Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
Your charming sneer, "They can't even explain how a device as simple as a mousetrap could 'evolve' via darwinism," is ironic in that Tribune7 was just complaining that someone did, and that in so doing apparently took far too much time. It's starting to sound like you guys are playing "heads I win, tails you lose."
And only someone who doesn't understand the TOE would expect that a mousetrap would somehow "evolve." Darwin's theory doesn't apply to mechanical devices. Or didn't you know that?
You're even wrong whining, "let alone a complex structure like the eye." Instead of patting each other on the back over your mutually reinforcing ignorance, if you checked out an article deceptively titled, "Evolution of the Eye" you might find answers to this confounding riddle. The article contains thirteen additional hot links on eye evolution.
Or, you might try "Darwin's greatest challenge tackled". It's just a press release, so those of you who find Ichneumon's posts 'way to haaaaaaaard might attempt to absorb it with some small expectation of success.
You may not like the explanation, but you can't say it hasn't been explained.
Excessive reliance in spell checkers will get you in to much trouble.
I have a hunch that you spend a lot of time worrying about what Liberals and other bogeymen think.
You simply must stop taking them seriously if you want to be taken seriously yourself out here.
The Liberals have owned the Public Schools for decades now, and despite all of their indoctrination tactics, folks still come to recognize their BS.
Forbidding the teaching of the Bible, and certain other matters in an effort to make posterity ignorant is precisely the prescription for Liberal disaster as long as free thinking people raise heck at appropriate times.
I will not count on such as yourself when free thinking becomes neccesary.
Let me get it!
Only to the extent that they win elections.
I do find it annoying, however, when so-called conservatives act stupid.
At least evolution is based on observable evidence, unlike Allah/Yahweh/The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc...
Follow the sequence back through the arrogant ignorance I was responding to. The point was supported by impeccable math, but as all evos hate math it’s no surprise that you join the dog boy.
What is it with you people? Is language comprehension so far beyond you. Do you ask stupid questions just to try to prove you are related to apes?
What I am saying -- not suggesting -- is that to imply Hitler based his racist theories on the Bible is beyond foolish.
Now how has Scripture been used historically to justify anti-semitism? Care to take a stab? Of course not. That would require actual thought rather than snideness.
Basically, the claim was, because Jews rejected Jesus they deserved the bad things that happened to them, could be treated as second-class citizens etc.
Of course, that in itself was a pretty big misreading of the Book, but when antisemitism reared it's head and Scriptural justification for was used that was where it was found.
Of course, a lot of antisemitism, actually most, was not Scriptural based. A lot of it was they are different, you can't trust them, we better get them -- an aspect of humanity that goes back to the dawn of time.
But, Hitler added a completely new wrinkle. The racial theory he accepted and upon which he justified his policy was one of the superiority of the Nordic race, and, yes, it's lineage includes a significant, and critical, contribution by Mr. Darwin.
And since the untermensch were less than human, as determined by scientific principle, their industrial-scale murder could be justified, actually be deemed obligatory.
Hitler may have used the Bible in propaganda but he didn't believe a word of it. He did believe in natural selection and thought it a source of morality.
I wasn't complaining. I was laughing at it.
Tribune7, meet razzle. Razzle, meet Tribune7.
Ann Coulter slammed evolution about as well as Sutcliff did in Why Evolution is a Fraud. I realize that the walking fish crowd is so desperate to appear smarter than everyone else that they reject God and accept lame pseudosciences like evolution and global warming. Even though neither amounts to a real science like physics or chemistry. Evolution is hardly mentioned anymore in biology classes because so many folks have figured out what a complete sham it is.
For more references see http://www.evofraud.com/sources.html
“Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God’s handy work in the natural world.”
It’s right there in front of them. It is their own human consciousness. It is one of those forest for the trees things...
For more references see http://www.evofraud.com/sources.html
I have actually studied the theory of evolution for myself (six years of grad school) and I need neither a science-illiterate lawyer nor a science-denying website to tell me what's going on with that discipline.
"Quite Possibly"
Lol-
“The biblical position on your stated status as a former christian is this: there are no such things as “used to be christians.” People that say they are, were never ones of Christ’s. etc. etc. . . . Because of these things, I do not laugh at, but rather pity you.”
Whether or not you believe my former religious beliefs met your “standard” or Christ’s standard or God’s or whatever’s is irrelevant. My point simply was that I began as a believer, and that I eventually came to understand that Judeo-Christian theology, and more generally, religion of any kind, are baloney.
And as for your childish resort to the “I pity you” line, please be advised that I don’t pity you in return. I just laugh at you, and your foolish beliefs.
My point was to question your statement about believing period. Yours are the childish retorts when it comes to issues of faith. You acknowledge by your demonstrated lack of understanding of biblical truths that you have little to no ground to stand on when it comes to giving authoritative answers/comments, but you continue to do so and act as if you’ve somehow triumphed in whatever debate you think you are having. This is, well, childish.
According to the Bible, no one can say, “I began as a believer,” as you do. We are all born as unbelieving, unregenerate sinners. Therein you show your lack of biblical understanding. And according to the bible, your choice to draw back doesn’t show you that you’ve, “come to understand” anything. You merely chose to continue this rebellious trend (sin), as is the wont of the human heart. In fact, Romans tells us that those that make such choices suffer from an understanding that has been darkened, a reprobate mind. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools...Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.” Again, your lack of biblical knowledge is on display. Yet you, and some others in here act as if you have some great insights into issues dealing with the bible, when in fact, you’ve become slaves to your own prideful intellect, can’t imagine there is anything aside from yourselves as full of knowledge. The foolishness of some of the questions issued in this thread and others like it when it comes to questioning God’s wisdom, power, etc. A simple rule to follow is this: If there is a God, you (or I) am not He. Another rule would be: If first rule is true, I had better find out everything I can about Him. But you and others deem finding out about the bones of the past to be a much more worthy pursuit. Worshipping and serving the creation, rather than the Creator.
And now you have done a complete 180 and denigrate the faith which you said you had in the beginning, suggesting that you’ve somehow grown in understanding, intellect, knowledge (talk about childishness.) You RIDICULE those who have a faith you cannot understand (though you are so full of intellect one is hard pressed to understand how someone so intelligent cannot see faith as a deep-seated force in the human heart as witnessed by the BILLIONS world-wide who act on such), you seek to MOCK those who have chosen a different path than the one you are on (though you have attained to such lofty heights of understanding), you SNEER at my foolish beliefs and suggest that I am the one being childish. One would think that intellect, understanding, advanced depths of learning would behave itself differently. But this is nothing more than human pride on display, a pride that is quite palpable when reading the posts of most of the evos in these threads. The almost rabid devotion of some of the pro-evolutionists in these threads makes the zeal of the fundamentalist christians they seem to denigrate pale in comparison. But they cannot see that. Their pride [in their scholarship] won’t let them.
Sorry, your comment does not reflect serious knowledge of the field.
Some parts are subject to distortion from having small pieces. The connection of the face to the cranial vault is one such area.
But the braincase is a different story--the various pieces have to match their curvatures in three dimensions and to join into a continuous whole. There is much less chance for a wildly erroneous result because of this.
And don't overlook the fact that paleontologists are generally dealing with multiple specimens. Not all are as complete as the ones you see in the popular literature, but that redundancy lets paleontologists study a number of different specimens, with different degrees of intactness, as a guide in assembling fragmentary specimens.
Its not just a matter of guesswork; there is a lot of hard work and solid research involved.
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.