Evolution is preposterous

The Irish Independent ^ | July 7, 2007 | CIARAN FARRELL,

[burzum]

Another great response. You are really good at ignoring questions. And you declared checkmate! It is hard to lose when you invent the rules as you go!

[burzum]

It's a pretty common syndrome among liberal secular humanists not to realize the cognitive distortions of "scientism" and the mechanistic model of reality. The fossil record yields no conclusions regarding a Creatio ex nihilo so science cannot resolve the fundamental issue empirically or in imaginative theoretical models.

Why would you expect the fossil record to explain creatio ex nihilo? The Big Bang theory is what you want to criticize here. It appears this is yet another one of your deflections.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The questions about the errors of scientism are no longer even a matter of debate. The ontological presuppositions of scientific materialism are seriously flawed and cannot be demonstrated by the claimed scientific method. There is no empirical event which makes them true. They are the fantasies of warped, frustrated, little Victorian men who wanted to skip out from Anglican and Puritan church services to frequent brothels.

Give up while there is still time.

[KeepUSfree]

I don't rely on anything in the Bible. It is a book written by men interested in accruing power and controlling the people.

And, no, I don't believe in the virgin birth, second coming or the resurrection as being anything more than:
A) exaggerated stories passed down and mutated.
B) some folks with technology and smarts greater than anything or anybody else 2000+ years ago.
C) Outright lies designed to cowl a then ignorant, uneducated population into submission.

Anyone else can rely on the Bible all they want for their personal beliefs. It doesn't make them stupid - nor would I ever denigrate someone for it. It's MUCH better than relying on the Quran - that's for sure.

I see God in Nature, Math, Logic & Physics.

And I use Nature, Math, Logic & Physics to determine that "evolution happens".

I've said many times on many threads that I think God would be sorely disappointed that folks placed their faith in a 2000 year old book written by a bunch of dead, greedy, power-hungry politicians rather than by studying his creation and learning from it.

And, I think he'd be pissed that folks would deny his incredibly beautiful, complex evolutionary process in favor of a bunch words written by men.

To me, believing in the Bible over the evidence God puts in front of us every day is - for lack of a better word - blasphemy - and an insult to the creator you say you believe in.

A simple analogy to me would be assembling an item from directions - when what the directions say and the way the item goes together are obviously different. You don't keep trying fit tab A into slot B when they are obviously not there. You look at the parts and put them together the way that they logically go - even if it differs from the directions You use your eyes, your brain, your skills and your logic. You don't keep trying to screw in a screw where there is no screw hole. You realize the directions are wrong.

Evolution is the same way. I am a "naturalist" for want of a better word. I have studied plants, rocks, bugs, birds - almost all natural things and systems extensively. And, I can, with my own eyes, brain, logic and experience say that "evolution happens". And, like the shelves from Ikea, I trust MY God-given eyes, logic & reason much more than I trust the words of ANY man - especially 2000 year old politicians - which, like it or not, is who wrote the Bible.

I can remember being 6 years old and figuring out that all the continents had, at one time, been joined together - you can see the pieces and how they fit just like a jigsaw puzzle. Slide Africa over in North & S. America. Push up Austrailia...even then it seemed obvious.

Science has since proved what my 6-year old mind already "knew".

Well, I have also looked at hundreds of thousands of insects, reptiles, trees and fossils since then and I "know" that evolution occurs.

You can believe the dead politicians. I'll believe in the brain God gave me. I figger of God wanted his "children" to just take for fact some words on paper, he wouldn't have bothered with men at all and would have just created dogs that listen and obey without thinking for themselves.

[burzum]

The questions about the errors of scientism are no longer even a matter of debate. The ontological presuppositions of scientific materialism are seriously flawed and cannot be demonstrated by the claimed scientific method. There is no empirical event which makes them true. They are the fantasies of warped, frustrated, little Victorian men who wanted to skip out from Anglican and Puritan church services to frequent brothels.

You sound like David Hume. This whining about a posteriori methods is tiresome. If you honestly believe that there is no reason whatsoever to trust induction then you cannot trust science or anything else that uses induction. You will not even be able to say that the world exists, as Descartes pointed out. All you will be left with is your a priori methods that require axioms, which are by definition accepted without proof. Since you cannot justify any of these axioms, by definition, you will never know which ones are correct. That is unless you pull the 'Faith' card. Then you can justify all of your axioms by God and win every argument that you choose to participate just by being 'faithful.'

Great.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Oh, come on! It's a well-known joke!

The ectomorphic spinster who spends long hours drawing these graphs of monkey men...The nerd with the pocket protector crusading against the Dark Ages to prove these imaginary geneaologies of comicbook Apemen. Aren't the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies enough for these guys?Lighten up.

People will still be arguing about this long after we're dead in Heaven.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

“If God wrote it, the grammar must be infallible. Perhaps it is we who are mistaken.” -MapleLeaf

[balch3]

well said.

[balch3]

none is so blind as you who will not see.

[Coyoteman]

Ooops! They didn't cover that in the science courses at your college, did they?

You have no idea what they covered in the many science course in the several colleges I attended.

It's a pretty common syndrome among liberal secular humanists not to realize the cognitive distortions of "scientism" and the mechanistic model of reality. The fossil record yields no conclusions regarding a Creatio ex nihilo so science cannot resolve the fundamental issue empirically or in imaginative theoretical models.

BS. You toss the "liberal secular humanists" libel around pretty freely. Not surprising, seeing what else you claim without any foundation.

