I don’t know the answer to that question [what harm it would do for others to be wrong], do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are you so adamant about correcting the “defamation” of science (from what I’ve seen, only evolution - if you have examples of other science threads where you’ve defended science please feel free to show me) when you don’t know if it does any harm?
Why not let the delusional be delusional? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But my interest in this subject is no more “extreme” than in any other subject I’ve posted on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This particular thread had pretty much ground to a halt. Then you decided to resurrect it, and make a post many hundreds of words long to do so.
Is there another thread about another subject on FR where you’ve done this? I’d like to see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course they do [defame science], and you know that well if you’ve read anti-evolution threads & posts.
Some not only defame & misrepresent science, they attempt to redefine science by denying some of its basic assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? As I’ve asked several times already, whom does it harm?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good many have no idea what those words [empirical evidence and methodical naturalism] mean, even after they’ve been explained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what? Just as many probably don’t know what “Epicureanism” means, even though it’s mentioned in the Bible. They most assuredly don’t know what “Draper-White conflict thesis” is, even though it affects many of the attitudes involved in these types of discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t accept that words like “rubbish” or “nonsense” are too “rude” for Free Republic’s non-religious news/activism threads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn’t ask if it was too rude for FR. I asked if your abrasive tone was effective in achieving your goal of defending Christianity and modern science.
Is it? How is it more effective than simply stating your disagreement with proper sourcing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FRiend, I have neither knowledge of nor interest in other sites, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s too bad.
You see, there are many other sites out there who agree with everything you post about evolution. They are even more knowledgeable about the nuances of evolutionary biology than you.
The problem is, most of them are filled with atheists who not only defame Christianity, but are attempting to eradicate it altogether using science as a weapon against it.
Since we’re talking about the loss of eternal life versus being in error about some scientific thing in the temporary existence on Earth, and given your goal, I would think you would care more about saving the souls of those others than with calling out Freepers (most of which are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ) on their errors about evolution.
After all, which one does more harm, being wrong about evolution or being wrong about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
And why don’t you care enough about the eternal fate of people who agree with you about science to tell them of the Gospel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It [Christ’s prophecy of an unprecedented tribulation] doesn’t: in no way, shape or form, does science belong in such spiritual matters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Human extinction is a purely spiritual matter? If that is the case, we don’t need to study it scientifically, do we? We leave spiritual matters at home when we put on our labcoats and head out to the lab, correct?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But looking longer term, in a few billion years, science says the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.
So our descendants, if there are any, will need to find a new home, says science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is that before or after Christ’s Second Coming?
Angryoldfatman: “Why are you so adamant about correcting the “defamation” of science...”
Adamant? No, but you seem adamant.
So, on the off chance that you are genuinely curious, and not just hoping for some handle for ad hominem attacks, let me explain, again:
Believe it or not, I do have a life outside Free Republic, and pathetic as it may seem to you, it does pay my bills and requires me to be away for days, sometimes weeks at a time.
So, when I do have spare time, I like to make the most of it, hence the post which has you so, ahem, adamant.
On Free Republic we can see dozens or hundreds of threads per day, some of which involve science or history subjects, and some of those attract posters who seem, ahem, *adamantly* opposed to some basic ideas.
Or, and more often, people ask very interesting questions, all such I enjoy responding to.
Now, since you post under the moniker “angryoldfatman” I have to suspect you come here with no good intentions, that you’re really more an assault weapon than conversationalist.
However, I think I’ve dealt with tougher hombres, so we’ll see how well you meet my expectations.
This post is coming off my allegedly “smart” phone, while waiting in line at Blue Beacon.
I’m up next!
Of course, my answer is: there's no difference, it's all the same thing, short-term & longer term.
So-called macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution accumulating over millions & hundreds of millions of years.
But now, some people wish to change the subject somewhat, and so we'll digress:
angryoldfatman: "Why not let the delusional be delusional? Why not let sleeping dogs lie?"
Last time I looked, this is Free Republic, it's sort of what we do here, on occasion.
angryoldfatman: "This particular thread had pretty much ground to a halt.
Then you decided to resurrect it, and make a post many hundreds of words long to do so."
An accident of timing, no need to read more into that.
angryoldfatman: "Is there another thread about another subject on FR where you’ve done this?
I’d like to see it."
Sure, but you may well know that every post from every poster on Free Republic is available for review pretty much any time.
I couldn't stop you from looking at those if I wanted to, which I don't.
So, feel free to look them up and study them as much as you wish.
angryoldfatman referring to mockers of science: "As I’ve asked several times already, whom does it harm?"
Obviously, there's plenty to mock, especially when we get into subjects like AGW, aka: Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change or even Climate Extremes.
This is what happens when science marries politics, and becomes driven by people whose interests are not science but rather political power.
And we can know that's the case because there are still some well-recognized scientists who say, in effect: "no, wait a minute, not so fast with those unwarranted conclusions."
But that is not the case with evolution theory, since there is neither obvious government entanglement with the theory itself, nor are there serious recognized scientists who dispute it's basic idea: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
And please note: in response to such mockery as we sometimes see, I do not mock in return, but simply try to set the record straight.
angryoldfatman: "...many probably don’t know what 'Epicureanism' means, even though it’s mentioned in the Bible.
They most assuredly don’t know what 'Draper-White conflict thesis' is, even though it affects many of the attitudes involved in these types of discussions."
But they do misunderstand evolution theory, and continually post their misunderstandings on Free Republic.
angryoldfatman: "I asked if your abrasive tone was effective in achieving your goal of defending Christianity and modern science.
Is it?
How is it more effective than simply stating your disagreement with proper sourcing?"
And this coming from a poster whose very moniker "angryoldfatman" tells us he's here to fight abrasively in the arena of ideas.
Remember, FRiend, for every post here there are at least two different audiences: those who agree with the poster, and those who disagree.
We may even postulate a third group as fence-sitters, not sure which they prefer, but I doubt if that group is very large.
In this particular subject -- evolution theory -- there is a relatively large & well established school of thought, anti-evolution, which aggressively promotes its views on Free Republic.
I would ask you to think of these people the same way we think of, oh, let's say, a car salesman.
So long as a salesman is employed by, say Chevrolet, you will never, ever, convince him that Fords are better, regardless of what you say, and you waste your effort trying.
And so it is with our committed anti-evos.
But there are also a large number of readers and posters on such threads who do support the scientific view, and who do appreciate it expressed reasonably and well.
Those are the people I try not to disappoint.
You may also see that different arguments have more or less merit, and so deserve more or less respectful responses.
Imho, when people post "rubbish" or "nonsense", it should be called out by its right name.
angryoldfatman: "You see, there are many other sites out there who agree with everything you post about evolution.
They are even more knowledgeable about the nuances of evolutionary biology than you.
The problem is, most of them are filled with atheists who not only defame Christianity, but are attempting to eradicate it altogether using science as a weapon against it."
We all do what we can.
I've been reading Free Republic for at least 15 years, posting here since 2003, contributed for the past 10 years, have always enjoyed & appreciated the ambience of its threads & posters.
angryoldfatman: "Human extinction is a purely spiritual matter?
If that is the case, we don’t need to study it scientifically, do we? "
Just my opinion, but I doubt if biblical eschatology refers to anything scientifically knowable.
angryoldfatman: "Is that before or after Christ’s Second Coming?"
How would anyone know that?