Skip to comments.How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinisms tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
**I repeat as you didnt answer the point. INSTEAD, you Hypocrites CHANGED THE SUBJECT.**
Which you just did, AGAIN.. answer the Original Question.
“you mean the evolutionist fantasy that man is not human,...
...ape is man, man is ape creature descended from the greater apes”
There is plenty of evidence of latent ape-like behavior on this very thread!
Your premise that evolution is somehow a liberal principle is simply wrong. It’s a scientific conclusion which liberals or conservatives can either accept or reject.
This site has pretty much run off all the conservatives who accept evolution, but that is more of a reflection of the religious wing of conservatism rejecting science than proof of evolution having any sort of political bias at all.
I hope his papers are a lot stronger than what he posts as solid scientific evidence of his evolutionary claims.
Oh boy do you willfully ignorant ignoramuses not understand a thing. "The law of the jungle," which I take you take to mean knock down drag out battles to the end whenever beast meets beast and "evolution" are not the same thing at all. One of the things that evolves is the emergence of the rules of social interactions (dogs, monkeys, etc.). Survival does not mean being the strongest predator, unless you are a preditor - and being a predator is a pretty tough life actually if you look at lions, for instance. A male lion has about the worst job description in the world, with a short tenure and when the axe falls it really falls.
The evolution of rules of social interaction to ensure the survival of a society is a significant part of evolutionary theory. Ever watch a pack of wild dog, for instance? While they are ruthless hunters, it really is one for all and all for one in the pack with fair sharing of kills and ensuring that the young get their due portion.
> you mean the evolutionist fantasy that man is not human,...
How do you know God didn’t use apes as a prototype when creating Man? It would seem rather wasteful to get it 99% right with the Chimpanzee, only to scrap it all and start from scratch with Adam.
Any sensible Engineer would have the commonsense to prototype. And God has at least as much commonsense as any sensible Engineer.
Actually when posting on internet chat rooms my Ph.D. doesn't count.
The only thing that counts is the quality and accuracy of my posts. This begins with grammar and spelling, and runs the gamut through logic, relevance, and information content.
In this regard I will match my posting history against those of our resident anti-science crowd any day.
“Which you just did, AGAIN.. answer the Original Question.”
Your original question posits a conclusion already. To acknowledge that it is even a question is to get mired within the ignorance of its source.
Use your highly-evolved brain (though not as evolved as most) and ask a question without a delusion attached to it.
There are plenty of arguments of faith, and other arguments of science. If you ponder them carefully you will see that they are actually separate arguments that do not preclude each other.
So, are you going to give us the clever punchline to your original question, assuming there is one?
HS Your knowledge of science is zilch.
I believe that a Supernatural God (the God of the Bible) created man and woman (Adam & Eve).
Condescension is not pretty.
I will not condescend to you even though you believe that a mud puddle created life (violating the scientific natural law of Biogenesis) and that the mud puddle came from nothing (violating the scientific natural law of Conservation of Matter and Energy....the first law of thermodynamics, and the scientific natural law of Cause and Effect)
I stood in the same spot as you....and believed those things for 50 years of my life. Though I thought I believed it based on science (because that’s what I was taught in school), I now know that it was based on faith, just as is what I have come to believe now.
Because I once believed those things, I will not condescend.
“Because I once believed those things, I will not condescend.”
But by not condescending, you condescend.
Something tells me that you would be unwilling to accept any evidence that anyone offers. But prove me wrong - what evidence would you be willing to accept?
Hey look, you’re the guy who used to post images of his perverse fetish for the centaur creature on these threads among other things.
Either it counts or it doesn't, if it doesn't count you can quit bringing it up and directing people to refer to you as 'dr. coyote'
Your first problem is to view the theory of evolution as antithetical to or incompatible with a theory of morality. A vital field of research in evolutionary theory is what is called "the evolution of cooperation" which is what morality is about. You might look it up some time.
If morality were inconsistent with the survival of society it would have died long ago, but quite the opposite has happened. Those societies that are the strongest over time are the most moral, and when morality weakens societies weaken. The mistake you make is to confound individual survival with societal survival and assume that the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" will generate the dominance of the individual over a society.
But that is not even the case in the wild's of Africa. Predators in Africa live a very precarious existence. Troops of baboons protect themselves against leopard quite effectively. Yes leopard survive and capture baboons, but the population density of leopard is quite low because their ability to pick something off is pretty meager.
Second, what you and your friends are attempting to do is put a boundary around what science can study beyond which you have demarked an unknown territory where there be dragons. But that is not what science does. It simply looks at facts and tries to create and explanatory model for those facts which can be elevated to theory or even law if it is broad enough and sustained by all observed facts over a period of time.
