Posted on 01/02/2005 12:20:11 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Creationist credibility is an oxymoron, like Army Intelligence.
The last time I can recall a a FReeper with a denial of reality this brazen was the late, great "Gore3000" who claimed that most planets had "wildly elliptical orbits" and was taken to the woodshed for it; similarly, he claimed shortly thereafter that "a circle is not an ellipse," and on yet another occasion he claimed that "infrared light" caused sunburn. In every instance he denied he had made the mistakes, which were quoted back to him via hyper-links.
I don't know what causes anti-evolutionaries to engage in this sort of brazen denial of their own behavior, though G3k offered the best clue I've seen: he once wrote that no matter what, he would never admit a mistake to anyone from the "pro-evolution" side of the argument.
Such is the level of intellectual honesty, and scientific knowledge, we so often see from that anti-evolution side.
Thank you. Thank you.
s--Why is it that creationists, like communists, project their world view to others?
m--Is it not the evo's who use Gov't funds and the power of the ACLU to force school boards to teach Origins a certain way?
First, the ACLU is a communist organization and I hate it.
Second, the teaching of "origins" is fine if taught as religion or theology, but it is not biology. Keep your religious speculations in your literalist Christian schools that will never produce a competent biologist if their life depended on it.
It might help if you would list a small syllabus of what you think the curriculum for "origins" should be. Thank you so much.
Please state the "Theory of Intelligent" design. Then we will be able to discuss the syllogisms you posed.
For your information, here is a widely accepted summary of the Theory of Evolution:
The theory of evolution
A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs. (This translates into the technical definition of changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.) The theory can be falsified by showing that allele frequencies do not change over time or by showing that humans and dinos are fossilized in the same strata and date from the same time.
(The reason we must ask you for the state of the "Theory of Intelligent Design is because we don't know what it says.
While you are at it, you can mention how the theory you present can be falsified.)
And he claims not to know anything about the subject of that article. Or he forgot.
" suggest you refer to a number of posters [such as shubi] on this thread who maintained that the theory of evolution is nothing less than absolute fact."
I never said the theory is an "absolute fact". I said that evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains that fact.
You have created a strawman to argue against me similar to the strawman you create when you put creation into the TOE when it is NOT THERE!!!!! That's right, you are arguing against a theory you do not understand because you modify it to argue against it.
Please don't put words in my mouth to ridicule me, again. It is not Christian.
twisting in the wind placemarker.
"Or he forgot."
Senior moment? ;-)
Well, for large entities (animals of course), on can use interbreed but that isn't transitive. Of course, species (and genus and family, etc.) is only a classification of a group of entities, not a property of an entity. This seems to conflict with the Creationist word "kind" which they treat as a property.
Or whether.
"This seems to conflict with the Creationist word "kind" which they treat as a property."
Yes, but you give them too much credit in an attempt to be kind. ;-)
"This seems to conflict with the Creationist word "kind" which they treat as a property."
Yes, but you give them too much credit in an attempt to be kind. ;-)
It probably isn't Christian to ambush people over slight variations in wording, or to refuse to acknowledge things that others have said over and over. But then I suppose once you are saved you don't need to worry about mere behavior. Belief is enough.
That may be so - some are by far too closed to view creation and science do not have to conflict. Example: the literalist will read "God formed man of the dust of the ground" but never think beyond the dirt to consider minute cellular function. Five thousand years ago, I'm almost sure single-celled life forms would have been considered "dust of the earth" - not that life was FORMED then, but the technology to understand single-celled organisms differently didn't exist....
See 503.
Correction: 507
Yes, and a truly comprehensive theory of physics must bridge quantum theory and relativity. But what happens in the meantime.
You know very well that currently biology has no theory of abiogenesis, but that isn't what you are arguing about. You are merely dragging a red herring across the path of common descent -- which is among the most thouroughly agreed upon facts in science.
"It probably isn't Christian to ambush people over slight variations in wording, or to refuse to acknowledge things that others have said over and over. But then I suppose once you are saved you don't need to worry about mere behavior. Belief is enough."
The variations you stuck in my mouth were not "slight variations" That you do not understand that is telling.
Creationists say all their talking points over and over. I don't acknowledge nonsense.
It is your behavior that is in question. Strawman arguments are small evils that creationists have built into a big idolatry.
Just wanted to tell you that your theology is way off. What you should search your soul for is some openmindedness to the miracle God provided us when he thought of evolution.
My take on "dust of the ground" is God was trying to inspire the notion of atoms or molecules and it was misapprehended by the authors of the text.
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.