Posted on 05/03/2010 6:22:25 AM PDT by Need4Truth
you are using tautological thinking, a cat is a cat because it’s a cat. We could just as easily claim a dog is a cat, because you aren’t providing any real defining traits. Dogs have tails, cats have tails, Dogs have two eyes, cats have two eyes. Dogs have four legs, cats have four legs. You have to define your terms and you aren’t doing that. I don’t think I’ll change your mind, but i d@mn well sure want to strengthen your logic.
Scientist think those “few strands of DNA” are incredibly important and they are evidence for a common ancestor. Or you could make the claim “God is lazy, cutting corners like a big business.”
Hear, hear.
I'm fearful for the future of this country especially with respect to our position as the leader in the technological marketplace. And, considering how many are so willing ignore sound science because it may conflict with their theological belief or orthodoxy, those fears are substantiated.
We should be just as worried about religious advocacy & zealotry in the biological sciences as we are about political & social advocacy in the physical sciences, especially as it relates to the environment. They are both dangerous, and equally disturbing and neither bodes well for America's continued excellence in science.
“But perhaps you can “enlighten” us with what bizarre and preposterous B.S. you don’t “believe in” but call evolution, even though it doesn’t have even a passing resemblance to the actual theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.”
Quite angry, aren’t you? Must be your liberal gene coming through?
Look, I said I’m not a scientist. I do understand intraspecies evolution versus interspecies breeding. But is this a vaccuum? Evolution as you worship it, is just one item, and no other factors matter?
I’ll be much more open to evolution as the primary factor of our existence when you can show me life made from “primordial soup” Any life, just create life from non living material as evolutionists espouse. If you can’t do that, then create one new species from another. I mean, if we all came from fish, then surely you can create a furry mamal from a fish, right? Don’t want to make it too tough, how about a mouse?
I am saying that the argument that creationists don't know much about science has validity because creationists are, on average, less educated.
And one can easily tell that creationist sources take this into account in their writing, because to acceptance of most creationist writing is predicated upon almost complete ignorance of actual science.
I don't worship evolution. Quite angry aren’t you? One might think you were unable to carry on a discussion without attributing beliefs and attitudes personally to those whose ideas you cannot contest.
So now you move on to ‘evolution is all about cross breeding’ ignorance to ‘evolution is all about life coming from non-life’ ignorance.
Does that mean you have abandoned your ‘cross breeding is necessary for evolution’ stance? It seems obvious that even you have seen that such a position is indefensible.
“BTW, saying it is impossible for life to have come about as the Darwinist dogmatically insist that it did “
Dogmatic? Here is a quote from Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=1
“Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
Yeah that was pretty dogmatic of him.
Thanks
I reject the conclusion that evolution is true because the more people are indoctrinated into it the more likely they are to believe it.
“the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be evolutionists”
is simply a logically worthless statement unless you accept the idea that that “education” was worldview neutral.
“Evolution appears to be God’s method of creation. Why would whales have non-functional hip bones unless they evolved from land animals.”
That’s not how science is done.
Science takes an idea like that and develops a theory. Then it tests, falsifies, and duplicates the results (which has been done with adaptation, but not the TOE).
That’s how you verify a theory, not simply saying that it must be this because nothing else makes sense right now.
“Until a better theory is stated Evolution will be the champ.”
Wrong.
Theories stand and fall on their own. A theory is not kept once it can’t be verified simply because there’s not another one waiting to take its place.
There is, in science, a view that useful theories are to be preferred over useless ones.
Sorry if that white male patriarchal results oriented western imperialist structure we call “science” isn't “worldview neutral”; it is results oriented.
The theory that life evolves via natural selection of genetic variation is useful and leads to useful products information and results.
The idea that all species of life were created near simultaneously within the last few thousand years by supernatural agency is not a useful idea that leads to useful products information and results.
So why is the theory of evolution taken as gospel by so many leftists if it hasn’t been tested? It’s just a theory without substantiation, much like global warming, and should be treated as such - especially in schools, where impressionable young minds can be indoctrinated with bogus science.
Adopting that as the absolute you wish is going to render swaths of theory in the fields of sub-atomic and astro physics inoperable. Acceptable collateral damage?
Actually, it’s the “postmodern liberal indoctrination” that would claim that education is worldview neutral.
They/you argue from the assumption that this education isn’t taught from a base set of assumptions (naturalism/materialism).
And your argument is also from a base set of assumptions - that there aren’t any assumptions/worldviews associated with the “education” that these students who are “more likely to believe evolution” receive.
Hi... I want to change your school curriculum to teach an idea that has no basis in fact called “Intelligent Design”.
I can’t say WHO the Intelligent Designer is because if I did... it would be teaching a religion NOT a science. But we all know who the Intelligent Designer is “wink wink nudge nudge”.
We Intelligent Designers believe that a superior being designed all life on Earth. I mean come on... the fossil record shows that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, right?
The Earth is only 10,000 years old or less. They all had to exist at one time. Dinosaurs, eurypterid, trilobites humans, and cattle, and all sorts of animals. ALL at once or at least within a week of each other.
Oh and radioactive dating methods are the tools of the Devil.
Any questions?
Bigger goals, my FRiend, much bigger goals are at stake.
You seem to think that somehow science should be “worldview neutral” between ideas that are of use and lead to further information, and ideas with no scientific credibility whatsoever.
That is a liberal “postmodern” ‘every view has equal value’ feel good happy horse excrement.
Science is not, nor should it ever be, “worldview neutral”.
My argument is based upon the “assumption” of statistical analysis. The high school or high school drop out set has the highest acceptance of creationism; and those with graduate degrees have the highest acceptance of the theory of evolution through natural selection.
It is obvious that creationist sources are aware of this and take it into account in their writing.
“I have little doubt that even if evolution allowed for such a thing and they did it, you would move the goal post again.”
You assume too much, which tells me something about you. You don’t know me, nor do you have any idea how invested I am in this debate.
Your critical thinking skills are suspect.
Hitler and Sanger . . two of the best darwinists ever!
Oh, BS. I’m not “wrong again”, and stating such is just more of your “winning the argument through condescension”.
Postmodernism is the denial of the ability to know truth.
Let me give you a dose of your own medicine:
Obviously, you know NOTHING of worldviews or worldview studies, so you are not qualified to have this conversation - therefore I dismiss your arguments.
You understand that Darwin’s original theory has long been falsified and supplanted right?
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.