what I find so amazing.
Science can not and will never explain human life as it is lived, experienced, felt and ends in death. Science does not answer all questions, all important questions that any reasonable person ponders. Materialists give the impression, and some endorse, that only material things matter, that anything outside of materials things become unscientific, and unimportant to the questions that people ask. The question of origins is central to that building of a worldview. And there is nothing scientific about it. But the materialists seek to discredit ANYTHING that is not material. That is disturbing.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (King James version)
We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc. The Bible says that He has always existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.
To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next, one minute is after another. We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.
Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.
Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. Since God has no beginning or end, He has no beginning. This is because He is outside of time.
{Unquote}
That doesn’t compute to someone with a completely materialist view of the existance.
The universe includes everything material.
It had a beginning, and the big bang still resonates to prove it.
Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
That cause must be external or transcendent to the caused.
I agree. That was really stupid. I saw the same pathetic pattern in this thread before attempting to engage you in reasonable discussion. I should have known better.
Scientist cannot get beyond what was before the big bang. I believe God is the Cosmic Singularity, which is why scientist have hit a brick wall when trying to discover what "WAS" before the big bang.
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.