Posted on 12/10/2009 4:24:15 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
“There is no unbiased science because there are no unbiased scientists.”
As my mother would say to anyone who made a remark like that:
“Speak for yourself, Buster,” or in this case Maam, I suppose.
From the Autonomist’s Notebook:
Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.
1. The man who says, “everyone lies sometimes,” is a liar.
2. The man who says, “everyone steals sometimes,” is a thief.
3. The man who says, “everyone cheats sometimes,” is a cheat.
And the man who says, “there are no unbiased scientists,” displays his own bias. Strange how most people just cannot believe everyone does not share their faults.
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/antbk/antbk.php#admissions
Hank
That's an assumption, alright. My not accepting the ToE as fact is no indication of my ability to understand it. Evos tend to work on this assumption that if one simply really understands the ToE, of course they'll have no choice but to believe it, because it is so obvious to THEM.
It's simply beyond their comprehension that just because they believe it, someone else chooses not to. The theory is not that compelling.
Nobody is denying that variation within species and natural selection happens, even the creationist websites that evos so like to deride. It's the extrapolation to speciation that creationists don't accept and is not science anyway, because it's based on historical or forensic evidence. The kind of major changes that evolutionists claim occurred has never been demonstrated in the lab
I would daresay a lot of the derision is based on the observation that many on these threads pretend they don't understand the basic terminology of science...can't really have a scientific discussion without them...
Well, then, PLEASE, would some evo actually define those terms. If you ask 30 different evolutionists for definitions of the terms *evolution*, *species*, *theory* etc, you'll get thirty different answers. Of course, it's difficult to carry on a coherent conversation when the evos keep moving the definition goalposts.
Given that, I understand the angst of those who are literal Bible believers and the apparent conflict between "Bible Truth" and "Science Truth"...there is probably no way to reconcile the two in the Christian faith...keep in mind, however, in the Jewish faith, the two are kept separate and is not seen as contradiction...
You need to stop listening to the lies evos spread about what Christians and creationists think about Bible interpretation. I don't know of anyone who demands that the BIBLE be read literally. Extrapolation again, which evos are good at. Someone takes the creation account in Genesis as fact, and right away they're portrayed as demanding the the entire Bible be read literally.
It really goes to show the weakness of the evo position if the only way they can gain ground to misrepresent the other side and what they believe.
Are you biased or not?
Only if God lied when He told us....
Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
The Torah (Bible) describes the Creation. Nowhere in it does G-d (out of deference to you) say that He Created forms that then changed to others. He Created! And here we are.
Adaptation is NOT evolution. Neither is heredity. An animal can adapt all day long. At the end of the day, it is still that kind of animal.
I grew up steeped in science, loving animals, believing evolution to be correct. And really thought i had an issue with Creation, even after being saved. I am an owner of snakes for pets, one of which is a Yellow Anaconda. He is a pretty big boy.
He has, near his tail (yes snakes have tails), spurs, that are atteched to skeletal bones resembling small legs. Well, would that not be evidence of evolution? I showed them to my wife (recently married and also saved). It was disturbing to her. So we read.
Gensis 13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
And there was our answer. G-d gave this to Moses to write, to record. What did Moses know of genetics, heredity, adaptation, or perhaps evolution? If there were evolution, snakes would have been legless, why write it as though they were legged untill 'cursed' by G-d? Animals adapt, not evolve. Those terms are very different.
Ducky is my Anaconda. Thankfully he is fairly mild mannered.
And you magritte, are like a breath of fresh air in a normally hostile environment.
1) Reality - No we do not understand it all. Some we do thouroughly, some not at all.
2) Torah/Bible - Such a Great Topic that! I believe that what we have been given there is all that G-d knows we need. I claim no basis for full understanding beyond my ability to read. But having read what is there, it does seem to be understandable. I am sure that the time will come when we will be able to ask our Lord of these things and our understanding will be limitless.
3) Both - Goes without syaing FRiend.
I do wish to extend my hand to you, wish you a Blessed Hannukah, and without offense, a Merry Christmas. I wish it were possible for us to sit down and chat, you do strike me as someone it is possible to differ with, yet understand and learn about others from.
Ooops, my mistake, I meant theory.
Interesting concept, and I was under the impression that it was one of the most important aspects of Evangelicals in general. Okay, I'll have to ask ..if the Bible is not to be read literally, it is easy then to take Genesis as allegory and metaphor and parable...where does that leave "Religious Truth"?
Genesis is written like a narrative, so it makes sense to read it as fact.
If you're going to read part of it figuratively, then is all Genesis meant to be taken figuratively? That would put the Jews in a tough position. I presume that they take the part from at least Abraham on as fact. Where do you make the break, then, and based on what?
Being Jewish, I presume from the comments in your post, I thought you might be interested in this.....
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
It is my pleasure, as well ! My upbringing and family is Christian, so we still celebrate full Christmas and all its Glory...a Merry Christmas to you and your family ! ...magritte
A very interesting article and much appreciated...I was not born into Judaism, so the best I can be for now is a Righteous Gentile(Noachide),regardless I can still say Merry Christmas to you and your family ...magritte
Thank you for your warm wishes.
Merry Christmas to you as well.
I did find that article intriguing.....
[[if I recall, Coyoteman always posted and put up links to the basic terms just to give the non-scientists some background to have common ground for discussion...]]
Your memory isn’t so great apparently, Yep- Coyoteman did infact post ad nauseum- jhowever- his posts were always refuted, and hsown to be not infact science, but a religious assumption-
[[So you won’t just say “See, you can’t answer”, of course evolution is both fact and theory...evolution facts refer to the changes in genetic material and evolution theory is explanation of how these changes occur...
]]
mmmm- not so much- evolution theory is an ASSUMPTION (That flies i nthe face of scientific evidence- violating several key scientific laws- as pointed out many times here on FR)
[[I would daresay a lot of the derision is based on the observation that many on these threads pretend they don’t understand the basic terminology of science...]]
Again, Mmmm- not so much- the derision is based o nthe fact that Creationsits and ID scientists and the general public don’t simply take evolution assumptions at face value, and quesiton the assumptions, and point otu hte violations to scientific laws- those proposing evolution assumptions take offense to that
[[Given that, I understand the angst of those who are literal Bible believers and the apparent conflict between “Bible Truth” and “Science Truth”...]]
‘Apparent conflict’? Blatant conflict with hte bible is morel iek it. Either hte bible is God’s word, and He meant what He said, or it’s not God’sword, and thereis no reason to beleive anything written in it. Either God created man and woman, or He lied to us (or hte writers lied to us)- God specifically stated that there was NO spirit death BEFORE the fall of man in the garden- Now, IF evolution was true, then would have had to be spirit death BEFORE the fall as species evolved into other species till man finally emerged. As Well, God specifically said that after creating Adam, He then created Eve- He looked aroudn for a mate for Adam, and there wasn’t a suitible species- so again, Either God lied, or He meant exactly what He said- but of course htose that don’t beleive the bible is God’s word don’t accept that- so no, evolution and the bible are not compatible, and evolution can’t be ‘reconciled with the bible’- evolution flies i nthe face of the bible- just as it flies i nthe face of scientific laws.
God and the writers of the bible whom God spoke through stated many many times that the bible is the Holy spirit inspired word of God directly to us, through man- the writers were not writing of their own accord- they were writing htrough hte Holy spirit- the bible is VERY clear about htis- but those tryign to reconcile evolution with hte bible reject this- so there is no way they can claim to beleive both- (Well, they can claim that- but their beliefs belie their claims)
[[I was not born into Judaism, so the best I can be for now is a Righteous Gentile(Noachide),]]
Actually- you may very well be one of hte lost tribe of ephraim- Gentiles are made up of the lost tribe, who wil lbe reconciled to Israel in the end days- I don’t havw a link to it right now- but I did a report on this once, and the ‘adoption’ of the Gentiles was based on God accepting those fro mthe lost tribe who had scattered amlung the gentile nations-
Some possibilities from Henry Higgins’ “The Humble Humorist.”
(1) Their wives get up and leave the room when they start their rant.
(2) Their friends know their sob stories and tales of glory are fairy tales.
(3) Their neighbors find them less credible then Vince, the ShamWow creep. And want their borrowed tools back.
(4) They think Bill Nye, “the science guy” is the most brilliant person on cable except for Ed Begley.
(5) They're an embarrassment to their children. Daddy wearing a brown shirt with a black tie is a real fashion no-no.
(6) Posting on internet no one can see the crazy eyes. Look behind those cheap sun glasses at your own risk.
Just some possibilities. Not naming names or anything.
Part of the problem is what I term the 'yuppifaction of science'. That means that 150 years ago a scientist typically was also a member of the house of lords, and was basically free to challenge entrenched paradigms either in science or in any other field of endeavor. He might get laughed at, but he could not have his basic livelihood taken from him for scientific/political incorrectness.
You need only watch Ben Stein's film ("Expelled") for to grasp the nature of the problem today
Are you biased or not?
Not!
Having an objective opinion is not bias. If your opinions are determined by anything other than objective reason, such as feelings, tradition, upbringing, peers, accepted authorities, or superstition, for example, such opinions are biased. Racism is an example.
One can have opinions based on their best objective reason that are mistaken, but mistakes are not bias either. Mistaken ideas held stubbornly, or evasion, in the face of reason and evidence are biased, however.
If your views are based on your best objective reason, however much I agreed or disagreed with them, I would not call them biased.
Hank
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.