Skip to comments.
Creationists Given Academic Credit for Trolling
Via LGF ^
| 8/10/09
| Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Posted on 09/24/2009 6:08:52 AM PDT by xcamel
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 761-775 next last
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; CottShop
In my mind, if that's what they are doing then it's a textbook example of "ad hominem" and "guilt by association".
Does this mean you also believe conservatives should not be concerned that so many of Obama's advisers throughout his life were Marxist, socialist or communist? The old proverb "where there's smoke, there's fire" has probably saved a lot of lives and property.
To: Alamo-Girl
[[The old proverb “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” has probably saved a lot of lives and property.]]
I was smoking during a fire one time, dropped my pack of smokes, bent over to pick em up, bumped my head, fell backwards, through a 3’rd story window, and landed on a pile of bricks- if it hadn’t been for my smoking, I’d probably have died in the fire- so yup- where’s there’s a pack of smokes, there’s fire has saved lives too :)
582
posted on
10/04/2009 9:05:44 PM PDT
by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: CottShop
To: Alamo-Girl
I’ve wanted to quit smoking, but it’s just saved my life too many times- Hate to give up such a lfiesaver lol
584
posted on
10/04/2009 10:56:51 PM PDT
by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: Alamo-Girl
Does this mean you also believe conservatives should not be concerned that so many of Obama's advisers throughout his life were Marxist, socialist or communist?No, because those people are acting in an official capacity as advisers and political philosophy is directly related to establishing public policy.
I think when those associations are made, you have to be able to show what makes those associations relevant.
The association being made about Darwin are being made to "fill in the blanks" to build evidence with the objective of applying it to a theory based on a misperception that it is relevant to that theory.
That does not strike me as being a particularly sound methodology.
585
posted on
10/05/2009 4:23:41 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: CottShop
To: tacticalogic; betty boop; CottShop; _Jim
No, because those people are acting in an official capacity as advisers and political philosophy is directly related to establishing public policy.
Well it is said that Obama met Ayers in the mid-1990s but some researchers suggest he actually met him in the mid 1980s. At neither time though was Ayers an official adviser. And Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, was a friend and adviser to Obama when he was just a child growing up in Hawaii.
And then theres Reverend Wright, a black liberation theologian with sympathies to anti-Israel regimes, who was his minister for more than two decades longer than Obama has been in politics.
And so on.
None of these hold an official capacity as adviser, but a person would not be irrational to conclude they affected Obamas thinking.
The association being made about Darwin are being made to "fill in the blanks" to build evidence with the objective of applying it to a theory based on a misperception that it is relevant to that theory. That does not strike me as being a particularly sound methodology.
No doubt you see it that way, but there are also some, no doubt, who envision Darwin in family gatherings chatting with his cousin, Sir Galton, father of eugenics and consider other writings by Darwin concluding that it affected his theory, the original title of which was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Some no doubt would say that Darwin should get a pass on filling in the blanks because he was a scientist and Obama should not because he is a politician.
But others would say not so, because the way people look at the world around them can be influenced by many, that it would be a non-sequitir to conclude that because Darwin's theory is science it then therefore cannot influence the worldview of others.
And I would advocate on that point, that science is rooted in philosophy.
The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the 1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." In a letter to the English chemist Joseph Priestley written in 1800, Thomas Jefferson lists the "sciences" that interest him as, "botany, chemistry, zoology, anatomy, surgery, medicine, natural philosophy [this probably means physics], agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, geography, politics, commerce, history, ethics, law, arts, fine arts." The list begins on familiar enough terms, but we hardly think of history, ethics, or the fine arts as "sciences" any more. Jefferson simply uses to the term to mean "disciplines of knowledge."Beginning of Modern Science and Modern Philosophy
And further, I agree that whether we are looking at the work of Aristotle or Galileo or Newton or Darwin or Einstein, their theories were far-reaching enough to affect the worldview of many.
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; metmom; spirited irish; freedumb2003
No, because those people are acting in an official capacity as advisers and political philosophy is directly related to establishing public policy. Well good grief, tacticalogic, if as you say these men are acting in an official capacity to establish public policy, wouldn't you say it's important that we understand what they think and believe since we are the public the policies are intended to affect?
I think when those associations are made, you have to be able to show what makes those associations relevant.
Why not just try your eyes!
Captain Zero's public policies are all "radical progressive," totalizing ones, of the Marxist, Communist, socialist, some say fascist sort; with shades of Alinsky-style anarchism and Black Liberation tossed in for good measure. It seems clear to me that "Obama's advisors" have been affecting his thinking and for a very long time back to childhood, e.g., Frank Marshall Davis at least.
I think it's also true that, as David Horowitz recently noted, none of these people have spent 15 minutes in their entire lives thinking about what constitutes the Good Society. What they are up to is all about Power, and only about Power consolidated in their own hands, of course.
588
posted on
10/05/2009 9:35:37 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; betty boop; CottShop; _Jim
But others would say not so, because the way people look at the world around them can be influenced by many, that it would be a non-sequitir to conclude that because Darwin's theory is science it then therefore cannot influence the worldview of others. It would be absurd to say that! Obviously, science affects the worldview of most conscious human beings nowadays. In particular, its materialism and determinism have for a long time been undermining traditional cultural and moral understandings of man and society, quite aside from transforming our view of the natural world.
