Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
In that case, well past the abilities of a Liberal, then?
“The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes.”
Comedy?
No thanks. There are already more than enough squirrels in the Democrat Party.
The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical. Darwin’s hypothesis runs into unsurmountable obstacles when confronted with simple modern arguments.
Essentially Darwinism is just another discredited “origin myth”. People simply want to believe that they “understand” what is going on when they simply don’t.
Should a woman drive a car with a Darwin decal after what he had to say about women?
Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.
We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
That is, the sun apparently stood still. Read this:
In the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan - the history of the empire of Culhuacan sn Mexico, written in Nahua-Indian in the sixteenth century - it is related that during a cosmic catastrophe that occurred in the remote past, the night did not end for a long time.It's from Immanual Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. It made me stand up and take notice more than 40 years ago.
ML/NJ
The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical. Darwin’s hypothesis runs into unsurmountable obstacles when confronted with simple modern arguments.
________
‘fess up, you pulled that info off the sleeve of Behe’s ‘Darwin’s Black Box’.
Can you summarize, in your own words, what those obstacles are?
Maybe those that have bought into darwin's theory can explain why the primary mechanism of evolution (mutation followed by natural selection) doesn't work: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm ) I'm a scientist and have changed my mind about what I was force-fed during undergrad and grad school about evolution.
Boston must have a lot of SMUG alerts with all those hybrids driving around.
If Darwin was correct, how do we explain gays?
(ask that of any liberal, be sure they aren’t drinking fluids when you do so, however)
Evolution has been repeatedly disproven and yet its adherents have remained in denial and try to insist that Darwinism be taught as a “Fact(TM)” in public schools at public expense to the exclusion of all other theories of origins. There is no scientific support for evolution.
I think it took a while for some folks to be convinced the world was not flat.
I'm right there with you, having become perfectly happy to admit that we just don't know. I have observed natural selection aplenty (thanks to Darwin), but never once have seen signs of evolution to a higher state of complexity.
This educrat's obsession with claiming that modern science has all the answers robs young people of the aspiration that they too could make important contributions. That deprives science of future talent. We should never say that what we have is anything more than a model with specific limits. It's time for science to come clean about the necessity to admit ignorance where appropriate.
The problem is that in a grant driven world, claiming more for your work than it warrants is a matter of survival. Yet another reason why government as a source of funding has its inherent perversities.
BS
“If Darwin was correct, how do we explain gays? (ask that of any liberal, be sure they aren’t drinking fluids when you do so, however)”
Exactly. Big Government/Socialism is completely at odds with so-called natural selection or “survival of the fittest.” Maybe since the left believes in it, they advocate big government because they are scared of being weak and overtaken by others who are strong.
Along your same point, should minorities drive a car with a Darwin fish on it after what he had to say about them?
It’s funny how they never want to give the full title of Darwin’s book as it originally appeared.
The book’s full title is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Later on in 1872 the title was changed to hide the last half, perhaps because of its racist overtones, to just “The Origin of Species.”
And it als ois very interesting to see the darwinists trying to equate the reluctance to accept their views with Christians. There have been many, many attempts over 2000 years trying to snuff out Christianity. So many that millions of people over the last 2000 years have been killed for their beliefs. THe killing goes on today, in Sudan, in China, in muslim countries. Show me the millions of people who have believed in Darwin so strongly they’d give their own lives defending that belief.
The truth is Darwin is junk science, it fails Darwin’s own tests due to lack of evidence. By his own words Darwin would have abandoned his own theory long ago. A hundred and fifty years beating a dead horse is the picture of the evolutionists. Today’s masquerading ‘science’ instead says lack of evidence is evidence for it - it just happened much differently than Darwin said it did.
If the Darwinists can use lack of evidence as evidence, then I guess we can too when they ask us to call forth God so that they can see Him.
The truth is that the theory of evolution is an origins theory, which requires faith to believe in because it cannot be scientifically proven. Anytime you discuss origins there’s belief and faith involved whether God is the creating source, or evolution. If one can’t be in the schools, neither should. Otherwise you are favoring one origins theory over another.
The other truth is that if there is no God then there are no moral absolutes, right and wrong do not exist. Morals are really just a fancy name for ‘preferences’. It’s just our personal perceptions of what we prefer or don’t. The reality of this is that maybe it is okay to kill other people if they don’t agree with you, because since there’s really no right and wrong, nothing is wrong, so everything is fair game. You may not agree, but since there is no absolute standard to which everyone is measured, it’s just one person’s preferences being different from another’s. Nobody’s wrong. Hopefully you don’t run into someone who thinks it’s okay to kill you for your tennis shoes because he liked the pair you were wearing when you walked by him on the street that day.
This would have to be true because if we evolved from animals the way it’s claimed, you don’t see anything in nature operating this way. The lion doesn’t have a moral issue about killing the gazelle. It’s all self preservation and ‘do what you will.’
Today in America we don’t eat people, but in other places of the world they do. Maybe one day our views will change and enough people will accept eating people again, especially if we have food shortages and because we’re using all our biocrops to fuel our cars. MMMM, soylent green....
And for those of you who think the ‘societal’ morals in our laws and such solve the problem, they just slow down the problem. But the societal morals drift and change as society changes. And good luck if half the time if they even want to enforce a law on the books, much less mete out a full punishment. And also good luck if soceital morals shift (since there are no absolutes) to where YOU become part of a legally persecuted class with the full force of government backing those who want ot come after you. (And I’m back to 2000 years of Christian persecution and millions of deaths of Christians by those who would persecute them.)
Yep.
I’m serious about asking a liberal about this. Drives em almost as crazy as if you say ‘Bush’...(chuckle)
“The problems with Darwinism as a “theory” are mathematical and biochemical.”
Please tell me you aren’t talking about irreducibility.
Essentially the anti-evolutionist argument of irreducibility is just another discredited myth. People simply want to believe that something mystical and nondisprovable and beyond human comprehension is going on, when it simply isn’t.
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.