Truthfully, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my jeering post. Quite a few of the most ardent Darwinists of the liberal secular humanist type are sexually maladjusted and suffer from a pathological resentment of Christianity and Christians. It comes out in their irrational and emotionalist tantrums to impose the ideology (which is after all a political matter rather than scientific one).

"liberal secular humanists" -- are you stuck in a rut? A one-trick pony? But wait! There's more!

...ardent Darwinists
...sexually maladjusted
...pathological resentment
...irrational and emotionalist tantrums

HA! No wonder you are losing the debate.

I asked you for scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, and this is the garbage you reply with?

Care to try again? With science, instead of unreasoned fundamentalism and unjustified invective, next time?

[dread78645]

none is so blind as you who will not see.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" - Matt 7:7
Keep looking, balch3.

lol

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

So then, why did God create homo erectus and homo habilis bones? Were they made when the world was created 6000 years ago, like the dinosaurs? If they were ever alive (rather than bones planted for foolish scientists to find) then why couldn't God correctly create humans the first time? Was it beyond His ability? 69 posted on 07/07/2007 5:06:07 PM EDT by burzum

That's a philosophical and theological question. The Church's position regarding other beings, imaginary or real, is that we should not impose limits on what kinds of other creatures God may have created.

By the way, I am not an adherent of Archbishop Usher's chronologies so the 6,000 years business is a moot point. From a philosophical point of view, it doesn't really matter how old the earth or the universe are theoretically conjectured to be.

But, just for clarification, you can't get from fossils of Monkey Bones to atheistic materialism by the scientific method. Someone's emotional desire to overturn the Christian view of reality is not the same as being "scientific" in a strict sense. This is a bias that comes in. And, I argue that regarding liberal secular humanists who get really wacko and maniacal about Darwinism that sexual matters are at the basis of this. This can be observed in many forms. Now, why they go in maniacly for the Monkey Bones and the fantasy graphs,thinking that these give them some sort of edge here, only God knows. The whole episode in the cultural history of modern Western civilization is pretty strange, from Darwin and Thomas Huxley, to the Scopes Trial and the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies.

Personally, I thought Christopher Lambert did a pretty good job in Greystoke - '80s neo-primitive chic - but that's purely an aesthetic observation. Ian Holm was pretty good in that as well.

[andysandmikesmom]

From your last couple of posts..

“They who wanted to skip out from Anglican and Puritan church services to frequent brothels.”

“Quite a few of the most ardent Darwinists of the liberal secular humanist type are sexually maladjusted”

“Liberal sexual hangups are behind the hysteria for atheistic Darwinism.”

You seem to be quite obsessed with and hung up on sex...I am quite sure you do not have any evidence or proof for these really strange claims of yours...these are just things you have apparently just made up, because for whatever reason, you wish them to be true...and they all involve sex...quite interesting...

[balch3]

Truthfully, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my jeering post. Quite a few of the most ardent Darwinists of the liberal secular humanist type are sexually maladjusted and suffer from a pathological resentment of Christianity and Christians. It comes out in their irrational and emotionalist tantrums to impose the ideology (which is after all a political matter rather than scientific one).

---

probably latently homo too.

[Coyoteman]

But, just for clarification, you can't get from fossils of Monkey Bones to atheistic materialism by the scientific method. Someone's emotional desire to overturn the Christian view of reality is not the same as being "scientific" in a strict sense. This is a bias that comes in. And, I argue that regarding liberal secular humanists who get really wacko and maniacal about Darwinism that sexual matters are at the basis of this. This can be observed in many forms. Now, why they go in maniacly for the Monkey Bones and the fantasy graphs,thinking that these give them some sort of edge here, only God knows. The whole episode in the cultural history of modern Western civilization is pretty strange, from Darwin and Thomas Huxley, to the Scopes Trial and the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan movies.

When you have a scientific argument get back to us.

Otherwise, I for one am not interested in your sexual fantasies.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

There has been zero fundamentalism. And some levity.

This is an observation based on extensive scholarship which you should know: When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn.

I have no idea why you did not recognize this and threw out the "fundamentalism" canard. The critique of scientism in the history of scientific revolutions and social change is pretty well explored in the relevant scholarly literature. So to continue trying to frame this issue in the false dichotomy fallacy of mechanistic scientism vs. Protestant fundamentalist fideism defeats any purpose of rationality. If you have been pursuing this issue in the context of that false dichotomy you will only dig a maze of deeper errors, nonsense, and secular humanist claptrap.

[Coyoteman]

You posted:

...ardent Darwinists
...sexually maladjusted
...pathological resentment
...irrational and emotionalist tantrums

And you have now added:

..false dichotomy fallacy of mechanistic scientism vs. Protestant fundamentalist fideism
...deeper errors, nonsense, and secular humanist claptrap

And you presume to lecture me on what constitutes science?

When you want to discuss science, let me know.

As long as you insist on posting some kind of odd fundamentalism and anti-science gibberish, you can talk to yourself. Good night.

[andysandmikesmom]

Ah, a fourth reference to sex...I missed that one...thanks for bringing it up...yep, this is an obsession with sex...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Oh, come on! You KNOW that atheist liberals are hung up on these issues. Every college in the country has these wacko liberal people with the Darwin and pro-abortion stickers on their car bumpers. The MENSA lesbos reading the Ayn Rand books, etc. This is not normal territory for most human beings anymore than Thomas Huxley's problems were.

[balch3]

how about calling them what they are, sexular humanists lol.