"Darwinism is crumbling under the massive weight of falsifying scientific evidence. In short, the Darwiniacs are toast! The very thought of it leaves me no choice but to LOL over and over. LOL!"
LOL, indeed! See tagline.
Posted on 09/03/2008 3:47:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwinism is ultimately the creation story of naturalism and atheism...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
You offer nothing to rebut or refute the quote other than the fact that you don't like it. You can't even show that it is taken out of context, you merely assert that it is. Now, if you could produce other quotes by Lewontin (or any other scientist) that contradict what I posted, you might have a point that we can discuss, but just making unsubstantiated assertions is meaningless.
And you need to be 'lectured' about logical fallacies. You use them so often that they seem to be the basis of your beliefs. If I don't 'lecture' you about them, you will continuously use them as though they are tangible arguments. I'm trying to help you improve your critical-thinking skills.
I know logical fallacies and propaganda techniques well enough to recognize a classic “appeal to authority” ploy. Clean up your own house.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule, if any Christian not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma that which scientific scrutiny has shown to be false” SAINT Thomas Aquinas, guilty as charged! ;)
I believe that you do know logical fallacies and propaganda techniques extremely well since you use them constantly. The one you are using now is to accuse your opponent of the thing you do quite openly.
"Clean up your own house."
You should take your own advice.
Go start your flame war with somebody else.
**See tagline**
"....OntheWeb...."
Exactly my point.
**See tagline**
Darwinism is crumbling under the massive weight of falsifying scientific evidence. In short, the Darwiniacs are toast! The very thought of it leaves me no choice but to LOL over and over. LOL!
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200808.htm#20080829a
LOL, indeed! See tagline.
Is that you? If so, don’t feel too bad...your reaction to the scientific overthrow of Darwin’s fairytale is actually quite common.
You're claiming this is a 'flame war' and that I started it?
LOL!
You’re still here, the only thing you have left is insults, and the only thing insults are good for is starting a flame war.
So are you. That comment goes both ways in case you hadn't noticed.
"...the only thing you have left is insults, and the only thing insults are good for is starting a flame war."
It's not an insult to point out that you are the one who said that I wanted to 'start a religious war' and 'burn heretics'.
It's not an insult to point out the various fallacies underlying your arguments.
Clearly I'm neither hurling insults nor trying to start a flame war.
The conflict is between religion and science. Calling science a religion lets you engage that debate as a religious conflict - you don’t do that unless that’s the kind of conflict you’re looking for because that’s what you think you can win. “Burning heretics” is rhetorical, but basically puts it in the context it’s being argued - drawing the line between sides based on adherence to a specific religious doctrine that’s a point of theological schism.
No, there is no 'conflict'. There are only competing philosophies. I suppose you need to label it a 'conflict' so that you can accuse people of trying to 'start a religious' war and 'burn heretics'. Science as you use it here is nothing more than the philosophy of naturalism.
"Calling science a religion lets you engage that debate as a religious conflict - you don’t do that unless that’s the kind of conflict you’re looking for because that’s what you think you can win."
As I explained above, it is a matter of competing philosophies. You are the only one trying to start a 'conflict'. I'm not.
"“Burning heretics” is rhetorical, but basically puts it in the context it’s being argued - drawing the line between sides based on adherence to a specific religious doctrine that’s a point of theological schism."
Why don't you drop the rhetoric and try discussing the issue without inflammatory language like 'religious war', 'conflict', 'burn heretics', etc. etc. The issue is competing philosophies. Science is based on the philosophy of naturalism and that competes with belief in a supernatural creator.
And that's the difference between science and religion. Science is based on naturalism and materialism because everything it deals with must be, or have a directly or indirectly discernible effect on material. That's the nature of it.
As look as you keep up this "Temple of Darwin" bullshit I'm not particlarly inclined to pay much attention to your wailing about civility.
That's what Lewontin was talking about when he said,
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
"As look as you keep up this "Temple of Darwin" bullshit I'm not particlarly inclined to pay much attention to your wailing about civility."
No one is 'wailing about civility'. I merely suggested that you drop the rhetoric. Does that translate into 'wailing about civility' in your mind? You're the only one who is invoking 'Temple of Darwin' BS and then wailing about 'starting religious wars', 'burning heretics', 'flame wars', etc, etc, etc.
I submit that this is simply Lewontin's personal opinion, possibly skewed by his political leanings. He's in no position to be making such declarations because he wasn't there when the philosophical basis for science and the scientific method was laid out.
Objectively, the obvious problems with doing research on anything from a premise of divine intervention make the operating within a materialistic framework a necessity, not a choice. Once you submit and accept that something came into being and operates by divine intervention there's no further research to be done. You can't dissect God.
"I submit that this is simply Lewontin's personal opinion, possibly skewed by his political leanings. He's in no position to be making such declarations because he wasn't there when the philosophical basis for science and the scientific method was laid out."
Here's a simple test to see who's correct.
If you are correct, then the ID movement is real science because what they propose is exactly the opposite of what Lewontin says. If Lewontin is correct, then science's claim that ID is 'religion' confirms Lewontin's position and reveal that you are merely disingenuous.
"Objectively, the obvious problems with doing research on anything from a premise of divine intervention make the operating within a materialistic framework a necessity, not a choice. Once you submit and accept that something came into being and operates by divine intervention there's no further research to be done. You can't dissect God."
First, no one proposes to combine creation and operation except you. That is the first fallacy, the fallacy of necessity.
You quickly follow that fallacy with another, the fallacy of appeal to consequence of a belief. No one but you has claimed that supernatural creation means that there can be no study of the creation.
Do you have anything other than rhetoric and fallacies to support your belief?
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.