I'm pretty ambivalent about Darwin. I wonder why a scientist would choose the title he did On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life for a scientific work. It seems more suitable for a myth. Or maybe a soap opera....
[Who's doing the "favouring?" Could a less emotionally-charged term have been found than "struggle for life?" Where is the much-touted scientific "objectivity" here?]
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding analysis!
589
posted on
10/05/2009 9:51:52 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Captain Zero's public policies are all "radical progressive," totalizing ones, of the Marxist, Communist, socialist, some say fascist sort; with shades of Alinsky-style anarchism and Black Liberation tossed in for good measure. It seems clear to me that "Obama's advisors" have been affecting his thinking and for a very long time back to childhood, e.g., Frank Marshall Davis at least.
It certainly looks that way to me, too!
To: betty boop; tacticalogic; CottShop; _Jim
It would be absurd to say that! Obviously, science affects the worldview of most conscious human beings nowadays. In particular, its materialism and determinism have for a long time been undermining traditional cultural and moral understandings of man and society, quite aside from transforming our view of the natural world.
I very strongly agree! In my view, science has particular influence because it claims to be definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method. But materialism by definition is a subset of "all of that there is" so anything based on the physical (e.g. methodological naturalism) should hardly be considered definitive or objective applied to subjects which reach beyond that boundary, things that science did not consider in the first place.
I'm pretty ambivalent about Darwin. I wonder why a scientist would choose the title he did On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life for a scientific work. It seems more suitable for a myth. Or maybe a soap opera....
In later editions the title was shortened but I don't know why. Today the last part would be considered either politically incorrect or racist. But in his day and age, saying that one race is more favored to survive than another would not be any more disturbing than saying one breed of horse is more favored to survive than another. Thank you again so very much for sharing your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
To: betty boop
Well good grief, tacticalogic, if as you say these men are acting in an official capacity to establish public policy, wouldn't you say it's important that we understand what they think and believe since we are the public the policies are intended to affect? Why not just try your eyes!
You tell me how to "see" (and measure) what it is they think and believe. You submit that it's all subjective, but that my assesment is wrong. By what measure?
592
posted on
10/05/2009 2:14:43 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: betty boop
It would be absurd to say that! Obviously, science affects the worldview of most conscious human beings nowadays. In particular, its materialism and determinism have for a long time been undermining traditional cultural and moral understandings of man and society, quite aside from transforming our view of the natural world. If science has to be "socially conscious", how long before it has to be done in pursuit of "social justice"?
593
posted on
10/05/2009 2:24:42 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; r9etb; GodGunsGuts; spirited irish; marron; CottShop
You tell me how to "see" (and measure) what it is they think and believe. You submit that it's all subjective, but that my assesment is wrong. By what measure? "My job" is not to "tell you what to see," but to "show you where to look." It's because I DON'T want Truth to be "subjective" that I so strongly advise you to go look for yourself.
I AM NOT THE "MEASURE" OF TRUTH. And NEITHER ARE YOU.
GOD alone IS [among other things, the Measure].
But you have reason and free will, and so therefore are perfectly well-equipped to form your own understandings of things. Again, I am only showing you where to look, not telling you what to think of the things you might see, should you accept my direction.
As far as you are concerned, you are responsible for figuring that out, not me.
If you don't want to look where I'm pointing, perhaps that only means you've cut yourself off from a treasure of human experience and understanding that goes back millennia.
Still, to say that is not to "foredoom" your own free conclusions in the matter.
594
posted on
10/05/2009 2:35:36 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; r9etb; GodGunsGuts; spirited irish; marron; CottShop
If science has to be "socially conscious", how long before it has to be done in pursuit of "social justice"? Jeepers, you must have been unconscious, these past several decades!!! Haven't you already realized that "science" has been harnassed to questions of "social justice" [which, or course are only decidable "politically," not on the basis of any enduring Truth] for all that time?
How do you think anyone could move a federal budget to address, say, "global warming" issues, without some "fig leaf" of science to support the endeavor?
595
posted on
10/05/2009 2:42:58 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
How do you think anyone could move a federal budget to address, say, "global warming" issues, without some "fig leaf" of science to support the endeavor? Fraudulently.
596
posted on
10/05/2009 2:55:44 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: betty boop
"My job" is not to "tell you what to see," but to "show you where to look." It's because I DON'T want Truth to be "subjective" that I so strongly advise you to go look for yourself. The question was "how". It was answered with only references to "what" and "where". Why is that?
597
posted on
10/05/2009 2:57:54 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; r9etb; GodGunsGuts; spirited irish; marron; CottShop
Fraudulently. How so? Considering the methods that are being employed simulation models have been blessed by science?
598
posted on
10/05/2009 3:38:48 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
To: betty boop
How so? Considering the methods that are being employed simulation models have been blessed by science?
They've selectively filtered their data, only looking for certain things in certain places, to reach a predetermined conclusion.
599
posted on
10/05/2009 3:43:56 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; r9etb; GodGunsGuts; spirited irish; marron; CottShop
The question was "how". It was answered with only references to "what" and "where". Why is that? Because if you want to know the "how" of things, you first have to understand the "why" of things.
"Why?" is not a scientific question (these days).
And so, since I cannot clear up this conundrum for you, you have to go see for yourself.
At least, that is my understanding of the matter. FWIW
600
posted on
10/05/2009 3:44:07 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 761-775 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson