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.
I understand that in your opinion, it is 'bad'. I want to know if in your moral code, it is 'wrong'. Is it absolutely wrong?
Do you believe some acts are 'absolutely wrong'?
[[There is no room in science for personal attacks or emotional outbursts in an attempt to cover your lack of evidence and a cogent argument.]]
Interpretation- there’s no room personal attacks and deriding statements except when you’re involved apparently. Your whole posts are littered with filthy little insinuations- so please- spare me the dramatics
[[As yet, no such evidence has been uncovered.]]
No such evidnece? Lol- Again- you use an a priori interpretation in order to come to that conclusion- Biological impossibilities as pointed out repeatedly isn’t evidnece to the contrary? Waving those impossibilities away by exclaiming that time cover all sins isn’t exactly valid scientific explanations
[[ As yet, no such evidence has been uncovered.]]
Absense of evidence supporting macroevolution of course wouldn’t be enough to discredit the hypothesis, becasue after all ‘it must exist, we just haven’t found it yet’
[[ As yet, no such evidence has been uncovered.]]
Mathematical impossosiblities although staggering aren’t apparently enough- waved away with the sin covering ‘time heal all wounds’ mantra.
[[ As yet, no such evidence has been uncovered.]]
Irreducible complexities... evidnece for mass extinctions due to catastrophic events... evidences for mass erosions... evidneces for the biological limits of adaption... on and on it goes- all waved away due to a priori beliefs about the preferred hypothesis- yup- you’re right- there’s not an iota of evidence to suggest the dogma... errrr science might be wrong.
[[Very simply, my source of truth is the summation of all empirical scientific evidence in existence.]]
Lol- yeppers- there’s lots of ‘empiracle evidences’ for macroevolution- boy oh boy- ya got us there. See?
If someone’s nature was to act uncivilized (when weighed in the balance of ‘your’ moral code) would this be immoral or “absolutely” wrong? Should it be illegal?
Most people I have encountered, by my definition of morality (which is admittedly pretty strict) are not civilized, and therefore, there must be laws enforced by civil authorities in order to preserve order within society. There are crimes I believe are “absolutely” wrong and deserve automatic capital punishment for (after a fair trial and guilty verdict is pronounced) - such as (but not limited to): murder, rape, burglary and armed robbery. Of course there are many intermediate offenses which would rate lesser penalties. Are you trying to infer somehow that we need reference to God as the ultimate source of law and morality? This is patently untrue.
I’m afraid you’ve devolved into stubborn denial and ad-hominem attacks - enjoy your feeling of superiority over the poor deluded scientists. What do they know anyway, right?
As one last attempt at pointing out the absurdity of your position: “Biological impossibilities as pointed out repeatedly” - By definition, a “Biological impossibility” cannot exist, right? Therefore, if something cannot exist, it cannot be presented as evidence.
Do you know any other buzz-phrases besides “a priori”? How about “non-sequitur”? Do you know that one? Because it defines your position perfectly.
Have a nice denial-based day! :-)
You have got to be a Lib.
Perhaps the worst insult ever hurled at me. I’m an arch-arch-arch CONSERVATIVE. I hate the ACLU, Hitlery, the Dhimmicraps and their treasonous america-hating socialism. I wish we could bring Reagan back as President, forever. I’m a life-member of the NRA and I built a custom CAR-15 as one of my wife’s Christmas presents (Yes I celebrate Christmas by gift-giving - I’m not a complete Scrooge - I do it for the tradition of it because it reminds me of when I was young). I might add that the CAR was my wife’s
favorite present, and she’s darned good with it too. I go hunting in the great Maine northwoods every year, kill animals and eat them and I vote the straight Republican ticket every time. I am no lousy Lib - I absolutely despise them hence my tagline. Jsut because I’m an atheist doesn’t automatically make me a bad person. If you think the evidence is pointing toward design every day - then please present this evidence and claim your Nobel prize forthwith. You can’t, because it isn’t.
[I’m afraid you’ve devolved into stubborn denial and ad-hominem attacks - enjoy your feeling of superiority over the poor deluded scientists. What do they know anyway, right?]
Lol- pot calling hte kettle black- Thanks- I will enjoy it in light of the fact that a denier is dealing it to me and other ID’ers as well. I know you are, but what am I? I’m rubber, your glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Gosh-
[[By definition, a “Biological impossibility” cannot exist, right? Therefore, if something cannot exist, it cannot be presented as evidence.]]
Precisely, which is why the evolutionists have the serious problem of presenting evidence that violates the impossibilities.
[[What do you expect, Cottshop is a Creationist true to his word. He is creating his own fictional reality where his created world fits with his created misinformation. But I would not call him an intelligent designer of his fabrications.]]
How third gradish of you- thanks for stopping by
What is the source you are using to declare something 'absolutely' wrong.? If the whole world voted that rape was morally right, would it still be absolutely morally wrong? Why? What is the source that would condemn the judgement of the entire world's population.
Most people...are not civilized, and therefore, there must be laws enforced by civil authorities [to enforce my moral judgements]...
Why is your moral view superior to those that you deem as morally inferior and uncivilized? Why would you feel you had the right to legislate your morality to forcefully replace theirs?
Could not some societies who evolved a little differently than yours decide that rape was morally acceptable.
Could some culture's moral views permit them to think men having sex with eight year old girls and boys was okay? What gives you the right to judge their views of morality? You might disagree with them and feel their views are destructive, but how can you claim they are immoral?
Aren't your moral views just the vapor of your personal 'preferences' based upon your evolving cultural and experiential biases? Will your preferences still apply after you are dead?
Right on the money, doc!!!
Yes, he refutted everything so brilliantly- right on the money indeed! Sorry to see you’ve set your standards of what you accept so low!!
I don’t believe a word you say, bro. Sorry. Only a Lib would play the Truth card on this theory.
No true Scotsman believes in evolution.
I knew that’s where you were going with this. What is the ultimate authority or arbiter of what is right and wrong? You would say God. I would say it depends on the society in which we live (and which faction in that society holds sway over the populus). Muslims (I detest them) are at the very nadir of societies - they are backwards, ignorant, barbaric, misogynistic, hate-filled, violent, ignorant animals. They are a perfect example of what can happen when one surrenders their reason and logic to atavistic dogma. Fortunately, in Western Societies the Judeo-Christian ethic is the basis of moral thought. This does not mean that this morality is truly based in a Divine source, but had more benign, not to say enlightened, people that wrote it in antiquity. There was a time when it was necessary to explain the natural world in terms that the people of the day could understand - supernatural ones. I believe it is time for humanity to shed those old superstitions and grow into a more mature society - where science can and will solve all of humanities problems - if the Muslims don’t drag us all back down into the 7th century again.
Liar.
Reading further: and liar. And liar again. . . I should follow your example, science is easy if you just make it all up as you go along!
True, as I said in my last post, “I should follow your example, science is easy if you just make it all up as you go along!”
I don’t believe a word you say, bro. Sorry. Only a Lib would play the Truth card on this theory.
No doubt you don’t. Every word was true, just as everything I posted about evolution is true. You are a true Denier - right to the bitter end. Tell ya what, ask me anything about guns, I’ll know the answer, and post it as fast as I can type. No Lib knows any more about guns than you do about science - go ahead fire away! (BTW, my out-of-state Big-Game hunting license for Maine was $104.00)
I don’t normally talk to liars.
I hope you did, as it was very hard to miss, but that was not the question I asked.
What is the basis for your absolute morality? It looks as though you answered that the society decides what is morally right and wrong. If this is not your view, then please correct me, because it reveals a lot about your true views of right and wrong and of absolute morality.
Instead of giving a speech about your personal temporary moral view(s) of Muslims (disliking Muslim extemists is hardly a good test of the boundaries of moral judgement) which apparently are just preferences based upon nothing any more powerful than you. Define the "basis" for your absolute morality (that you claimed to have) that gives you the moral authority to judge other's views as backwards, ignorant, barbaric, etc.
What is it that informs you that anything is absolutely wrong?
I ask you again, "Isn't it just your biased preferences that you are putting up as moral absolutes? Your views are just a collateral accident due to nonpurposed evolution aren't they?
Since you spent most of your post answering that which I did not ask and ignoring what I did ask, it makes me think I hit a sore spot. So I will ask you again, "If the whole world voted to permit rape and view it as morally acceptable, would it still be absolutely wrong? What moral authority could judge the whole of mankind as morally wrong? Please answer this question and justify your answer.
Cat got your tongue? I’m signing off now, so any questions you post henceforth will not be answered - you squandered a golden opportunity to prove me wrong. BTW, I put an AK-74 muzzle brake on the CAR, as my wife is a size zero and can’t handle that much recoil, even from such a light cartridge as the 5.56mm. Used a pre-ban Rock Island Armory Lower with internal components and a heavy-barrel upper from Bushmaster. I also put in an aftermarket titanium firing pin to decrease lock time and increase reliability. She’s pretty much mastered the stock military peep sights, so I’ve ordered her a new flat-top upper (Bushmaster again) and a Bushnell holographic sight so she can shoot both eyes open and acquire moving targets more quickly with the resultant increase in peripheral vision. It was interesting teaching her to shoot, as she is right-handed but left-eye dominant. So, she shoots left handed - good thing that Bushmaster upper I’ve got has a built-in brass deflector for lefties, hey? I guess you are right, I must be a Lib. Good grief, I’m going to violate my own rule: you really aren’t the sharpest blade in the drawer, are you?
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.