Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?
From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

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 Darwinism’s tenets.

(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Science
KEYWORDS: allyourblog; darwin; expelled; pimpmyblog; rousseau
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,801-1,826 next last
To: Finny
It takes real humility to accept the likelihood that God formed us by way of the lowly ape.

It takes twisting of Scripture to read anything more into Gen 2:7 than what it says.

Gen2:7 ..the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Pride has nothing to do with a common sense reading of Scripture.

Pride also has nothing to do with rejecting the interpretation of the fossil record as showing common descent instead of common design.

Have you ever considered that the fossil record showed something besides common descent?

701 posted on 01/06/2009 8:58:00 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The difference is irreconcilable.

Then what is to be gained from these debates, other than animosity?

702 posted on 01/06/2009 8:58:32 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Metmom, ignorant people are gullible people. You are ignorant about evolutionary theory, and do no credit to God because you are gullible.

Science is to scripture what math is to fishing. It appears to me that science hurts your pride where your faith is concerned. Your ignorance is willful, and I personally cannot believe that willful ignorance is a Godly thing. For certain sure, I know that ignorance leads to gullibility, such as those so ignorant of basic earth science that they endorse man-caused global warming claptrap. Regardless of their faith, if they were educated, they'd no more buy it than they'd buy that the moon is made of cheese. Faith does not insulate one from the consequences of willful ignorance.

703 posted on 01/06/2009 9:01:28 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
In my view, the debate has always been for the Lurkers.
704 posted on 01/06/2009 9:08:30 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
In my view, the debate has always been for the Lurkers

I hope they find public displays of vitriol enlightening.

705 posted on 01/06/2009 9:10:40 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Always. Travelers rubber-neck to see pile-ups on the expressways. If it bleeds, it leads.
706 posted on 01/06/2009 9:19:01 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Hopefully, it yields lessons in how not to drive.


707 posted on 01/06/2009 9:20:44 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I hope they find public displays of vitriol enlightening.

I mostly lurk here, and scan through the crevo/evo wildfires, and to me they are sometimes entertaining and almost never enlightening. The majority of the participants are incapable of enlightenment on any point. But keep up the good fight, for whatever reason. Maybe one side or the other will make headway eventually, but I'm not optimistic.
708 posted on 01/06/2009 9:21:08 AM PST by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; tacticalogic; Dog Gone; metmom; hosepipe; Coyoteman; YHAOS; TXnMA; MHGinTN
...these debates can never end. Parties on opposing sides cannot make the other accept what they see, as Dog Gone suggested earlier on this thread.

I don't have an interest in "making" the other person "accept" what I see. I'd be completely satisfied if I could just get some indication that they actually "saw" it. Then if they want to dispute my statements regarding the "seen thing" on rational grounds, truly I'd welcome them to do that.

But that rarely, if ever happens around here. Mostly we engage in "spitting matches" — all heat and no light. Nobody learns a thing. Sigh....

Of course you know I'm a mathematical Platonist, just as you are. I wholly concur that mathematics exists in an independent, indeed one could almost say sovereign manner; and thus becomes susceptible to being "discovered."

Roger Penrose refers to the ontological status of mathematics as the Platonic world of mathematical forms, which are universal and thus completely "objective." To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. For this is to make mathematics constructible on the basis of "subjectivity." How could such a thing attain the status of universality? FWIW.

Thank you dearest sister in Christ for your most excellent essay-post!

709 posted on 01/06/2009 9:24:13 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

What’s that got to do with hte facts he presented? This info on exponential bits is verifiable- His past actions don’t mean squat to the facts presented here.

[[If Baugh wrote that the sun rose in the east, I would check several references — and look eastward in the morning — before I would believe his statement.]]

And that’s what I suggest with any info- however, we can’t simply dismiss something because someone proved less than reputable in the past if it is indeed true that he was- I’m not calling your claim into question, however, all we have is your word for this at hte m oment- but again, it’s irrelevent to what is being discussed


710 posted on 01/06/2009 9:25:39 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So we can’t use science to support Scripture, except when we want to use science to support Scripture? When Jesus used parables, there was usually a comment like this proceeding it.....”Then he told them many things in parables” or “Jesus told them another parable:”, or “He told them still another parable: “ or using the word *like*. All that is missing from the creation account. The sentences are declarative in nature, simply statements of fact.

And Metmom, Jesus always privately explained the parables to the disciples. His disciples ask Him why he spoke in parables to the multitudes and He said because it is NOT given for them to receive..... (They can't handle the truth.) Then Christ would explain the parables and we this day have benefit of the parable and the explanation.

