Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back
PostItNews.com ^

Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
To: Quix

Nobody cares.


1,341 posted on 12/30/2004 8:53:33 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1329 | View Replies]

To: general_re; betty boop
Thank you so much for your reply!

I'm inclined to think that scientists who purposefully set out to exclude even the potential for God are actually quite few in number, albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements.

Indeed, and sadly they hold rather powerful positions - e.g. Pinker, Singer, Lewontin.

I should point out, in addition, that suggesting that the universe may not require a God is not the same as suggesting that the universe doesn't have a God.

Indeed, the statements are not mutually exclusive.

However - a very big however - those few (but powerful) scientists look rather like emperors with no clothes (IMHO) declaring that God doesn't exist in the face of (a) the fact of a beginning, (b) the unreasonable effectiveness of math, and (c) information in biological systems. (I'm certain that betty boop could add to my list.)

Supporters of evolution are quick to decry Young Earth Creationists as casting conservatives in a poor intellectual light. Of a truth, these few (but powerful) scientists cast their own community in a bad intellectual light to a great many voters.

1,342 posted on 12/30/2004 8:56:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1312 | View Replies]

To: general_re

Not really sure what your ambiguous comment means or refers to.

But it appears to me that "nobody" is something you don't begin to have

ANY

scientific handle on in this regard! But it is consistent wih the evolutionists who cobble together micro-hints of evidence and assume that such chaff COVERS EVERYTHING out to the horizon in favor of their biases.

Fascinating psychological phenomenon.


1,343 posted on 12/30/2004 9:06:59 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

ABSOLUTELY. AND WELL SAID.

Thanks.


1,344 posted on 12/30/2004 9:08:28 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Fascinating psychological phenomenon.

Meanwhile, we'll be over there discussing science, Dr. Freud.

1,345 posted on 12/30/2004 9:08:47 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1343 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thanks for the encouragement, Quix!
1,346 posted on 12/30/2004 9:12:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

One of the unfortunate side effects of the poor state of science education is a general inability to distinguish between a scientist's expert opinion, his educated speculation, and his raw, inexpert opining. A better grounding in science and the scientific method would, I think, enable people to better recognize when certain scientists are wandering outside their particular domain, and judge their statements accordingly.


1,347 posted on 12/30/2004 9:16:05 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]

To: general_re

Perhaps.

But KNOWING-BY-DISSECTION

has it's limits.


1,348 posted on 12/30/2004 9:19:44 PM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1347 | View Replies]

To: general_re; betty boop
A better grounding in science and the scientific method would, I think, enable people to better recognize when certain scientists are wandering outside their particular domain, and judge their statements accordingly.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more! The schools are putting out kids who trained for political correctness and some who can parrot back that which they have been told - but precious, precious few who truly educated, especially in science.

Thank you so much for your reply!

1,349 posted on 12/30/2004 9:21:22 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1347 | View Replies]

Comment #1,350 Removed by Moderator

To: Alamo-Girl

#####In truth, these few (but powerful) scientists cast their own community in a bad intellectual light to a great many voters#####

You hit the nail on the head!


1,351 posted on 12/30/2004 10:42:47 PM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Thank you so much for the encouragement!
1,352 posted on 12/30/2004 10:46:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1351 | View Replies]

To: js1138

This is from memory, so I may not have it exactly right, but there was a religious sect a few years ago that taught that Genesis was an account of the earth being RE-created. It may have been the Herbert W. Armstrong Worldwide Church of God. I can't remember for sure.

Anyway, the belief was that in Genesis where it says the earth was without form and void, a more correct translation would be that it BECAME without form and void. God created the earth billions of years ago and populated it with plants and animals. When Lucifer & his demons rebelled, they were cast down to earth and the resulting battle between God's angels and Lucifer's demons devastated the planet and much of the solar system. God then rebuilt things in six days as reported in Genesis, and created man. He repopulated the earth with many of the same animals as before, but not all of them. He didn't recreate dinosaurs, for example. As for what God was doing all those billions of years, well, He's outside of time so to Him those billions of years were nothing.

Anyway, that's a somewhat obscure Christian teaching among some minor denominations. It's not mainstream Christian theology but it has been doctrine for some small sects.


1,353 posted on 12/30/2004 11:03:23 PM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1334 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Your list of creationist scientists is exactly the kind of weak argument that is superficially attractive to believers who don't know anything about the history of science. And exactly the kind of nonsense that the "project Steve" list mocks. Evidently you didn't get the joke.

Most of the list falls into one or more the following categories:

* Scientists who died before Origin of Species was published.

* Scientists who took part in the 19th Century debate that was won by the proponents of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence that they presented.

* Inventors who operated way out of their field when they rejected evolution.

* Scientists who rejected evolution for reasons that seemed good at the time, but which turned out to be flawed.

* Hilariously, at least one scientist whose supporters believed that they were damaging ToE, but who ended up agreeing that they had supplied the most powerful evidence yet that ToE is true that explains why beneficial mutations don't get "mixed" and lost down the generations, which was previously a serious problem with ToE (G Mendel)

Once again, it is the evidence that counts. Have you got any? If you have please post the URL rather than the article in full to save bandwidth.

1,354 posted on 12/31/2004 1:14:19 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Hummm, the Fallacy of Invincible Ignorance coupled with I See Nothing! Could this be you?


I see nothing!

1,355 posted on 12/31/2004 7:41:27 AM PST by balrog666 (The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1327 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I certainly didn't and don't expect any evidence I'd care to dig up to influence you in the slightest.

If you were open to influence, the massive amount of data and logic against ToE would already have convinced you.

BTW, I'll post the full articles whenever it feels fitting to me. I still refuse to play your game by your rules.

You have tried to make the invalid point that Creationism is only believed by unscientific, ignorant and mental weakies. The list demonstrates the absurdity of that notion. Your rationalizations to the contrary don't hold the least bit of water with me.


1,356 posted on 12/31/2004 7:42:40 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1354 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

Pluausible enough to me.


1,357 posted on 12/31/2004 7:44:25 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Getting pretty close to crass personhood assaults and insults, Fred.

Besides . . . I'd encourage you to get new mirrors since all yours appear to be shattered.


1,358 posted on 12/31/2004 7:47:33 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I certainly didn't and don't expect any evidence I'd care to dig up to influence you in the slightest.

Well, lets find out by showing me some then. You never manage to do that.

If you were open to influence, the massive amount of data and logic against ToE would already have convinced you.

Well, why don't you post references to some of it and let us decide then. I've never seen a good evidence-based argument from a creationist but maybe you've got some. Curiously you consistently refuse to post any though.

BTW, I'll post the full articles whenever it feels fitting to me. I still refuse to play your game by your rules.

Ah, you mean the rules where you have to post something other than unsubstantiated assertions if you want people to listen to you, you mean?

You have tried to make the invalid point that Creationism is only believed by unscientific, ignorant and mental weakies.

I don't recall trying to make that point. Most creationists certainly aren't mental weakies; they just haven't been exposed to the scientific arguments in favour of ToE in an open-minded context.

The list demonstrates the absurdity of that notion. Your rationalizations to the contrary don't hold the least bit of water with me.

The list of dead scientists that you posted doesn't demonstrate the absurdity of anything except standard creationist arguments. None of those scientists believed in quantum mechanics either, does that make quantum mechanics false also? Why limit your "Dead scientists didn't believe in it" argument to the Theory of Evolution?

1,359 posted on 12/31/2004 8:04:33 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

According to . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you!


1,360 posted on 12/31/2004 8:07:06 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 1,401-1,419 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson