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.
Coyote, you are so full of crap its almost hard to believe. e.g. I know more about fitness nutrition than most so called experts in this field and I’m a network security engineer (also with a geo-chemistry background), so quit with the formal credentials BS in order to speak. Anyone smart enough to read, can understand that darwinism is crap.
I was responding to the question:
What exactly qualifies one to "do science?"
My response was:
Simple; to do science one must follow the scientific method.Your response seems to boil down to "so quit with the formal credentials BS in order to speak."This is distinctly different from what lawyers do. The rules of evidence and the peer review process are two examples. Other differences are in the "judging" of evidence and the target audience.
Ann Coulter's recent book is a good example of how to be a lawyer or celebrity, but it is not a good example of how to do science.
If you will reread my response, above, I said nothing about formal credentials. I stated that to do science, one must follow the scientific method.
Do you have a problem with this?
(And lay off the profanity. It does neither you nor your cause any credit.)
Do you have a problem with this?
The answer would appear to be, "yes."
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. (Is that an example of creation "science"? Are real scientists supposed to be impressed?)
Its all religious belief anyway.
What's that, the latest creationist talking point?
Creationists are doing their disingenuous best to pretend that their religion is science (ID), all the while claiming that legitimate science is religion. What a mixed up bunch!
What absolute nonsense.
How many radiocarbon dates have you done that you're such an expert? (I'm approaching 600.)
Have you actually studied the subject, or are you just relying on creationist websites?
I would like you to support your silly statement, above, and we'll see how well it coincides with my experience.
I bet you will point to a box on radiocarbon submission forms that asks for estimated age as your "evidence."
Well, guess what? I don't fill that box in. Neither do a lot of my colleagues. And the lab doesn't pay any attention to that either. Its there for general guidance only. The lab techs probably get their chuckles when the dates they come up with differ from what archaeologists expected!
Anyway, I am eagerly awaiting your lecture on radiocarbon dating. This should be good.
Careful razzle- Coyote has issued you a no win situation- Any dates that are rejected are excused away as ‘being contaminated’, and dates that are accepted are only those that have coem within a ballpark figure- so onsite, any dates that don’t hit their a priori benchmarks are simply not taken into account- so don’t bother posting any info showing how carbon dating or radiometric dating show problem after problem with the dating process because they’ve got an excuse for everything- they’re practicing ‘science’ after all, and we’re just simpletons for questioning them- they gots degrees after all!
And how do we know YOUR interpretation is accurate? How is it any more reliable than anyone else’s interpretation? Are you perfectly objective? No biases or preconceived notions? No philosophy of life? Why should we take your word for it over anyone else’s?
BUMP!
On several occasions I have asked those (usually evos) that have expressed a belief in “a god” or “some creative force” or some other such to explain on what basis they believe this to be the case. What is their reason for believing in this, let’s call it “force,” that is the source of creation. No one has offered an answer. They haven’t said whether this is some hunch they have, or this is based on some reading they’ve done, or if this is based on some physical evidence they’ve come across, or if this is some bit of deductive reasoning they’ve undergone and the conclusion their reasoning mind must draw is that some great, unknown creative “force” must be at work. Yet, several on these evo threads will acknowledge the existence of something at work that is outside of the labratory.
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Reader, if this describes you, and you are reading this just now, I encourage you to expend as much time inquiring into the nature of this “force” as you do the result that this force produces. As the scientist you are, or the lover of knowledge you have come to be who would spend countless hours/days/weeks/months/years sifting through data, listening to the “learn’d astronomers” so to speak, examine with that same curiosity and fervor what it is that is at the heart of the notion that there is some “force” behind it all.
“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”
I like this guy...
Yeah, evolutionary theory is preposterous, but it makes it easier for atheists to hold onto their sins. And in the end, that's what all the evolutionary mumbo jumbo is about.
Pray for them. It's a defect of the will, not the intellect. And only God can change hearts.
The experiences I’ve had arguing with hard-core evolosers indicate that they’re not likely to change. What you want them to do is die out without replacement.
No. And you are so far off as to render any opinions you have ever expressed here about dating as worthless.
Fossils are dated through radiometric dating, not radiocarbon dating.
Radiocarbon dating is suitable only for dating things once alive (in other words, not fossils), and extends back only some 50,000 years.
There are many forms of radiometric dating. Here is a good summary: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
And Leakey didn't do any dating himself. He worked with geologists and other specialists who identified volcanic layers above and below the layers from which the fossils came (fossils can't be dated directly). Those specialists then did the dating. They obviously would do multiple samples from many areas in an attempt to understand the stratigraphy of the region and the ages of the different layers.
If you want to badmouth the evolutionary sciences, shouldn't you learn something about them first, so as not to look silly when you post?
You have a familiar posting style. Have you been here before?
Pardon me, you have brought me to this: Bullshit. I presented the study to you. They studied more than 300 fossils. You lied it all away, as you are doing right now. You didn't even read the article itself, it must be either divine revelation or extrasensory perception that allows you to make so many ridiculous claims about its content and invent so many supposedly contradictory fossils out of thin air. About every sentence in your post contains a new lie.
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.