Even that parable of the sower Christ privately explained what the parable was about.

Christ also said one cannot serve two masters, which is why the theorists reject the Heavenly Father, even by law out of their houses of worship. Now some will claim Christ but so long as He is kept at the back of the proverbial bus.

Even way back in Jeremiah's time the Heavenly Father knew His children....Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are sottish (word means stupid) children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

Peter gives another description regarding the children. IIPeter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming:

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

The Heavenly Father knew full well what some of His children would be doing, Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:

21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

Even in the parables Christ was explaining the 'creation' and the purpose of man being placed into a flesh body.

I cannot see why these that are now in complete control are having such a bad day.... their theory is now under governmental control and untouchable, their methodology (science) is the only belief system allowed by law in public education. They won, yet they are still miserable.

Now didn't Jesus have something to say about who would sit in the seat of Moses (the law giver)?

711 posted on 01/06/2009 9:28:10 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
I mostly lurk here, and scan through the crevo/evo wildfires, and to me they are sometimes entertaining and almost never enlightening. The majority of the participants are incapable of enlightenment on any point. But keep up the good fight, for whatever reason. Maybe one side or the other will make headway eventually, but I'm not optimistic.

On the rare occasions that you find something of value, what kinds of arguments are you impressed with?

712 posted on 01/06/2009 9:28:34 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[Do you agree that an event having the appearance of being a miracle may later be found to have a natural explanation? ]]

I tackled this one a few posts ago- many people innocently call natural phenomena ‘miracles’, and attribute the power of the phsyche to miracles, however, TRUE miracles are a whole nother animal- Christ, the prophets and disciples (as well as the common TRUE Christians during Christ’s stay here) all performed TRUE miracles until the church age began as proof that Christ was who He said He was-

We had a Jewish Scholar present a fascinating lecture once about the Jewish implications and meanings behind hte Miracles of Christ, and it was just astounding how Culturally significant and specific Christ’s miracles were- they were so steeped in Jewish tradition, and had implications that were so specifically Jewish in nature, that there was no way a Jewish person could have denied that Christ was indeed the Messiah, unless they simply hardened their hearts and would not beleive. Christ’s miracles weren’t just simple superficial miracles- they had purpose beyond the imediate results that was really quite fascinating to learn about- Wish I had kept hte notes omn tha lecture- but hte info is probably available online- and is WELL worth a read to gain a deeper understanding of how important the miracles really were to the Jews (and Gentiles that followed)


713 posted on 01/06/2009 9:34:38 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Roger Penrose refers to the ontological status of mathematics as the Platonic world of mathematical forms, which are universal and thus completely "objective." To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. For this is to make mathematics constructible on the basis of "subjectivity." How could such a thing attain the status of universality? FWIW.

A valid observation, but removed from the context of the original line of debate.

I submitted that of the things we all agree on, the common denominator is observable, empirical evidence. It was countered that this is not necessarily so, because we don't always agree on mathematics. Mathematics is not a good example to use, because it is not something that exhibits quantifiable properties. If anything, the disagreements demonstrate the argument I originally made.

714 posted on 01/06/2009 9:36:55 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
[ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9 ]

By this verse.. some have the SPirit of Christ(God) and some DO NOT.. WHich implys not all christians are christians.. or that being a christian is not a matter of what you say you are.. You might not be... Jesus said.... "You MUST be born again".. the first birth is not good enough..

About going to "church"... You can put puppies in a muffin tin and put them in an oven(church) but that don't make them muffins after processing..... Puppies are puppies and muffins are muffins..

715 posted on 01/06/2009 9:38:44 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Can you articulate a methodology whereby an objective determination can be made between a TRUE miracle, and an innocent mischaracterization of natural phenomena?


716 posted on 01/06/2009 9:39:37 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: Finny
It appears to me that science hurts your pride where your faith is concerned.

Then you know nothing about me. Your observations are wrong. Imagine that.

Your ignorance is willful, and I personally cannot believe that willful ignorance is a Godly thing.

And now you're accusing me of being ungodly because I don't agree with you?

Regardless of their faith, if they were educated, they'd no more buy it than they'd buy that the moon is made of cheese.

So, if I were educated, I'd agree with you?

Wow, the arrogance of the self -appointed elite.

So basically you're saying that you're right and science is right and the Bible is wrong and that if I weren't so stupid I'd agree with you.

Gotcha.

What do you think that I'm going to do? Have a meltdown because you claim that you think that I'm ungodly or you've accused me of it? I do not manipulate well.

Faith does not insulate one from the consequences of willful ignorance.

Such as?

