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 ...
[[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!
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.
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 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!
[[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!
[[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.
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.
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
[[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-
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?
[[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.
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.
[[Its been submitted that the Evos arent being objective because they dont 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?
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.
I believe metmom has made this observation.
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.
[[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?
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.
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.