Posted on 10/03/2011 5:29:32 AM PDT by spirited irish
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. Because he is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, what Popper had to say about Darwinism is of utmost importance to the desperate political struggle fought between creationists and methodological and ontological naturalists. This is because the America of the Founding generation is firmly grounded in the Genesis account of creation, Old and New Testament morality and Christian theism, yet the original meaning and intent of U.S. law — as now controlled and defined by anti-God naturalism — has been radically changed so that it now reflects the doctrinal decrees of imperialist atheist evolutionary naturalism.
Whereas the Founding generation esteemed the Bible and used it to teach their children to read, comprehend and think logically as well as to properly train them in morality and self-discipline, in contemporary America, God, Bible, and moral absolutes have been banned in favor of evolutionary science, atheism, moral relativism, and self-gratification. The still-unfolding consequences of all of this are destructive and terrible, adversely affecting every level of society from the individual to the family, community, and cultural institutions to local and national politics.
In post-Christian America atheist evolutionism is taken for granted throughout the college curriculum, just as it is in all aspects of modern thought and experience, especially within the progressive liberal community. Evolution not only undergirds biological and earth sciences, but also Freudian and Jungian psychology, anthropology, law, sociology, politics, economics, the media, arts, medicine, and all other academic disciplines as well.
Evolution-believers range from atheists and scientists to esoteric Free Masonry, Hollywood insiders, occult New Age spiritists, Satanists, powerful Transnational Progressives, and large numbers of people who call themselves Christian. Among this last group are Liberal Christians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Emergent Church leaders Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, growing numbers of the Evangelical contemporary Church, and an increasingly vocal community of Christian scholars and scientists such as Dennis Venema. Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile the Bible with evolutionary science, and as a consequence teach that humans emerged from apes.
Evolutionary naturalism is poisoning and destroying America's traditional foundations, and when the foundations have finally been destroyed, all that is built upon them will be destroyed as well.
Americans have been deceived, and are needful of learning the truth about Darwinism — and all other evolutionary theories, by whatever name they are called.
Evolutionism: Spiritual...not Empirical
Though Popper esteemed evolutionary theory and natural selection, he also forthrightly stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but rather a metaphysical research program. By this he means that not only is Darwinism metaphysical (spiritual), but so are its' two most important foundations, classical empiricism and the observationalist philosophy of science that grew out of it.
Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that contradicts itself by asserting that human knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience rather than the mind while observationalism asserts that human knowledge and theories must be based on empirical observations....instead of the mind. For this reason, Popper argued strongly against empiricism and observationalism, saying that scientific theories and human knowledge generally, is conjectural or hypothetical and is generated by the creative imagination.
In other words, all three theories originated in the mind, a power of which is imagination. As mind is a power of soul, then Darwinism, empiricism, and observationalism are spiritual. In short, all three theories are frauds. They claim to be what they are not in order to obtain an advantage over the Genesis account of creation by imposition of immoral means.
In Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828, soul and imagination are respectively defined as:
1. Soul: "The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason."
The Founding generation knew that mind is a power of soul, and imagination the power by which mind conceives:
2. Imagination: "...the power or faculty of the mind by which it conceives and forms ideas of things communicated to it by the senses....The business of conception (and the) power of modifying our conceptions, by combining the parts of different ones so as to form new wholes of our own creation...(imagination) selects the parts of different conceptions, or objects of memory, to form a whole more pleasing, more terrible, or more awful, than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature."
In conclusion, evolutionism is an invention of imagination, an invention more terrible and more destructive than has ever been presented in the ordinary course of nature. It imagines that God is dead, that life somehow emerged out of nonlife, that man is not created in the spiritual image of God the Father but is rather a soulless, mindless ex-ape of evolution. It imagines there is no sin, no "hell below us, and above us only sky."
Evolutionism is an invention of imagination, and it has taken the post-Christian West by storm.
copyright 2011 Linda Kimball
Actually, they don't. And that is another of Dr Morris' problems with the faith that is put into radiometric dating.
You appear to be the one applying the uniformitarianism logic not MrB.
Furthermore, please explain how you get xenoliths like those found at Mt. St. Helens where everything should be dated the same, but some blind samples were coming back from the lab at over 1 million years old iirc.
The point I really need to make is there are lots of natural clocks [see link on post 91 of this thread] that show lots of different ages.
Therefore:
a. the scientific method does not allow for discarding any and all data that contradicts any given theory, and
b. neither evolution nor creation are true science due to the need for repeatability [i.e. no such thing as historical science].
They don't ?
Somewhere among all those samples of uranium are surely some that started out not contaminated with those other elements, that show only 10 thousand years of decay. Surely somewhere there must be a set of potato peelers that didn't start with potatos already in their baskets. Where are they?
Is Dr. Morris declaring that that a fraction of a percentage of difference in the results should be considered to mean it's entirely possible and reasoable to assume there are actually several orders of magnitude of difference, or is that actual difference substantial enough to justify his concerns?
On exactly what evidence does the good Dr. ask us to believe these things?
Radiometrics is neither evolution nor creation. Destroying it is being considered acceptable collateral damage in a debate that has been going even among theologians for centuries.
If it laid there in a solid state, decaying for one million years, and the got ejected from the volcano it's still going to show a million years worth of decay. If you melt it down and let it cool, the same ratios of elements are still there. Assuming that they should all be dated the same starts with an assumption that every bit of ejecta from that eruption is exactly the same at a molecular level. I'm pretty sure volcanic eruptions don't follow that pattern.
It’s not just uranium decay that is used for dating, I’m sure you know. Other isotopes of other elements are used as well, and they don’t all agree within the same sample.
Besides, there’s also the occurrence of “known age” samples, such as in recent volcanic eruptions, where the igneous “rock clocks” should have been reset, that date to ancient ages using radiometric dating.
No actually that is the whole point of xenoliths [anomalies] some show old-ages some do not. The volcanic activity supposedly resets these clocks to zero...
The current estimate of Earth age is based on analysis of radiometric decay of uranium.
Besides, there’s also the occurrence of “known age” samples, such as in recent volcanic eruptions, where the igneous “rock clocks” should have been reset, that date to ancient ages using radiometric dating.
Samples from recent volcanic eruptions are not of a "known age". Volcanos are not nuclear fusion engines. The elements that make up the ejecta were not created by the volcano.
BTW I’m not out to destroy anything. Just trying to show it is not the exact science that it is made out to be.
And it is commonly used to support old-ages evolution - not that there is anything wrong with that per se - just very misleading to ignore all the non-supportive data [i.e. recession of the moon, saltiness of oceans, DNA or genome decay, populations studies, formation of oil and coal deposits, polystrate fossils, living fossils, rings on Saturn - I can go on for about 90 or so more, just find it interesting that I never read about any of these problems in the evolution articles, books, etc].
You propose that mutations are not desirable and that they cannot lead to positive outcomes.
Yet you cannot explain why bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress.
Science has an answer.
Creationism, as is usual, has nothing of any value.
Your inability to reconcile reality with your Creationist view of the world should cause you to question your assumptions.
It should really trouble you.
The fact that you are content to go on in ignorance troubles me.
Why the inability to answer a simple question about mutation if you are so sure it is some sort of ‘mathematical law’ that mutations cannot lead to beneficial outcomes?
Is the theory that it can reset them to zero (under the right circumstances), or that it will invariably reset all of them , regardless of where in the mass of the original volcano they originated from, or how long ago they might have been deposited in the cone before it exploded?
It’s almost as if some one or some group was trying to brainwash me or something - nah that couldn’t be - sounds too far fetched for something as ethical as evolutionary science.
So you don't want to "destroy" it, you just want to establish that it's off by a factor of 450,000x?
I think I recognize a trick question - sometimes anyway.
As I recall you posed this question in another thread and then took my answer and twisted it too sound as if I were agreeing with you.
Again just b/c the bacteria choose to employ prior errors to try to find an ‘escape hatch’during high heat stress [or some other stress] does not mean that they can jump-start their defined genome boundaries to some new life form(s).
Besides your own fav website - sciencedaily.com - even mentions that the larger the genome the more prone to extinction the particular life form is - therefore bacteria are among the heartiest life forms, yet show zero tendency toward macro-evolution.
Nope you can believe in it all you want and run with it all day long. It would be nice though if you could acknowledge that there are over 100 contradictory natural clocks indicating less than millions and billions of years.
The heating of igneous material to molten stage resets the radiometric decay “clocks”.
And rocks are not just dated with uranium isotopes. There are many other isotopes used, and most of the time, the various decay “dates” are so far off that the “correct” date is picked from the “known” age of the “index fossils” in the sedimentary layers on either side of the igneous band in which the rock was found.
Here are some of the isotopes used for dating, and their range of “accuracy” (sorry about the formatting, but you’ll figure it out):
Isotopes Commonly used for Radiometric Dating
Isotopes Half-life
(years) Effective Dating Range
(years)
Dating Sample Key Fission Product
Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 37.8 billion early Earth
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.468 billion 10 million to origin of Earth
Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million 10 million to origin of Earth
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion 10 million to origin of Earth
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.277 billion 100,000 to origin of Earth
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5730 ± 40 0-100,000
Can you provide an authoritative source for that? Earth age estimates are based on radiometric analysis of uranium decay, and samples consistently exhibit decay far older than any know "index fossil", so it would be impossible to use them to date the sample.
Either you can answer or you cannot.
It is obvious that you cannot.
That should trouble you and make you question your assumptions about mutations and how bacteria make use of them.
But being a Creationist means never having to let a silly little thing like reality influence what you believe about the natural world.
Why does a bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?
What would be the result of expressing an error prone DNA polymerase instead of a high fidelity DNA polymerase?
Your inability to answer should trouble you.
Unless abject ignorance of the natural world and the absolute inapplicability of your belief to actual reality is something you have grown used to.
We’re talking about two different use cases, here, but obviously, according to uniformitarian assumptions, “lower” rock layers are “older” than higher ones, so if an igneous band is between sedimentary bands, it must be in between, time-wise.
Your use case is about absolute age, which would be different than my use case.
However, if the various dating methods don’t agree for one layer, they can’t be relied on for other layers.
You seem to be authoritative on dating rock samples, so I’m surprised you didn’t know there were other isotopes that were used to date rocks.
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.