You cannot counter a theory by saying one cannot have one on a specific topic but rather you must put forward observable facts that are inconsistent with that theory.
Wow. You certainly told him... er you.
I brought it up, and it does count. Either you respect the knowledge that it necessarily implies, or you don’t.
You can’t maintain that Coyoteman is some sort of illiterate rube spouting liberal lies when he’s not a liberal and is actually a highly-accomplished scientist.
You obviously don’t want to read what he writes, but I think I know whose problem that is.
Now it’s even funnier.
Whats wrong with the pictures? We know that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time, right?
Also, those insults aren’t very Christian of you.
Thanks for punctuating your sentences with CAPS every NOW AND then. It really HELPS to GET YOUR POINT across in A WAY that makes YOU APPEAR very well reasoned AND logical.
"Sadly"? The liberul media would be ecstatic. (As would I)
Your debating method needs work.
WHAT MAKEs you THINK that I am a MARXIST?
I bow to your superior intellect, charm, writing skills, and Christian attitude.
Thank you for your kind welcome!
Posting of personal attacks is prohibited.
FR is not quite the friendly place it once used to be.
Pretty interesting comment for what passes as a science thread here.
KNOCK IT OFF!
That is such a nifty statement. Your insults are actually compliments.
When your head explodes, I hope it's captured on You Tube.
And besides that; if applesauce is true, why are there still apples?
You're really challenging my core beliefs now.
So, since the teachings of this guy........ ......
......caused this guy...........
to do what he did...........
.......then the teachings of this guy..............
......must've caused this guy..........
......to do what he did.......
Therefore, this guy....... .....and his whole philosophy is Evil!!!!!
That’s a disturbing argument, but it’s there, not to prove the truth of the argument, but to disprove the use of it to blame Darwin for Hitler.
That’s effective, but only if people think about it before responding.
What playing field do you want to be on? If you want to subject your religious beliefs to the scientific method, you're going to very quickly find that those beliefs can't be supported by scientific method.
What, exactly, are your asking for proof of? That evolution occurs? That has been proven by hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments throughout the decades.
Id still like an answer to my question ... If LIberals believe DARWIN is FACT, Why do they create Welfare programs to Thwart Darwins SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST???
Because few people, especially among the left, use scientific theories as a moral guide. I'm not a liberal, I accept that the TOE is the best theory based on the available evidence, but I certainly don't consider it as a basis for how we should order our society.
It seems that, when pushed to actually defend their viewpoints, many Creationists simply devolve into spittle-flecked invective.
The Palestinians sacrifice their children to Allah as homicide bombers as well as to appease the MSM demigods of public opinion as well placed ‘collateral damage’.
I don’t know what the moderators did, but most of the spittle is now gone.
That doesn’t refute your assertion, but at least it’s not here anymore.
True enough, and evolution isn't even a philosophy. It's the scientific conclusion from the evaluation of all the available evidence.
It could be wrong. I doubt it. It's been examined for longer than Einstein's theories. For many, it's whether to believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are literal, or to believe the facts on the ground.
You'd think that the biblical literalist would finally accept fact. It's not like the Bible isn't filled with parables and allegory. Jesus openly used them. It's the insistence that Genesis is actual fact that causes the controversy.
So we don't find a fossil record of animals that adapted in the wrong way, you claim they are all eaten?! But we find a fossil record of animals that adapted correctly.
That is hard to believe.
Second, there's no such thing as "right direction." Species adapt to survive in their environment. If the environment changes, then the species must either change or die out. To adapt incorrectly is to disappear.
First, there is adaptation in the right direction and the wrong direction, if evolution is random. If a species that moves to a colder climate grows additional fur to stay warm, that is adaptation in the right direction. If a species that moves to a colder climate loses its fur, that is adaptation in the wrong direction.
If animals only adapt in the right direction, it proves intelligent design....that there is a mechanism that causes species to adapt in the right direction.
If the species adapts in the wrong direction, we should find evidence of it in the fossil records. We don't. All we find is evidence of species that adapted in the right direction.
If you want to believe that all those who adapted in the wrong direction were eaten and only those who adapted in the right direction ended up in the fossil record then you simply don't understand the argument.
You like to reach grasp for conclusions about people when the evidence is not there
show the proof of your claims you made about me in your statement
Only in your own mind
I did not know about evolution because I was in a Catholic school and always was taught Adam and Eve and believed it. Then as I got older..I got wiser, gained common sense and logic and saw that Evolution was the real truth. I equate it to not believing in santa claus anymore.
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.