Posted on 09/18/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
Judging from the posters we see on these threads, this is not as rare as you think.
The number of creationists/IDers who post very strange and unscientific ideas is not limited to just a few.
I don't think that is accurate - enzymes for example can accept or donate protons.
Actually both Marx and Lenin were inspired by Saint Sir Thomas More's, "Utopia".
Lenin and Marx went so far as to setup a memorial to Saint More in Moscow in 1918.
Anybody can use anything for inspiration.
I dont think that means what you imply it means. A proton in chemistry is simply a hydrogen ion. You aren't changing one element into another.
Linda sounds like a public school grad.
Its also in the forward to the recent editions of “Utopia”, which is where I found it.
I do believe the first true Communists were the early Christians. Where on earth did they get the idea? They could hardly have borrowed it from Darwin.
"Evolutionary humanists", "naturalistic scientists", and great steaming piles of sophistic drivel. Have fun.
"Evolutionary humanists", "naturalistic scientists", and great steaming piles of sophistic drivel. Have fun.
“On the evidence history has many examples of “belief systems” in science that go way beyond the practical. Some very evil and destructive world views claimed to be scientifically based, just as many claimed religious origin.”
What you say is true, but that doesn’t mean that such belief systems are themselves science.
Science isn’t supposed to inform us about how we want things to be (i.e. morals and ethics) just how certain things work. Thus science can inform us that traits that are advantageous for survival tend to be preserved in populations over time..... it doesn’t tell us that we should go around eliminating people with undesirable traits.
Science, in general, has prooven to be a practical advantage in that it provides a better understanding of how the world which we can materialy effect works.... and societies which possess a better understanding of that tend to fair better when placed in competition with ones that don’t.
Furthermore, science has one particular advantage over most religious belief systems.... it admits the possibility that it can be mistaken.... in fact, it continualy attempts to test whether it is mistaken....and when it finds it is, it modifies itself accordingly.
Thus, if scientific theory holds that the earth is only 6,000 years old but evidence comes along showing that the world is far older....No problem. The theory gets changed... but the basic belief system of science doesn’t take a dent.
However if a religion holds that the earth is only 6,000 years old because “The Word of God” tell us so. What happens when some-one comes along with million year old rocks? Either we have to disbelieve the evidence that the rocks are a million years old.... or we have to accept that the “Word of God” got it wrong.... but in most religions the “Word of God” isn’t supposed to be ABLE to get it wrong.
Note: I’m not discounting the practical value of religion here. Religion can be very important to society.... but when it inhibits that societies ability to learn and accept the practical ways in which the physical world around them works it can also be very detrimental.
For instance U.S. geologists aren’t going to be very effective at locating mineral resources when compared to thier chinese counterparts if they can’t be taught about rocks older then 6,000 years...... and a country isn’t going to be very effective at developing air defences if it believes God is going to around swatting hostile fighter jets out of the sky for it.
That is what creation "science" is for. It proves the bible is accurate.
Of course, it has little resemblance to real science ... but it's designed to reinforce religious belief and perhaps to fool people who don't know any better, so what's the difference, eh?
Nucleosynthesis?????????
Try this one out: Gravity Probe B failed to accurately pick up any frame dragging. Therefore, it is perfectly probable that the universe revolves around the Earth.
I was called an ignorant "naturalist" who was too uneducated to understand why there REALLY IS evidence of a geocentric universe.
Stunning to say the least.
Always existed would be the most reasonable answer.
Before the 60s science still allowed naturalists to make a similar claim. Then the big bang blew it all up, how sad.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
gunrunner...Anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Irish...And here in Gunrunner’s metaphysical principle limiting knowledge to the sensory realm, we see yet more evidence of Evolutionary Humanism’s dialectical tensions: self-contradictions, gross hypocrisy, etc. Note that Gunrunner, and indeed ALL evos cannot mount a refutation from within the straitjacket of the sensory realm, thus they must cross over into the supernatural realm to do so while maintaining that the supernatural or metaphysical do not exist. The words irrational and illogical simply do no justice to the sheer stupidity of this worldview.
Thanks for posting this link, I’m looking forward with anticipation to Stein’s movie.
<1/1...Linda sounds like a public school grad.
Irish...Is this your ancient bacteria and lizard brain-matter speaking? Or perhaps your Bonobo Chimp reasoning at work?
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.