717 posted on 01/06/2009 9:43:20 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
[ To say that mathematics is "invented" by human beings is, to my mind, foolishness on the verge of hubris. ]

Human Mathematics is based on linear concepts.. i.e. zero,1 to infinity.. lineal..
Could be the whole system is NOT lineal.. but circular.. or some direction not noticeable in this realm..

718 posted on 01/06/2009 9:45:57 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: Finny

[[Your contempt for science and scientists does credit to neither God nor Jesus Christ. I think your denial springs out of prideful conceit, not humility and faith.]]

And your failures to bring anything relavent showing macroevolution is a reality to the table does even less for your cause. ‘Denial’? Lol- Try reasonability and understanding.

[[I am humble enough]]

Well pat yourself on the back for being so ‘humble’ and outspoken and self-professing abotu your humility

[[to accept that if God used evolution to form me from such a lowly creature as an ape or a chimp, then that’s how He did it.]]

And God looked around the animal kingdom and He found NO suitable mate for Adam- Are you inferrign that you don;’t Beleive God’s word and think that He instructed His people to write lies?

[[You, on the other hand, are so prideful that you reserve the right to reject His miracles as you see fit.]]

Which ‘miracle’ is he rejecting? The miracle of hte biologically impossible Macroevolutionary Hypothesis that has NO scientific evidence to support it? That miracle? For indeed it would HAVE to be a miracle- perpetrated By nature- Violating it’s own laws, and supernaturally overcoming biological impossibilites. Yes Finny- We’re all just ‘deniers’- those who don’t bow down at the silly alter of Darwin are just ‘deniers and haters’ who apparently are so ‘full of pride’ that we don’t follow hte hseep and simply take the word of Macroevos at face value without ever questionign hte scientific validity of their wild fatnastical claims


719 posted on 01/06/2009 9:46:31 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Finny

[[Further, evolutionary theory doesn’t challenge the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, nor any of the spiritual, moral teachings in the Bible, from incest to prohibition on homosexuality]]

Nope- but it DOES Challenge God’s own word! Either God lied to us in His owrd, or His owrd is true- which is it Finny?

[[Evolutionary theory doesn’t challenge God; it challenges man’s pride.]]

Lol- Not sure how you can say that with a straight face- but whatever- Beleive You evolved from a ape if you like, and Beleive that God’s word doesn’t really mean what it means, and beleive that God lied to everyone if you like- As for us, We’ll take God at His word, and not rely on the deceitful rantings of Scientists who are hell bent on Assigning the miracles of creation to Nature despite hte FACT that they have NO support for such a Godless claim. It’s revealing that you prefer to beleive the lies of Macroevos over God.


720 posted on 01/06/2009 9:52:59 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
On the rare occasions that you find something of value, what kinds of arguments are you impressed with?

Ones, that in my opinion, are based on a fair assessment of the facts at hand. And they could come from either side. There are some undeniable facts concerning evolution theory, but I think it's also disingenuous to suggest it explains the evolution of life perfectly, as it is. I see no reason to exclude science or God from the debate. The real answer is still out there.
721 posted on 01/06/2009 9:56:05 AM PST by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

[[Designed a lower back and a knee joint that are meant for a two-legged critter, rather than relying on slightly-modified ones for four-legged creatures.]]

Ah- the old downplaying when it serves your purpose routine- ‘slightly modified’? Lol-

[[If we were designed this way, the designer must have missed some pretty obvious flaws]]

Yeah- living a good 80 years while being able to move around and thrive is a ‘serious flaw’. Cripes! By hte way- the old testament folks lived hundreds of years with their ‘seriously flawed’ knees and lower backs- Golly0- what an impeeding flaw those two systems are!


722 posted on 01/06/2009 9:57:07 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
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.

Well, species that did not adapt have indeed gone extinct. That's the fate of 99% of all species ever to have lived and they comprises most of the fossil record.

So you are factually wrong. The remains of failed species are commonplace.

723 posted on 01/06/2009 9:58:22 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
I see no reason to exclude science or God from the debate.

How do you go about testing the God hypothesis? I've seen a lot of talk about including God in science, but have never seen any research proposals.

724 posted on 01/06/2009 9:59:53 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Sorry, but my personal experience with Baugh -- and observation of his pecuniary activities (Creation Evidence Museum -- Bring Money!) -- lead me to view any reference to his blathering with even more disdain than I would a reference citing Bill Clinton as an authority on sexual morality... :-(
725 posted on 01/06/2009 10:00:56 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Finny

[[It takes real humility to accept the likelihood that God formed us by way of the lowly ape.]]

