Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
O’Reilly told Dawkins”
you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?
See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
So you were there 250 million years ago to KNOW that the rate of decay was exactly the same as it is today. That is evo science for you. You see something happen today and extrapolate it back to the past. It can’t be done unless you believe in uniformitarian views. Do you believe in uniformitarian views? Also you didn’t address the amount of C14 in the organism that died. I suppose you know that too?
“Yet you people look for any semblance of an argument to create entirely new science for the sole purpose of making it agree not with the observed (and mathematically justified) phenomena, but with your interpretation of the Bible...”
I didn’t quote the Bible. I told you the problem I have with your methods. You have to assume that the past is the same as the present. That doesn’t allow for ALOT of variables. I believed that evolution/radiometric dating/ etc. had alot of problems before I believed in a literal 6 day creation. In fact, the problems with your “science” lead me to the belief not the other way around. But thanks for assuming. Of course that is what evo scientists are best at, making assumptions. ;)
I copied your entire post and answered you point for point. You took a small sample out of my post and pretty much made my point for me. I said you assume it was constant and you said it IS constant. You can’t know that because you weren’t there to measure the rate of decay in the past. If you can’t prove something, it is an assumption. You go on to attack my reasoning after you prove my reasoning to be true. I haven’t tried to create an entirely new science. I agree that the rate of decay can be measured today. What I don’t agree with is your assumption that it has always been the same.
Sorry last post in response to this post. The original argument was that creationist were ignorant to evo science. I understand it quite well. The point is, when you get into the past, you are no longer in the realm of science unless you have scientific research from that period of time. I can see the distinction between operational science and historical science. Why can’t you?
Behind every government school stand armed police ready to sell at auction the property of, or arrest, imprison or even kill ( if sufficiently resistant), any citizen who refuses submit their will and freedom of conscience to the government school.
<><><><><><><><
Private schools exist. Parochial schools exist. Homeschooling exists. They are all legal.
Seems anyone has options beyond putting their children into public schools, despite the rather hysterical notion you speak of above.
1. Your practices (especially the practices of people with some academic training) are dishonest. You do not defend the flat Earth and the geocentric theory (also supported by the literally interpreted Biblical quotes), because now even a complete layman knows that this is nonsense.
2. I have mentioned many scientific disciplines above. Contemporary science differs from the pre-XVIII century science, which was based on gathering observations and categorizing them within isolated disciplines. Modern science is interdisciplinary. Mathematical background is universal. Observations, findings and methodologies from one discipline find applications in another. Scientific discoveries create a foundation for technology, and even a layman can see the products of this technology. The system works, and we don't see conflicts and discrepancies, suggesting the existence of any substantial holes in our current understanding of nature. Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over. The law of radioactive decay provides a perfect example. If you are so brave, then feel free to create a completely new, competitive, WORKING SYSTEM of science and technology, INCOMPATIBLE with the current one. Good luck, but before you achieve this, please keep the theories to yourselves, because you give the Left a good excuse (or, sadly, even a reason) to claim intellectual superiority.
And why exactly should only those that pull their kids out of the system get their money back just because they no longer have a kid in the system? What about those of us without kids? Those that have kids that are no longer in K-12? In addition, those that have multiple kids should be paying on a per-kid basis?
You seem to think that you should only be paying for ONLY those city/town services that you use and screw everyone else. "I never called or needed emergency services....I ain't paying for 'em. I don't drive a car, I ain't paying for the town to plow or pave the roads....."
Thusly, your definition of "conservative" must be flawed.....or you simply wanted to say something bogus.
Lesser government power, lower taxes, strong defense....nawwww....these cannot be conservative things.....and go ahead and ask "Frevos" what they think of these issues and you will get the same belief that you have....that is, IF you are a "conservative."
Hint: I wouldn't confuse or equate "conservative" with "CHRISTIAN conservative" any more than I would confuse or equate "conservative" with "Republican."
Nice qualifier "I haven't seen" is though....well, now you've "seen" a "FRevo" that shares 3 off the top of my head core conservative values without sharing your specific religious viewpoint on the origins of life.
People getting your point has been your problem all along dreamer! LOL!!
It is the view of God as the creator of an ordered universe that made Jewish and Christian individuals and cultures such fertile grounds for scientific advancement.
Another utterly helpless strawman.
It is a view of an incompetent “designer” that ID posits.
Your deranged liberal parroting doesn't make it so, no matter how many thousands of times you babble it, dreamer.
The fact that you chose to use your tagline to denigrate a methodology for gaining knowledge shows your agenda. How tpathetic to hate and fear what you cannot understand.
ANY Christian understands the crystal clear basic truth and premise of my tagline. NO Christian would deny that God is greater than the science He created. NO Christian or conservative would think recognition of God and His superiority would take that as some bizarre denigration of the science He created! You need an extractionist, DESPERATELY dreamer!
Something else people understand, when you're simply unable to accept that premise, your agenda becomes crystal clear also...
science is your God dreamer.
I prefer a “fee for service” system. Socialism is less efficient, and of course it’s immoral, because nobody should be forced to pay someone else’s bills.
==Another utterly helpless strawman.
Strawman is right! Allmendream tries to pretend that he believes that God is the creator of the Universe, and yet he spends all his time tearing down scientists who investigate creation as such, or who even look for signs of intelligent design in the Universe!
Any supporting sources to support your contentions?
Agamemnon, I believe this newbie has yur name written all over him...LOL!
About what? The geocentric theory and flat earth? Sure:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml
GGG tries to pretend that he believes that God is the creator of the Universe, but only so long as God did it the way GGG wants to interpret the Bible. GGG refuses to believe in a God who doesn't assist in the destruction of his enemy, scientific discovery.
GGG spends all his time trying in vain to tear down the science that he is too ignorant and fearful of to understand.
When someone is looking for God “in the gaps” they have stopped doing science.
Do you cut and paste NEA talking points without seeing how they relate to the post to which you are responding? ( Just wondering.)
1) Government schools are NOT religiously, culturally, or politically neutral. It is **impossible** for any school to be neutral. Therefore...All taxpayers are forced by the government to fund a government NON-NEUTRAL religious, cultural, and political worldview. ALL taxpayers support the establishment of the anointed government indoctrination camp religious worldview.
2) If a taxpayer refuses to pay for the government indoctrination camp NON-NEUTRAL religious worldview, armed police stand ready to force the issue. If the taxpayer would be so foolish and sufficiently resistant, the police will even **KILL** the citizen.
3) Behind every government school stand armed police that will use force ( even to the point of killing the citizen) to get that money. That money will be used to establish the government NON-NEUTRAL religious worldview in its kiddie indoctrination centers.
4) If a parent does not have access to private schools or homeschool, the parent and child are under police threat to be imprisoned in the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp ( oops! “school”).
5) The religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp is a price-fixed monopoly that is giving its religiously NON-NEUTRAL service away for the price tag of “free”. If private CEOs were to attempt to corner the market by price-fixing at below market rates they would be imprisoned, but it is OK for government school bureaucrats to do it. As a result of the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp's price-fixing business practices, many, many counties have no private school option. ( My county does not). Police stand then stand ready to force students to use the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camps.
6) High taxes to feed the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camps make it necessary in many families for both parents to work. This makes homeschooling nearly impossible. If the child does not show up in his government assigned indoctrination camps ( which by they way is religiously NON-NEUTRAL) police will soon be at the door.
7) Lucky parents can **RANSOM** their children by paying a religious tax or freedom of conscience tax. They can pay extra in school expenses ( over and above what they have been forced to pay for the religiously non-neutral government indoctrination camps)to send their children to private school ( if all private schools have still not driven out of business by the religious NON-NEUTRAL, price-fixing, government indoctrination camps). Some people call this private school ransom by the term JIZYA.
Although your comment had almost nothing to do with my original post, thank you for the opportunity to explain the concept of government police force as it relates to our nation's system of police enforced, religious NON=NEUTRAL, government indoctrination camps.
A flat out lie that no one has ever been able to support with the facts. (but don't let that stop you from spewing confusion and diversion, this is the essence of the naturalizers)
LOL!!!!!!!!
Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over.
Like global warming has been validated and cross-validated?
Like Lucy?
Like Ardi?
You said “I will give you my final answer. The YE creationists’ “science” is based on the following principle: “this and that needs to be reconciled with the number 6,000, so let’s find a hole (or a semblance of a hole) in the particular fact.”
Evolutionary “science” is based on the following principle: “this and that needs to be reconciled with the number millions and millions and billions of years so lets make presumptions, date fossils by rock layers, hide evidence that doesn’t support this view.
You said “So, you guys try hard to create the perception of existence of such holes in selected aspects of:
- physics
- chemistry
- biochemistry
- mathematics
- biology
- geology (sedimentology, stratigraphy, mineralogy, tectonics)
- paleontology
- computer science”
We dont try to find holes in any of these fields. Scientist who believe in creation work in all of these fields. None of these fields have anything to do with evolution although some of them are used to TRY to explain evolution.
YOu said “Whenever it’s needed, established knowledge is attacked (using incomplete, or even plainly untrue arguments), for the sole purpose of reconciling facts with the certain literal interpretation of the Bible.”
What established fact have I attacked. Again HISTORICAL SCIENCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED FACT. You weren’t there so all you can do is make assumptions. Assumptions aren’t fact. Now in a million years, if it survives, scientists will have research from now. They will not have to make assumptions about the rate of decay or the amount of C14 in living things. You however do not have that luxury.
YOu said “So I want to make two final observations (form now on I am going to plainly ridicule YE creationists)”
Ridicule is the defense of those who have lost the argument.
You said “1. Your practices (especially the practices of people with some academic training) are dishonest. You do not defend the flat Earth and the geocentric theory (also supported by the literally interpreted Biblical quotes), because now even a complete layman knows that this is nonsense.”
The Bible does not promote a flat earth or a geocentric theory and YOU KNOW IT. You are being dishonest on this point as several people on this forum have refuted your attempts to say it does.
Speaking of using dishonesty. What about peppered moths, Haeckel’s embryonic development chart, the artistic license taken to reconstruct a human foot for Lucy and every other artistic rendering used to confuse people of the facts, showing examples of OBSERVED micro evolution and using it to support macro evolution. All of these things can still be found in textbooks today.
You said “2. I have mentioned many scientific disciplines above. Contemporary science differs from the pre-XVIII century science, which was based on gathering observations and categorizing them within isolated disciplines. Modern science is interdisciplinary. Mathematical background is universal. Observations, findings and methodologies from one discipline find applications in another. Scientific discoveries create a foundation for technology, and even a layman can see the products of this technology. The system works, and we don’t see conflicts and discrepancies, suggesting the existence of any substantial holes in our current understanding of nature.”
Agreed, but evolution has not added an understanding to any of these sciences.
You said “Now, you guys propose to tinker with this and that (whatever necessary), and most of these attacked things are of quite basic nature, they have been validated, cross-validated and practically applied over and over. The law of radioactive decay provides a perfect example.”
Again radioactive decay is based on assumptions about the past. It has been applied over and over. The results that don’t fit the evolutionary timeframe are thrown out. The rock with known ages that are dated with millions of years are explained away. The millions of year old fossils with C14 in them are never mentioned (especially diamonds and coal).
You said “If you are so brave, then feel free to create a completely new, competitive, WORKING SYSTEM of science and technology,”
The old system works just fine and many brillant creation believing scientist work in these fields. The problem is not with science and technology but with evolution which has become a religion not to be questioned. Besides what does technology have to do with this? Technology which is MUCH less complicated than a living thing, had a creator, a designer. Alot of technology is actually based on DESIGN we see in nature. As much as you want to say it and believe it, evolution is NOT science. Science is observable, repeatable, testable. That is the kind of science that gives us medicine, technology, creature comforts. You want to paint us with a broad brush of being ANTI science because we are ANTI evolution. You can say it all you like but it isn’t true and I will call you out on it every time!
YOu said “INCOMPATIBLE with the current one. Good luck, but before you achieve this, please keep the theories to yourselves, because you give the Left a good excuse (or, sadly, even a reason) to claim intellectual superiority.”
I didn’t realize you were so concerned about what the left thought. They think you are loony anyway because you are conservative. I have as much right to espouse my theories as anyone. I am glad to see that you think questioning evolution is intellectually inferior to the godless mindset of liberals. It tells me alot about who I am debating with.
Since those laws that you seem to believe direct a universe that denies the words that God gave us have never been established or placed into an orderly abstract or equation, yes it is a strawman.
You speak constantly of things that do not exist, and deny the things that do.
Since your universe does not fit either the physical evidence, nor God's description of it, we cannot allow you to call your games "science."
Well, being in the companion of 6/6,000 believers and flat earth proponents definitely hurts the credibility of educated conservatists, and makes disputing the mentioned global warming scare much harder.
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.