New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply, but, er, I would never agree that "all's fair in love in war".

My objection concerning the abuse of science is with regard to specific individuals and organizations, not the science community itself. Science attempts to stay neutral by using materialism epistemologically but not metaphysically.

The problem comes in when a rogue such as Peter Singer seizes upon that form of materialism to justify an atrocity such as infanticide. Likewise, when the animal rights activists seize on it to justify equal rights for laboratory mice.

Science specifically tries to keep itself away from religion, but IMHO it has a big problem because it does get abused both from within and from the outside. But the answer is not to enforce an orthodox metaphysics of any kind on the science community, rather, IMHO, the science community needs to be aware of such abuse and do all it can to stop it.

[biblewonk]

In the bible when God says that an elder must be the husband of one wife, we take this to mean not only that an elder must not have been divorced or a polygamist, but a male. It never says specifically that an elder must be a male and people will weasle around that face and make females elders/pastors.

When it says that all the stars and planets were created on the forth day with very little fanfair or significance, even the sun then we see the centrality of the Earth in creation. When it says God sent his only begotten Son to take on flesh and die for the sins of man, we see very little importance in what else is going on anywhere.

[DittoJed2]

Nonetheless, it has been used. If the Bible did not exist, then the atrocities done in its name would not have happened. Human nature being what it is, another excuse would have been used, for sure.
This didn't totally make sense. An excuse would be used, for sure. Sometimes, this excuse has been "Christianity". But Christianity was not the cause.

Darwinism has caused been a direct cause, particularly in lieu of its racist implications:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, A.L. Burt Co., New York, 1874, p. 178.)

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Huxley, Thomas H., Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, (Appleton, New York, 1871, p. 20.)

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./ Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): p. 129.)

In such an environment, is it any wonder that a Hitler came along and created a evolutionary scale where Aryans were fully evolved humans, negros were predominantly ape, and jews were fully ape? I don't say Darwinism was the full root of this philosophy. Certainly the anti-semitism rampant in Europe throughout the past (particularly in the Austro-Prussian arena) played a huge roll in this formulation. But, Darwinism was a logical contributor.

[biblewonk]

oops. face = fact.

[Aric2000]

But, I came on the thread to cause people to realize that the "evidence" is not as universally accepted and proven as the evolutionists would have us believe.


Indeed, a VERY small minority do not understand the evidence and therefore write it off, as you have been doing through this entire thread.

Ichneumon has refuted a number of your posts with excellent, well thought out, and incredible responses.

You have chosen to ignore them.

Just because you choose to ignore the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. and it exists, In DROVES, in warehouses full, in thousands and thousands of papers written by well respected and peer reviewed scientists.

Your chosen ignorance is what is in question, not science, nor the scientific viability of evolution.

Evolution is an assumption in science now, there is so much evidence FOR it that only the specifics are what are in question, the basis for the theory is pretty much a given.

Creationism is religion by the way, and so far I have yet to see one piece of credible scientific evidence to back it up.

[Right Wing Professor]

Sometimes, this excuse has been "Christianity". But Christianity was not the cause.

If it was done by Christians, citing Christian scripture in justification, Christianity was in the same sense the cause, as a fallacious reading of evolution that led people to social Darwinism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! The agreement among the willing disallows calling evolutionists (specifically or generally) Marxists, Nazis etc.

We will not call evolutionists Marxists, atheists, Nazis, mass murderers, liberals or leftists;

The agreement does allow that:

We may argue that a person who believes in one thing should logically also believe another thing, but a person's assertion that he believes or disbelieves anything should not need to be questioned.

Since you have not signed-on to the agreement, you are not obligated to such restraint; however, those who have signed on will most likely not respond to your posts.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hi! Sorry for not responding earlier. I have been busy, and only occasionally pop in and out. Glad you had a good time. :-) Sorry Mars was not a bit more exciting. But on the other hand you got to see it :-).

[DittoJed2]

Alamo-Girl,
My point is regardless of how neutral you claim to be on matters of the metaphysical, by saying something occurred in a way differently than what Scripture (or some other way) says they occurred, your are implicitly making a non-neutral philosophical statement regarding religion itself. If science just reported facts "We found X fossil, in X rock layer. and according to Y Scientist's formulations and radiometric dating, etc., we believe it to be X number of years old" That would be okay. But science does not do that. They state theory as fact and hypothesis as proven and then castigate anyone who calls them on it. As an I.D.er, you know of a non-biblical treatment of the evidence that supports design. This won't be taught, however, because the Darwinists can not allow it. That is not science, it is indoctrination and propaganda. Science may try to be neutral, and in approach with some evidence, it no doubt is. But Darwinism is a worldview, and by definition it is not neutral.

[Aric2000]

And there is the bottom line.

VI is now engaged.

[Da_Shrimp]

didn't totally make sense. An excuse would be used, for sure. Sometimes, this excuse has been "Christianity". But Christianity was not the cause.

The bible, not Chistianity per se has been used to justify all sorts of things. It has been the direct cause of torture and execution of innocents.

[Aric2000]

Give it up, the blinders are on and the earmuffs are on tight.

When a mind is closed to any other evidence, you might as well forget about getting through.

[RadioAstronomer]

I hate quoting the bible to people who don't care what it says.

Excuse me???? Where have I EVER said I do not care? Let see you find that tidbit anywhere in any thread I have ever been on. You may be surprized to find out I read the Bible quite often.

SHEESH!

[Da_Shrimp]

Well put!

[DittoJed2]

Please see my reply below and find that it is less than a fallacious reading of Darwin that allows for such. As far as "Christians" doing these things, I just don't believe that these people were Christians- at least not in the biblical sense. We can disagree on that point.

[RadioAstronomer]

Any clues would be much appreciated!

I am in my control room so I have limited access from here. I will put together some stuff for you this evening. :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

What I find disturbing is that in doing so, her arguments will go unrebutted

[DittoJed2]

The bible, not Chistianity per se has been used to justify all sorts of things. It has been the direct cause of torture and execution of innocents.
I would disagree with you on THIS point. It was not the direct cause. Even in the Old Testament where God commanded certain things of Israel, the commands were specific to Israel and her preservation as a country. The torturers who misused Scripture did so either as the basis of very poor teaching or a need to justify something they already wanted to do. There is nowhere in Scripture that the Bible makes a universal command to force conversion, torture, or anything of the like.

[AndrewC]

Sorry Andrew, I have my suspicions,

Well, I certainly believe you are wrong, but I understand suspicion. I caught someone who was posing and had another logon. It is my understanding that that person is still posting. I have a great suspicion as to who it may be, but will not say and I do not dwell on it. It is strange that the person is allowed to continue to be involved here after such a "mistake" and how others have been treated.

If you look back in the thread, you first addressed concisetraveler, who had been nothing but civil until repeated belittlement of creationists and their viewpoint. Finally, unsubstantiated "attacks" on the credibility of someone is more insulting and inflaming than name-calling, at least in my view.

On my comment to js1138 about a setup. Although the setup is evident througout the day it is readily apparent from post 1508. I gave Dittojed2 a hint to a patent pertinent to the discussion involving her. Within one minute, a post consisting of 1682 characters and 313 words was posted after my post. This post also contained a cut and paste from the thread and a link. 313 words per minute is a world's record. If I could type that fast I would submit myself to Guiness. Typing, Fastest. Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Oregon can maintain 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attains a speed of 170 wpm using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system. Her top speed was recorded at 212 wpm. Source: Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985), THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, 23rd US edition, New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. ---http://sominfo.syr.edu/facstaff/dvorak/blackburn.html(lazy).

It was a setup, pure and simple.

[biblewonk]

Oh, are you a Christian?