No sir- it takes a willingness to suspend scientific reason and a willingness to IGNORE the scientific facts ,and a willingness to take man’s word over God’s and a willingness to ignore the fignerprints of God in creation- but you’re welcome to do so- Heck- you’re even welcome to think it makes you ‘humble’ to do so, but don’t sit htere and ask those of us who prefer to actually LOOK AT the actual scientific evidnece instead of takign what’s shovelled to us by those desperate ot kick God out of the equation, to accept such nonsense!


726 posted on 01/06/2009 10:09:11 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: Finny

[[Metmom, ignorant people are gullible people. You are ignorant about evolutionary theory, and do no credit to God because you are gullible.]]

People blinded to the actual evidence try to project their own shortcomings onto those hwo dissagree with htem- What evidnece are you talking about Finny? Put your money where you mouth is- Let’s see this evidence- until then- enough with hte ‘ignornace’ claims- K?

[[Faith does not insulate one from the consequences of willful ignorance.]]

you apparently htink it insulates you sir!


727 posted on 01/06/2009 10:12:32 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

[[But that rarely, if ever happens around here. Mostly we engage in “spitting matches” — all heat and no light.]]

I’ll have to dissagree with that statement- I and many others have presented the evidence refuting hte claism of Macroevolutionists- using hteir own science against htem- The TRUTH stands on it’s own accord- whether peopelcan see that light or not is another quesiton, but it is presented for anyone caring to take a more critical look at what they’ve been told is a naturalistic fact when in realitiy it is anythign but an established fact.


728 posted on 01/06/2009 10:15:56 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How do you go about testing the God hypothesis? I've seen a lot of talk about including God in science, but have never seen any research proposals.

It's not a hypothesis that I make, but it is certainly a possibility. I don't think it's smart to try and understand something, by making pompous assertions that it can't be due to this or that. A little pragmatism is a mature possession.
729 posted on 01/06/2009 10:21:16 AM PST by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Sure- Christ restored the head of the man whom Peter removed it from- I’d say that is a miracle- God parted the Red sea- I dunno bout you, but I’ve never seen the waves of a sea held back, and the depths uncovered so that people could walk across on dry land- Christ also walked on water demonstratign His supernatual mastery over nature. He also turned water into wine with a word- Rose fro mthe dead, raised people fro mthe dead- resoted sight, and healed leporasy instantly- on several occassions.

These ‘healing crusades’ that modern day charlatans perform are nothing of the sort- While some people ‘might’ be healed of somethign miraculously like cancer though, is too obscure to really call a TRUE miracle difinitively, as it ‘could have’ been just natural remissions which do occure spontaniously for unknown reasons even in people who have no faith- The healing sermons today rely on the power of suggestions to ‘heal’ things that can’t really be verified, and which can’t really be confirmed- Christ’s Miracles were no such thing- they were undeniable.


730 posted on 01/06/2009 10:23:57 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

That’s fine- you’re welcoem to your personal feelings abotu hte man- however, what he posted about exponential bits is verifiable- that’s all I’m stating


731 posted on 01/06/2009 10:25:42 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[I’ve seen a lot of talk about including God in science, but have never seen any research proposals.]]

Not from ID proponents you haven’t-


732 posted on 01/06/2009 10:26:36 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

It’s been submitted that the “Evos” aren’t being “objective” because they don’t accept particular events (modern day events, not Biblical events) as being “miracles”. It there an obective methodology that can be used to determine if these events are true miracles? If not, how can such a claim be considered rational?


733 posted on 01/06/2009 10:34:04 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: metmom

[[So basically you’re saying that you’re right and science is right and the Bible is wrong and that if I weren’t so stupid I’d agree with you.

Gotcha.]]

Yep- That’s what he’s saying- Nothign liek hte ‘humility’ of people who claim their silly view is right without any scientific evidence to back that claim up- We’re all overcome with humility at the humility of Finny.


734 posted on 01/06/2009 10:35:52 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[It’s been submitted that the “Evos” aren’t being “objective” because they don’t accept particular events (modern day events, not Biblical events) as being “miracles”.]]

Where? I must have missed those submissions? Perhaps you can just briefly recap those claims- then I’ll better be able to address this question?


735 posted on 01/06/2009 10:38:04 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
I see no reason to exclude science or God from the debate.

My experience has been that when God is brought into the debate, the discussion becomes a forum for people to air their religious disagreements. These are very personal and emotional issues for a lot of people, and the discussion soon degenerates into name calling and general rancor.

736 posted on 01/06/2009 10:39:40 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; metmom

I believe metmom has made this observation.


737 posted on 01/06/2009 10:41:20 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; metmom; hosepipe
Mathematics is an artificial construct. It is used to quantify, but it is not quantifiable.

