Posted on 07/05/2018 11:31:50 AM PDT by fishtank
Liberty Is an Anti-Darwinian Concept
David F. Coppedge
July 4, 2018
The Darwinian worldview that allegedly freed people from ‘religion’ actually enslaves them to the worst kind of tyranny.
In the United States today, Americans will celebrate Independence Day with parties, barbecues, and fireworks. Hopefully mixed in with the fun is some appreciation for the founding principles of America:
* All men are created equal
* Human rights
* Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
* Liberty and justice for all
* E pluribus unum (out of many, one)
* In God we trust
* The American dream
All of these ideals are profoundly anti-Darwinian. The secular worldview in vogue today, resting on Darwin’s advocacy of nature run by unguided natural processes, cannot derive any of these. In fact, the opposite is true: secularism undermines every one of these, and historically, has fought against them.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
I mean it.
Stop.
You are babbling.
Learn some science then come back to me.
In the meantime, we are done.
I have no reason to believe your ability to contemplate mathematico-spatial images is any less than mine.
Where there is difference is in what we desire to believe. Desire comes first, then it commands the intellect to rationalize, to concoct a story acceptable to the ego.
As for evolution, it’s defined as slow change in species over time. The change from one species to another requires millions of years.
Evolution requires huge numbers of species. For any given fossilized species, there should be many other species leading up to it on the geologic time scale.
The fossil record does not show this. It shows sudden appearance of species, with nothing in between the species.
In a debate, the one who’s wrong knows it subconsciously, but rarely admits it to himself. This conflict causes a strong emotional response, including feelings of intimidation and fear of rejection, so he takes on a defensive tone and from there uses mostly personal insults against his opponent.
So we can see that it’s often fairly simple to tell which person knows they’re wrong, deep down.
Shall we review our exchange here, from post to post?
If God’s side of the argument is true, it’s very good news for all of us. Good news for eternity.
Freud was more afraid of following God’s rules than he was of death itself. So afraid, he refused to evaluate the likelihood that eternal damnation is real.
Please refer to my profile
Some, or the majority in the closed off vacuum of modern science, are blinded to reality.
No. Evolution is a theory to explain what we see in the world.
Evolution is against the Creator... The Creator, had Moses pen that the 'flesh man' formed was not alive - living, until the 'breath of life', (which means 'soul') was breathed into his nostrils. That would mean the soul was already in existence.
This is why I stay off anti-evolution threads. Who published this rubbish that causes you to spout this drivel - no I don't actually want to know.
The methadological fallacy here is to start by asserting as if it were established fact that the scientists have failed to ...x,y.z when nothing is further from the truth.
Unless and until you learn some science this conversation is meaningless.
I ask you to stop because lurkers will ascribe to conservatives your ignorance and insistence that your made-up “facts” and misunderstanding of science are valid in any context.
Please stop.
I'm glad you recognize what you're doing. This is why science is a disciplined methodology and demands evidence.
"The fossil record does not show this. It shows sudden appearance of species, with nothing in between the species."
That's simply not true. Creationists have been spouting that nonsense forever, and they'll probably never stop.
BTW, using terms like "mathematico-spatial images", which haven't been used in and don't relate to the discussion, don't really help you sound smarter. The best thing you could do is to quit making assertions about what a theory demands when you clearly don't understand it well enough to know. It's when you do that that you demonstrate your lack of knowledge.
Nah, it was painful enough the first time. :-)
If we did however, you'd surely note that I have not used mostly personal insults. I've tried to explain the science that you are missing, as have others. We've also pointed out that you don't know the subject you are writing about, which in the best case ought to be taken as a clue that you should stop and try to learn about it.
A letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, who was a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, speaks honestly in a letter, answering a reader who wanted to know why there was not a single photo of a transitional fossil in his book:
“… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
‘I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …”
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88–90.]
Read the whole thing, but here’s the important part:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. “
The term is used in research. Look it up.
It doesn’t seem at all reasonable to think the fossilization process only happens to some few species of animals while leaving others untouched.
How in the world could this happen? Doesn’t make sense, yet that’s what evolutionism seems to suggest.
For what, in particular?
Listen to this brief commentary in which David Berlinski, a prominent left leaning, agnostic philosopher and mathematician, refutes evolutionism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE
In this link, an academic discusses some basics of evolution. Helps us to expand our thinking, keeping a focus on some core definitions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyS5D2UzNc
Academic? No, he's a creationist writer. He's repeating the same old silly creationist ideas.
Another creationist. Everything he says about evolution is nonsense. You can find other videos on YouTube explaining why. If you want to actually discuss this stuff, don't point to YouTube videos. Point to some text that can be excerpted and quoted.
Was he advocating that or just saying it's the way things are?
I suspect many biologists would say that it's eat or be eaten in the world of nature, but humans don't have to conduct themselves that way -- and shouldn't.
Maybe Darwin -- who after all, opposed slavery -- was one of them.
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.