|
|
Thank you. |
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
She still has the evo-zealots upset.
Unless you want to count all of the errors she made because she just copied the standard long-since-refuted creationist propaganda.
She has no business trying to do science; she has shown by her recent book that she is simply not qualified.
Maybe she should join Barbie at the mall...
You certainly wish!
All you nuts are able to do is say “he’s wrong” but nobody has yet been able to point out any error, just constant retoric.
You have got to be kidding!
You've posted to enough of these threads to know that this is sadly not the case. If the Bible says the Earth cannot be moved, then someone who literally interprets it will fake the equations. And the followers will agree that 2+2=5 if one of their literal interpretationalist 'scientists' 'proves' it.
9. Is there a scientific theory for a young earth that explains the evidence offered for the Big Bang?In other words, he's doing creation "science" instead of real science.Answer: Yes, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has published such a theory in his 1994 book, Starlight and Time*Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. Dr. Humphreys explains how secular scientists built their Big Bang cosmology on the assumption of an unbounded material universe that has no center and no outer surface or edge. When this assumption is fed into the mathematical equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the Big Bang theory automatically results. In contrast, Humphreys began with biblical information about the creation of the universe and fed it into the equations. The result is a startling new theory that allows for an earth only 6000 years or so old. At the same time it explains the three principle kinds of evidence that are used to support the Big Bang cosmology. These are (1) the fact that light from galaxies billions of light years away has reached the earth, (2) the red shift of the light from the distant galaxies, and (3) the cosmic microwave background radiation that is observed coming in from all directions.
Dr. Humphreys is careful to point out that his radical new theory must be critically examined, perhaps for years, before it can become established as a scientific theory. He began his eight years of study of this problem by carefully searching the Scriptures to obtain his fundamental scientific assumptions. This is an example of how Christians ought to function in scientific research. It will probably will be a few years before this new theory either gains substantial corroboration or is falsified. This author feels that Dr. Humphreys interpretations of Genesis 1 designed to fit the Scriptures with his theory are a little bizarre. They may have to be modified, but all new theories need adjustments before reaching their final form. In any event, Dr. Humphreys' work does suggest that those Christian creationists who have opted to accept the secular great age chronology may have capitulated too soon [emphasis added].
What a joke. And you fell for it.
Actually, a Tautological Proof is based upon the disproving of an assumption of a "negative".
Well, it was back in the day when I studied Logic at the Welfare University aka U/Mass Boston.
and that settles it, at least for anybody with half a brain.
Cite the errors.
Nice. What exactly was the purpose of this personal insult? Do you feel that it aided in the conversation? Did it make you feel bigger and more secure that your theory was correct? Or is it just a sign of your own insecurities?
Cite the errors.
Check the things she wrote against the Index of Creationist Claims. She parroted the standard creationist line without checking her facts. Look it up if you don't believe me.
She did creation "science" instead of real science.
I suppose that "Pi" and "Zero" and other "intangible notions" also qualify as being without evidence of having existence.
Unless of course you can provide us all some physical evidence of "pi" or "zero" or some other intangible but fundamental precept upon which all of our modern "science' is based upon.
Drrr!
|
|
Thank you. |
BTTT
But, but, that's not fair, Ann is so much taller!
Just because a notion is tangible bears not on whether it is real, else alchemy would have worked and The Crack in the Cosmic Egg would be a documentary.
Attend carefully the difference between possible and probable.
Substituting one for the other lays superstition’s foundation.
I suppose that's a few times more than He said the earth is fixed and cannot be moved. Or the rather odd notion that everything is either male or female. I wasn't aware, however, that there are references to Darwin in the Bible.
Where on that link does it say anything about Ann Coulter?
Unless of course you can provide us all some physical evidence of "pi" or "zero" or some other intangible but fundamental precept upon which all of our modern "science' is based upon.
You sound like someone who likes Descartes' skepticism and his ontological proof. It should be noted that the scientific method is a posteriori, not a priori. If you agree with Descartes' skepticism (that there is proof that the world actually exists) then the argument is over. If you don't then you need to discuss evolution in standard scientific or inductive reasoning terms.
Where on that link does it say anything about Ann Coulter?
The link I posted contains several hundred creationist claims, with scientific data showing where they are wrong.
Ann filled nearly half of her book with standard creationist claims, which have been shown to be wrong over and over.
Take a claim from her book concerning the theory of evolution and look it up in the Index of Creationist Claims and see what science says about it.
There, that wasn't so hard, now was it?
Thanks for the ping!
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.
