Oh, there were most certainly a few. There is always a pit in every cherry.
Posted on 11/28/2001 8:21:55 PM PST by Phaedrus
You may bow down to the Great God Western Science. I do not. And Darwinism fails all the tests science (evidence, evidence!) as it now is practiced, yet you folks vehemently defend it. Go figure.
I must have missed that paper when it was published. Cross our palms with knowledge O great one, give us proof instead of invective, lest ye be cast under the bridge and called troll.
I accept the evidence that has been discovered and presented. You do not.
I disagree with one thing you said. I do not "worship" science. Science is a way of explaining the evidence shown and discovered thru models (theories). I f you choose to accept the evidence and models put forth, that in itself is not worship.
The other thing I find interesting is the fact that science modifies the models as new evidence is uncovered. Religion is a static "model" that never is allowed to change no matter how much evidence is accumulated to the contrary.
Just read the article and restrict your comments to it and I will be happy.
BTW sorry for not pinging you on this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/579033/posts
Just read the article and restrict your comments to it and I will be happy.
I did. There isn't much there that is worth commenting upon. The argument is like this one: "Rocket technology is horribly wrong and should never be studied because the people who did the initial work were Nazi's and they believed all that fallacious master race stuff." So, tell me, why do you think the above statement is false while this other one is true?
Well, not so. I give you Jonathon Wells' Icons of Evolution. Big Evolutionary Lies are being taught to our children.
I disagree with one thing you said. I do not "worship" science. Science is a way of explaining the evidence shown and discovered thru models (theories). If you choose to accept the evidence and models put forth, that in itself is not worship.
Fair enough.
The other thing I find interesting is the fact that science modifies the models as new evidence is uncovered.
Also fair enough. But why does Darwinism "survive" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? For example, 250,000 species and few if any transitional forms, species remaining virtually unchanged for millions of years in the fossil record, the simply disappearing and on and on -- the list is a long one.
Religion is a static "model" that never is allowed to change no matter how much evidence is accumulated to the contrary.
Here we part ways. This is not a discussion of religion but of purported science, and science has its own rules of evidence and internal consistency. By those rules and without regard or reference of any religion or creed, Darwinism fails.
Oh, there were most certainly a few. There is always a pit in every cherry.
Well, I clearly don't agree or I wouldn't have gone to trouble of posting it, would I?
The argument is like this one ...
No No No, you are not permitted to mischaracterize arguments made in the article, then ricicule those mischaracterizations.
I am suggesting that the logic of evolution demands it.
For the record, though, I don't really believe that. It's fun to work within the logic of an evolution-based and godless reality -- it's an application of one of Burnham's Law's (scroll down), "Who says A, must say B." It serves to highlight the illogic behind so-called "rational derivations" of unalienable rights.
Acknowledging the existence God releases one from the logical trap, while at the same time placing upon us moral requirements that -- unlike in the "natural" world, have real consequences.
Which is a hilarious malaprop on your part. The whole point of a cherry is the pit -- the seed. The sweet covering is the bait to get the seed encased in fertilizer and transported away from its place of birth. An evolutionary mechanism, by the way.
This is a surprise to me. First, because I've never met a Christian who doen't believe in "original sin," you know, Genesis, etc., and the need for repentence, the acceptance that Jesus died for our sins or we'd never be worthy of God's grace...you know, Christianity.
Did this author (or Darwin?) not know that the theory is at least 3000 years old, has that tried and true "evolutionary" history behind it (it works, so people keep teaching it to their kids)? (^:
My attempt to wax poetic. :)
"Genesis falls down rather badly when it comes to the order of creation. It has plants being formed before the sun or the moon was in the sky."
The sun and moon were created the very next day. I think the plants could have survived 24 hours without the sun. (Yes, I subscribe to the belief that the "days" of Genesis were 24-hour days.)
You've missed the point completely. The argument is not about morals per se -- anybody can invent a system and call it "morals."
Rather, the argument is about absolute morality -- without which concepts such as "unalienable rights" make no sense except as a matter of convenience.
The standard-issue FR libertarians (and objectivists in general) claim that one can by reason alone discover and prove the existence of absolute morality. Such claims do not stand up to logical scrutiny, however -- and evolutionary theory (which they tend to defend with vigor)provides empirical evidence to that effect.
Logic demands that if unalienable rights exist, they must have a source outside of "objective reality."
Really??
Why did space itself suddenly decide to expand? How long had it been there "unexpanded" before it decided to expand?? How are you certain that space expanded? Were you there?
Are there people who DON'T do acid who believe that space expanded??
Would absolute morality necessitate a presence or source outside of objective reality? Well one could hold to a set of absolute morals, and be incorrect about their source, but that's another discussion:)
As for God being the source, does He have to obey his own morals? From what I read in the Bible, it seems there are several instances of contradictory behavior on His part? As for morality itself, it CANNOT exist without a corporeal existence.
This should be as plain as day to anyone. If we existed on a spiritual plane, our violent impulses, jealousies stripped away, what "morality" could exist? I suppose one could still "feel" but even that is debatable. The fact is, without mortality, without the flesh, without the material nature of this world, morality would not exist.
Whoa, dude, like...I, you know, believe that space is expanding faster than my cable service, and like...I don't, you know...do acid...other than, say...ascorbic acid...
That's correct, but postulating a deity is very useful if you want people to follow those morals. Of course it would be wonderfull if everyone understands the reasonings behind those rules but reality shows that this is not the case. Only a minority really sees the consequences that can arise if you follow respectively do not follow those rules. For the rest the "do/don't do that because I told you so" argument should suffice.
Now if this "I" is an immortal god that knows and sees everything the chances are much higher that the people obey those rules as if it were a mere human.
As an example imagine what Islam would be today if Mohammed wrote in the Qu'ran that he said this or commanded that and not Allah.
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.