Just a question tacticalogic: In what sense do you mean that mathematics is "artificial?" In the sense that it is the creation of an Artificer? Or did you mean something else?

I do agree with your second statement. I'm not sure what the first statement means, however; which is why I'm asking you for clarification.

738 posted on 01/06/2009 10:41:57 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[I believe metmom has made this observation.]]

That doesn’t help me much- I’ve read nearly every post on this thread, but in my haste, I may have overlooked some- apparnetly I missed the one where you claim metmom makes that claim?


739 posted on 01/06/2009 10:44:09 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
It's not a hypothesis that I make, but it is certainly a possibility.

The question is whether God can be studied ysing the methods of science. I see a lot of discussion of science "excluding" God, but I never see any practical research proposals that include God.

740 posted on 01/06/2009 10:51:07 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Just a question tacticalogic: In what sense do you mean that mathematics is "artificial?" In the sense that it is the creation of an Artificer? Or did you mean something else?

Perhaps "abstract" as opposed to "concrete" would have been a better choice of words. Mathematics is an abstraction. It is used to represent properties of real objects and forces, but it is not "real" in and of itself.

741 posted on 01/06/2009 10:51:34 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[The question is whether God can be studied ysing the methods of science.]]

Who said GOD has to be studied? Forensic scientists don’t Study the intellegent creators behind the scenes- they study the RESULTS of the intelligent causer- They look for, and discover the tell-tale fingerprints of the intelligence behind the scenes- in NO way do they have to prove or even study the intelligent causer


742 posted on 01/06/2009 10:53:48 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; metmom

I’d have to go dig for it to0. If metmom says she did not not make and doesn’t agree with the assesment, then I was mistaken and owe her an apology.


743 posted on 01/06/2009 10:54:24 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
They look for, and discover the tell-tale fingerprints of the intelligence behind the scenes...
744 posted on 01/06/2009 10:56:22 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I looked back through, but didn’t see it- but I didn’t go al lthe way back to the beginning- I’ve gotta run for a bit and didn’t want to spend all day looking for it if it exists, but I can’t see that kind of statement coming from her, or perhaps it wasn’t worded right- which does happen on occassion & for which we’ve afforded you folks plenty of leway in, and ecxused from time to time as well.


745 posted on 01/06/2009 10:57:39 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Forensic scientists don’t Study the intellegent creators behind the scenes- they study the RESULTS of the intelligent causer

Forensic science -- the same science that convicts criminals using DNA -- establishes common descent. Even Michael Behe admits that.

746 posted on 01/06/2009 11:01:14 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Why the repost of my statement? Not sure what you’re getting at? Forensics doesn’t have to discover who or what hte intelligence is, al lthey must do is present evidence that both shows that something (perhaps a crime scene, or a discovery of an ancient culture’s presence in an area) could not have occured naturally, and that it must have been intelligently caused- You can beleive little green frogs from mars was the intelligence if you like, but if enough evidence is accumulated to show that it was necessary for an intelligence to cause what is being examined, then your job as a forensic scientist has been fulfilled- you have presented evidence that the issue could not have occured naturally, and evidence that an intelligence was needed- that is how you ‘test for’ intelligence-


747 posted on 01/06/2009 11:02:47 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom
Mathematics is an abstraction. It is used to represent properties of real objects and forces, but it is not "real" in and of itself.

Then does this mean that the very basis of quantification is a fiction? Were that true, then how/why could we ever depend on it to give us useful, reliable measurements?

748 posted on 01/06/2009 11:02:51 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

I’m sorry CottShop if my post offended you. BTW, I share your view of Macroevolution, FWIW. And certainly, “The TRUTH stands on it’s own accord.” People who deny it cannot abolish it.


749 posted on 01/06/2009 11:06:20 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: js1138

[[Forensic science — the same science that convicts criminals using DNA — establishes common descent.]]

Oh really? And what evidence ‘establishes’ that? Behe can beleive what he likes- but unless he has actual proof that it does infact establish that, then all he is positting is an opinion- an a priori opinion at that. The Evidence does NOT establish common descent- to state so goes beyond the objective evidence and enters the realm of faith and religious belief. ALL it establishes is ‘connection to’- whether it be connection to’ nature, or ‘connection to’ intelligence. Behe has also argued that the evidence can just as well establish common design- He is man enough to admit that, but he personally BELIEVES that it more so shows descent- BUT again, he has NO concrete evidence to back that personal belief up- all he has is assumptions and a priori opinionso n the matter beyond the actual evidence.


750 posted on 01/06/2009 11:07:20 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,801-1,826 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson