Posted on 10/07/2007 7:15:09 PM PDT by monomaniac
And in fact, in the Dover decision, a federal judge determined that ID was creation "science" with the serial numbers filed off.
And we all know that federal judges are immentnently well qualified to determine exactly what is and what isn't -- like when a human being actually ceases being just a glob of goo and becomes a person, etc., etc., etc.. In a pig's A$$.
I predict it will be an accurate representation of the way leftists react when challenged on ANYTHING. I also predict that they will scream foul no matter what.
Hmm, seems like these atheist scientistsare about as smart as the liberals who a continually claiming that Bush “tricked” them into going in to Iraq.
If all these people are so gullible that they can be “tricked” so easily, why should I listen to them? I mean, no telling who put the ideas they espouse into their heads. Maybe they have been “tricked” into their beliefs, as well.
The only thing pathetic in the picture is that anybody with an IQ above that of a dog still believes in this sort of junk science.
Me too. Looking forward to seeing it.
Type science frontiers anomolies into a search engine to see over 2000 entries, many of which could be used to argue against evolution theory. The truth really is out there, and with the internet so widely available, there is no excuse for blindly accepting the Evolution theory, which is a taxpayer supported belief system (religion.)
And your well reasoned arguments for this assertion are?
It is really amusing to see the lengths to which creationists will go to try to discredit the theory of evolution.
We are told that the theory of evolution is a religion, although it has none of the hallmarks of religion.
We are also told that ID is science, although it has all of the hallmarks of religion.
So, calling a science religion is supposed to denigrate that science. But calling religion a science is supposed to elevate that religion?
Especially when neither of these claims is true?
I guess this is what is called creation "science" -- something like the opposite of real science, eh?
(Didn't George Orwell have a term for that kind of language manipulation?)
Science Frontiers is a secular science magazine, decidedly not Creationist. The anomoly articles are fascinating regarless of one’s world view.
I was commenting on another part of your post, suggesting that:
...Evolution theory, which is a taxpayer supported belief system (religion.)
But I will check out Science Frontiers. Thanks for the information.
The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.
Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science.
The evidence leads where it leads.
Clapping your hand over the mouths of a contrary opinion gives the appearance of weak evidence.
Not by Darwin.
But, as I recall, the Bible was frequently used to justify slavery, more so than anything Darwin ever wrote. We have one or more posters here who have refused to condemn slavery because of that.
Almost exactly two years ago, one posted, "My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves."
The post was pulled, but it has never been retracted. Nor apologized for.
I would be careful with using Darwin as a source for the acceptance of slavery.
I think the main issue here is the hostility that scientists show toward each other, sorta like when Galileo bucked the science of his day. I watch a lot of science shows on Discovery, Science, etc., and noticed some time ago how disrespectful some are toward others and their findings. Snide, really. This fact, I think, makes it unlikely there could be any civilized debate between them. Too bad, I have a lot I want to learn about science, but who do you believe?
calumny [kal-uhm-nee]
–noun, plural -nies.
1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something: The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1400, –50; late ME < L calumnia, equiv. to calumn-, perh. orig. a middle participle of calvī to deceive + -ia)]
-Synonyms 2. libel, vilification, calumniation, derogation.
The evidence leads where it leads.
Clapping your hand over the mouths of a contrary opinion gives the appearance of weak evidence.
Science has already examined and rejected many "contrary opinions."
The evidence leads where it leads, and alchemy, astrology, phrenology, phlogiston chemistry, and many other "contrary opinions," have already been examined and rejected by science. Creation "science," is one of these.
Changing the name from creation "science" to ID does not change the fact that both are religion in the guise of science.
You are worried about "Silencing criticism with anything except evidence is contrary to science." Where is the evidence? What has changed in creation "science" in the past few decades, other than the name?
If there is new evidence, it certainly would be examined by science. But so far, the ID movement is being pushed largely by the Dyscovery Institute, following the plan laid out in the Wedge Strategy, to destroy science as it is currently practiced and replace it with a "theistic" science.
"Theistic" science? Sure sounds like religion in disguise to me.
The actual title of Darwin’s book regarding the Evolution Theory is: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life. It was used to justify slavery.
Not by Darwin.
But, as I recall, the Bible was frequently used to justify slavery, more so than anything Darwin ever wrote. We have one or more posters here who have refused to condemn slavery because of that.
Darwin’s ideas were racist. Favoured races was about human beings as well as finches. Hitler based his “supremecy” on this book. Hitler’s men tortured jews and told them it was being done in Jesus’ name. Conquistadors killed americans in the name of Jesus. If someone runs over a suirrel in my name doesn’t mean I approved it. :) Slavery’s bad m’kay.
Creationist Claim CA005.1: Charles Darwin was a racist [rebuttal at this link].
Darwin spoke of races as some speak of "kind."
Darwin cannot be condemned because of Hitler's misdeeds. Neither can the Bible.
Conquistadors killed more for the love of killing than anything else. Religion was just their excuse.
If someone runs over a squirrel, or if Hitler uses any excuse for his insanity, neither is doing it in your name, or in Darwin's name.
Slavery's bad, but it has nothing, or very little, to do with species.
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.