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

Skip to comments.

Democrats use science as a weapon
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/08/17/democrats-use-science-as-a-weapon-2/ ^

Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey

For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.

To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?

(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Conspiracy; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: asa; belongsinreligion; democrats; gagdadbob; georgemurphy; globalwarming; morality; onecosmosblog; socialism; toddkinsey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-533 next last
To: metmom
Indeed. After tens of thousands of generations, which would equal hundreds of thousands of human generations, the lowly fruit fly stubbornly remains the lowly fruit fly though gassed, irradiated, dissected, inbred, cross bred, chemical cock-tailed til dead.

So if a person can't change the fly, change the definitions.

251 posted on 08/24/2011 7:17:00 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"Your 'logic' is truly bizarre. Except as an idea 'supernatural' doesn't exist. Nothing is independent of reality. Obviously your pattern recognition procedures are in over drive (there is a good evolutionary reason for that) so lets put it to the test."

Your logic is truly irrational. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course. Asserting that the supernatural doesn't exist except as an idea is begging the question.

You also say that, "True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do." and then claim that nothing is independent of reality. If nothing is independent of reality, then the 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc. that people have are not independent of reality and it is incorrect to say that reality does not have these properties.

"Lets say that I shake a thousand die and they all come up sixes. Can you tell me the cause followed by the effect? That is your premise isn't it, that everything has a cause and effect?"

Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?

252 posted on 08/24/2011 7:19:33 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
"So if a person can't change the fly, change the definitions."

I am seeing a common theme in these threads. It is in those areas of willful and woeful ignorance that those who choose to be anti-Catholics rail the most against that of which they know nothing. God gave you the gift of intellect. You do not worship Him by refusing to use it.

We are dealing with science here so definitions actually serve as boundary conditions. A common species must, by definition, have the ability to successfully breed with other members of the same species. New "fruit fly" species did evolve in the lab that were unable to successfully reproduce with their antecedent species. And, for the record, Drosophila is a genus, not a species, containing many, many "fruit fly" species.

Not only have you failed the science, but your logic is highly flawed as well. You are claiming that because fruit flies did not become mice or clams that evolution was not demonstrated, when the Theory of Evolution contents that gradual changes occur such that the most well suited variant survives to reproduce and the least suited die out and that over time the cumulative changes are significant enough to form new genus, orders, families, etc.

253 posted on 08/24/2011 8:16:04 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...
It is in those areas of willful and woeful ignorance that those who choose to be anti-Catholics rail the most against that of which they know nothing. God gave you the gift of intellect. You do not worship Him by refusing to use it.

Calling God a liar doesn't win you any points either.

Poor persecuted Catholic. Why do you make this about Catholicism anyway? The thread is about the ToE, not an opportunity to play the religious martyr, which really doesn't wear well coming from a Catholic especially considering the Catholic church history concerning science (read Galileo)

254 posted on 08/24/2011 10:22:09 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; metmom; GourmetDan; count-your-change; MrB; cpanther70; betty boop

Lemme put that into layman’s terms.

Natural Law:

“You people have no business thinking for yourselves. You weren’t suppose to google Drosophila CONTROVERSY, and once you did, you were supposed to ignore what you read.

Us liberals will determine what’s real and what’s not.

Oh, aqnd do as I say, not as I do.”


255 posted on 08/24/2011 10:22:16 AM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your logic is truly irrational. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course. Asserting that the supernatural doesn't exist except as an idea is begging the question.

Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural exists.

Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?

Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing.

256 posted on 08/24/2011 10:30:26 AM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your logic is truly irrational. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course. Asserting that the supernatural doesn't exist except as an idea is begging the question.

Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural exists.

Let's say that I observe a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing. Can you tell me that there is no cause or effect? That is your premise isn't it, that nothing has a cause or effect?

Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing.

257 posted on 08/24/2011 10:30:43 AM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
"Lemme put that into layman’s terms."

No, Let me put it in terms even you can understand. The "controversy" exists because some so desperately do not want to accept the results of numerous experiments.

Had you actually read any of the research papers instead of relying on wikipedia pages you would have learned (assuming you are capable of learning) that polymorphism is suspected of causing some male sterility in male hybrids, but does not negate the occurrence of speciation.

By the way, petulantly stamping your feet and demanding that the facts be changed to conform to your ignorant orthodoxy is the trait of the libtards you so frequently reference and emulate.

258 posted on 08/24/2011 10:40:49 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural exists."

Please do yourself a favor and look up 'begging the question' you are the one asserting that the supernatural does not exist.

"Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing."

Nope, just demonstrating that you would define a cat spontaneously forming for no reason out of nothing as having no cause and effect. You simply confirm that you accept 'no cause and effect' a priori, no matter what. That's 'begging the question'.

259 posted on 08/24/2011 10:43:58 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"Calling God a liar doesn't win you any points either."

Then why do you continue to do it day in and day out?

While we are at it, why do you continue to challenge my scientific credentials, asking me on at least three occasions, and never provide your own educational or scientific bona fides when asked? Is it because the "reasonable man" would conclude that you don't have a leg to stand on and are fabricating "facts" as you go along?

260 posted on 08/24/2011 10:45:59 AM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; tpanther; GourmetDan

I’ve made no secret of my educational background in the sciences.

Buy a clue. Read the screenname.


261 posted on 08/24/2011 11:10:18 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
While we are at it, why do you continue to challenge my scientific credentials, asking me on at least three occasions, and never provide your own educational or scientific bona fides when asked?

And in answer to your question, I've NEVER seen you post what your educational background is. That's why I keep asking. What qualifications do you have to speak authoritatively on science at all, much less the ToE?

262 posted on 08/24/2011 11:12:58 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; betty boop

Betty Boop and you made the original assertion of cause and effect and the supernatural. You have the burden of proof not me. You are the one begging the question.


263 posted on 08/24/2011 11:47:21 AM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Natural Law; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; ...
What qualifications do you have to speak authoritatively on science at all

And, more importantly (IMHO), mom, can Natural Law cite impeccable scientific authorities in support of his Scientific views, and can he confine his Scientific views to matters Scientific, and not meander off into matters of philosophy, of religion, of education, of public policy, or of politics generally?

264 posted on 08/24/2011 11:50:00 AM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Probably not.

I’m certainly not going to hold my breath waiting to find out.


265 posted on 08/24/2011 11:55:16 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I've NEVER seen you post what your educational background is."

I've replied at least three times that I can remember, perhaps more. Here is one example.

HERE

266 posted on 08/24/2011 12:22:25 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"I’ve made no secret of my educational background in the sciences."

Or complete lack thereof. Your contention that only the right educational background must be present for anyone to argue on behalf of Intelligent Design or any aspects of the Theory of Evolution, but any uneducated hausfrau is fully qualified to argue against it, suggests that science isn't your only educational shortfall.

267 posted on 08/24/2011 12:28:18 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
"can Natural Law cite impeccable scientific authorities in support of his Scientific views"

Now that depends on who gets to judge credentials doesn't it. If seen these little games played on these forums long enough that I'm not taking your bait. Whatever source I cite, professors, Nobel laureates, published and peer reviewed papers, heck even the burning bush, will be ridiculed.

Meanwhile, complete crap from creationist websites and unattributed wikipedia article will be cited as authoritative. As long as you have access to Google you will always find an "expert" who agrees with you.

268 posted on 08/24/2011 12:37:20 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; betty boop
After you define your God I can disprove it.

That is what you said to me in #180.

Now you say:

You are defining a God for me? Why thank you : )

You tell me to do something, I do it, and then you act surprised. How else can I help? However, you also added:

Sadly your 'God' has no attributes and is nothing more than a figment of your imagination, a brain fart. As are all Gods.

Au contraire. My God is all attributes so just pick one and disprove it.

Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?

Why does God bother you and others of like mind so much? Why are you so determined that He is not there? If you think I am foolish and that I believe in superstition and fairy tales, why do you care?

It seems obvious that you and the others are either oblivious to, or forgiving of, the weaknesses and gaps in science and especially in the theory of evolution, yet unforgiving of the idea of God. Why is that? Are you aware of the spiritual nature of man, a nature that is just as real as the physical/material aspects of man? Or do you simply deny that is the case and instead believe that man is a self-contained box and an evolving animal no different from the rest of the species? Do you know that all living things have most of their DNA in common, that there is little difference in the DNA of the fruit fly, man, and grass? I suppose that could be an argument in favor of evolution, so do you believe in an uncaused cause as the beginning of everything? How did time and space evolve, or are we only talking about Earth? The questions could go on but they are asked for a purpose, that being to expose the frailty of thought and knowledge themselves. A belief in an intelligent design, in an original creator of that design and an ever-present overseer of that design is more reasonable to some of us than believing in an uncaused cause and in continuing random mutations leading to progress. Does and uncaused cause and continuing random mutations leading to progress seem reasonable to you?

269 posted on 08/24/2011 12:55:08 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (I retain the right to be inconsistent, contradictory and even flat-out wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: metmom
“...... rail the most..”

I seldom RAIL, mostly travel via auto when I may RALE at other drivers.

Let’ see..there was something about using one’s intellect in there too...but then I don't tout my education.

270 posted on 08/24/2011 1:06:43 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

FOTFLOL!!!!!!

Pride cometh before destruction, a haughty spirit before the fall.....


271 posted on 08/24/2011 1:30:23 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
"but then I don't tout my education."

Good thing you don't!

rail: v. To utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation (often followed by at or against)

rale: n. An abnormal respiratory sound characterized by fine crackles.

272 posted on 08/24/2011 1:40:33 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Au contraire. My God is all attributes so just pick one and disprove it.

How funny : ) So your GOD is full of crap (an attribute) I don't see him crapping in my toilet (he would have to be crapping eternally in all toilets) Therefore I have falsified your concept of GOD.

Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?

No, that is why I asked for a definition of God. I can falsify that. If you say that GoD is undefinable I say fine it is a meaningless tautology then, which is just as good as a falsification.

Why does God bother you and others of like mind so much? Why are you so determined that He is not there? If you think I am foolish and that I believe in superstition and fairy tales, why do you care?

I don't care. I was pointing out Betty Boops lack of logic.

It seems obvious that you and the others are either oblivious to, or forgiving of, the weaknesses and gaps in science and especially in the theory of evolution, yet unforgiving of the idea of God.

Au contraire, I always seek for truth. I detest bad science more than you, and I will agree that much of the soft science is bad. Part of the beauty of science is knowing that we have to live with uncertainty.

Are you aware of the spiritual nature of man, a nature that is just as real as the physical/material aspects of man? Or do you simply deny that is the case and instead believe that man is a self-contained box and an evolving animal no different from the rest of the species?

That is a nonsensical statement full of self contradictions (man no different than the rest of the species?).

Do you know that all living things have most of their DNA in common, that there is little difference in the DNA of the fruit fly, man, and grass?

All life evolved from the first life forms, what is your point?

I suppose that could be an argument in favor of evolution, so do you believe in an uncaused cause as the beginning of everything?

Yes, there is no cause and effect.

Does and uncaused cause and continuing random mutations leading to progress seem reasonable to you?

Uncaused cause doesn't make any sense, because there is no cause. You need to administer a Rorschach test someday : )

273 posted on 08/24/2011 1:41:02 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; metmom
Metmom didn't even recognize E=MC2, That should tell you all you need to know about her background.
274 posted on 08/24/2011 1:45:06 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
Metmom didn't even recognize E=MC2, That should tell you all you need to know about her background.

Prove it. Provide the link to the post.

275 posted on 08/24/2011 1:49:14 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; Mind-numbed Robot; xzins; stfassisi; GourmetDan; metmom; gobucks; ...
I do not know in what context the quotes ... were made.

Sorry, exDemMom. I should have provided the cites: The Darwin quote was from The Origin of Species, New York: Oxford University Press (1998), pp. 140, 141, 146, 227. The Gould quote was from the transcript of a Lecture he gave at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980.

Thank you for the plausible explanation of why transitional forms are scarce in the fossil record, and the problems of interpreting what is found — or not found as the case may be. However, it seems to me that a "plausible explanation" is not necessarily the same thing as what actually occurred. Your explanation is further freighted (it seems to me) with the problem of how to prove "absence," of how to prove a negative....

You wrote: "The mechanisms of evolution are well-characterized; we can see those mechanisms occurring in modern living species." This may be a stupid question, but are you here suggesting that evolution is entirely "mechanistic?" That biological organisms — thus modern living species — are essentially "machines?" Well, if so, how does a machine become a living being? Yet Darwinism can't tell you what life is.... So why are we justified in concluding life forms are "machine-like?"

All these arguments we've been having regarding the definition of a species to me basically boil down to what taxonomic category we want to sort a particular specimen into. While taxonomy is a wonderfully useful thing, what it is not is the natural world itself. That is, it is an abstraction from, and a formalization of the natural world. Which is fine — unless one commits A. N. Whitehead's famous fallacy of misplaced concreteness, which consists in taking the human-created formalism for "the real world," eclipsing the natural world altogether. The problem is this falsifies reality, for the natural world is ever so much "messier" than can be fully captured in any neat, well-defined formalism. I cite Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Principle in support of this statement.

Another way to describe the situation would be to say that any formalism stands in the same relation to the real world as Kant's phenomenon — knowledge of reality based on sense perception — stands vis-á-vis the noumenon — the "thing" as it is "in itself," i.e., in its full existential completeness.

As Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide."

But I digress.

exDemoMom, you wrote:

....I don't make an observation and then make a hypothesis, that's because research (observations) is hypothesis driven. I formulate the hypothesis based on where gaps in the current knowledge are, which does not require observation, but requires a very detailed knowledge of the subject at hand. I consider different possibilities about what knowledge might fill the gap —those are my hypotheses — and then I make my observations. I rarely find that the observations fit the hypothesis exactly, but they inform me as to how I should revise my hypothesis.

Sounds like a good working model to me! Yet I guess everything depends on the soundness of the hypotheses, which will depend on the soundness of the initial hypothesis or premise that generates the following hypotheses sequentially in time.

Here's where things get dicey. It is so obvious to me that you have great love for your work, are scrupulous about its proper conduct, are most likely highly successful at it, and have zero doubt about its, shall we say, epistemological foundations. That is, you exhibit all the qualities of fides in action. Fides being the Latin word for "faith" and "trust." In this you are like any Christian, any "person of faith." Hold that thought.

It seems to me the reigning fallacy of our time, which has perverted so much of human experience and understanding (i.e., the cultural evolution of the human race), can be stated thusly: Faith and Reason are necessarily mutually-exclusive entities.

To me, such a notion is nonsense — and I cite you as evidence!

The problem is that the Faith vs. Reason problem gets further reduced to a conflict between "science" and "religion." "Reasonable" people [e.g., scientists] are not supposed to be "religious" people [e.g., Christians]: Faith and reason cannot be combined without tainting "science." Or vice versa. They must stand apart forevermore!

Arrgghhh! At this point I recall Bacon's observation, "[W]hat a man had rather be true he more readily believes." Every man believes in something. The propensity to faith is in-built in the human character, if I might put it that way.

Even an atheist believes in something: The soundness of his atheism. Whether that is reasonable is another matter.

But the two — faith and reason — are designed to be in synergetic relation, not in a relation of mutual exclusivity. Or so it seems to me.

You wrote, "there are so many signals, from so many sources, that it is impossible to state where they all come from, or what all the feedback mechanisms are." So is the task impossible?

I suppose the first point that needs to be considered is the nature of a signal. By definition, a signal is "…a gesture, action, or sound that is used to convey information or instructions, typically by prearrangement between the parties concerned…." [Oxford English Dictionary On-line]

Thus, signals presuppose some sort of intelligent communications between intelligent agents or actors.

Does Darwin's theory have anything to say about that?

Thanks for putting up with me, a person coming from the epistemological and mathematical side, more than the biological side for sure.

Thanks for your excellent essay/post, exDemMom! Good to speak with you!

276 posted on 08/24/2011 1:49:59 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

OK. I remember that now.

You are right.


277 posted on 08/24/2011 1:51:14 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; Mind-numbed Robot; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; ...
How funny : ) So your GOD is full of crap (an attribute) I don't see him crapping in my toilet (he would have to be crapping eternally in all toilets) Therefore I have falsified your concept of GOD.

No. All you've falsified is YOUR concept of God.

You've done nothing to disprove the real one, nor have you disproved the supernatural.

For the record, clearly define and give examples of *supernatural* so that we know exactly what it is that you are claiming doesn't exist.

There's no point in wasting bandwidth in shooting in the dark while you move the goalposts only for you to continually tell us that we're wrong.

278 posted on 08/24/2011 1:55:59 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Amazing, isn’t it?
Atheists define for themselves a God that is unacceptable to them and reject Him,

whilst apostate Christians these days are defining God for themselves in a way that they can accept and still live as they want to.

Neither is the way God IS, as He has revealed Himself.


279 posted on 08/24/2011 2:13:22 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Metmom didn't even recognize E=MC2, That should tell you all you need to know about her background.

Prove it. Provide the link to the post.

Notice the lack of denial?

I have an easier way to do it. What is the difference between E=MC2 and t'= t-ux/c2/√1-u2/c2

It is easy if you have a clue : )

280 posted on 08/24/2011 2:44:52 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Mind-numbed Robot; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode
No. All you've falsified is YOUR concept of God.

No you said GOD had all attributes, I just mentioned his attribute of being full of crap was falsifiable : ) Your definition.

For the record, clearly define and give examples of *supernatural* so that we know exactly what it is that you are claiming doesn't exist.

Anything that doesn't exist in nature.

There's no point in wasting bandwidth in shooting in the dark while you move the goalposts only for you to continually tell us that we're wrong.

Well you lasted a post longer than I thought you would before running away. Cheers : )

281 posted on 08/24/2011 2:53:32 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; Mind-numbed Robot; GourmetDan; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; gobucks; metmom; xzins; ...
Betty Boop and you made the original assertion of cause and effect and the supernatural. You have the burden of proof not me. You are the one begging the question.

What is the question we're begging, LeGrande? Can you put it into so many words?

Or are we just supposed to guess?

Okay, I'll take a stab at it.

You exclude the supernatural in principle. About IT we are forbidden to ask questions. [How Marxian of you.] You are entirely skeptical about causal relations in principle. Nothing "causes" anything. In fact, nothing happens in reality; the only stuff that happens is "in my head." And nothing can be proved about any relation between that "stuff" and the natural world that exists outside of my mind.

The classical philosophers — preeminently Plato — would have described this situation as fundamentally "disordered." The Greek (Koine) word for this psychospiritual condition (as they diagnosed it) was anoia.

Eric Voegelin has pointed out that the word anoia is virtually untranslatable into modern English. That's because English words are relentlessly denotative, and Greek words are not.

With Greek words, you have the surface level meaning, which can vary with context. But such words point to a deeper-level, integrative meaning.

For instance, anoia, at the surface means "folly, oblivion." But one cannot grasp what the "folly" or "oblivion" consists of, without appreciating the deeper meaning of the word, which is: "Forgetfulness of one's partnership in the community of being and, consequently, the transformation of assertive participation into self-assertion." [Citation to Eric Voegelin, Order and History, Vol 5: "In Search of Order," Baton Rouge: LSU Press (1987), p. 43.]

And so the thought has occurred to me that LeGrande is having a field day, reprising Hegel's original divertissement, his original "party trick," which he laid out in Phaenomonologie: There is no cause and effect; there is only the process of thesis and antithesis, culminating in a transitory "synthesis," which becomes the next "thesis," inviting an "antithesis" in the next iteration of the process, etc., ad infinitum. It's a totally pointless exercise, because it leads no where: These are operations in the human mind exclusively; they do not refer to — even deny — anything going on in the natural world. Indeed, the entire point of the exercise is to divorce ones self from the natural, to curl back into the pleasant experiences of a dreamer, who never has to measure up to anything outside the realm of his own desires. In the end, Hegel's greatest desire was arguably the desire for self-divinization....

Well, I'm sure that's all as clear as mud!

Thanks so much for writing, LeGrande!

282 posted on 08/24/2011 3:05:27 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"What is the difference between E=MC2 and t'= t-ux/c2/√1-u2/c2"

Are you suggesting that we can define a fundamental cosmological reference frame for energy propagation that is outside God's laws or are you suggesting that any and all scientific observations are only witness to God's glory?

You don't suppose that the usual suspects are going to bitch and whine about this because God simply said; "Let there be light" do you?

283 posted on 08/24/2011 3:21:26 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Mind-numbed Robot; GourmetDan; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; gobucks; metmom; xzins
What is the question we're begging, LeGrande? Can you put it into so many words?

Is there cause and effect? I said no, and was accused of committing a logical fallacy.

In fact, nothing happens in reality; the only stuff that happens is "in my head." And nothing can be proved about any relation between that "stuff" and the natural world that exists outside of my mind.

I have no clue about what you are trying to say. If you are trying to imply that I don't think there is an objective reality you are wrong.

And so the thought has occurred to me that LeGrande is having a field day, reprising Hegel's original divertissement, his original "party trick," which he laid out in Phaenomonologie: There is no cause and effect; there is only the process of thesis and antithesis, culminating in a transitory "synthesis," which becomes the next "thesis," inviting an "antithesis" in the next iteration of the process, etc., ad infinitum. It's a totally pointless exercise, because it leads no where: These are operations in the human mind exclusively; they do not refer to — even deny — anything going on in the natural world. Indeed, the entire point of the exercise is to divorce ones self from the natural, to curl back into the pleasant experiences of a dreamer, who never has to measure up to anything outside the realm of his own desires. In the end, Hegel's greatest desire was arguably the desire for self-divinization....

I believe this is a case of projection, you see a pattern and posit GOD is the cause. In fact any question or situation has the same answer to you, God is the cause.

As I implied in my original post, ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand, which led to animal sacrifice and the eventual sacrifice of GOD himself. You seem to attribute everything to God too, is there a difference between the ancients and you?

Believing in cause and effect leads to a dark and dangerous abyss.

284 posted on 08/24/2011 3:32:39 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; metmom
Are you suggesting that we can define a fundamental cosmological reference frame for energy propagation that is outside God's laws or are you suggesting that any and all scientific observations are only witness to God's glory?

Hmm, outside God's laws? I would prefer to state that they prove that an omnipotent God can't exist.

You don't suppose that the usual suspects are going to bitch and whine about this because God simply said; "Let there be light" do you?

They can't even get the proper sequence right in Genesis. Making light, separating light from darkness, then making two lights in the sky. They will bitch and whine, but it will be fun watching them lament.

285 posted on 08/24/2011 3:43:50 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"They can't even get the proper sequence right in Genesis."

Genesis was not intended to be a science or history book. The fundamentals of physics necessary to explain creation were impossible to communicate to the neolithic nomads who received this portion of the revealed Word. Regardless of the wishes and claims of many, Genesis does not attempt to explain HOW God created the universe, it only proclaims THAT He did.

286 posted on 08/24/2011 3:49:13 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Genesis was not intended to be a science or history book. The fundamentals of physics necessary to explain creation were impossible to communicate to the neolithic nomads who received this portion of the revealed Word. Regardless of the wishes and claims of many, Genesis does not attempt to explain HOW God created the universe, it only proclaims THAT He did.

It establishes a time line of events that is blatantly wrong. No physics understanding is necessary to get the proper sequence correct.

The Bible starts off badly and progressively gets worse.

287 posted on 08/24/2011 4:38:07 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"The Bible starts off badly and progressively gets worse."

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Funny, I never took you for the Bible literalist type.

288 posted on 08/24/2011 5:00:23 PM PDT by Natural Law (For God so loved the world He did not send a book.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; betty boop
"Betty Boop and you made the original assertion of cause and effect and the supernatural. You have the burden of proof not me. You are the one begging the question."

My first comment to you was based on your assertion that "True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do."

By your own standard, you are the one who is begging the question and has the burden of proof.

289 posted on 08/24/2011 5:04:47 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; exDemMom
"You wrote: "The mechanisms of evolution are well-characterized; we can see those mechanisms occurring in modern living species.""

Unfortunately this is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It'a a logical fallacy and no support for evolution. The mechanisms are assumed to be proof of evolution simply because they exist and evolution is presumed to be true. Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

290 posted on 08/24/2011 5:10:20 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Is there cause and effect? I said no, and was accused of committing a logical fallacy."

Not accused, you are committing a logical fallacy. As you posted, I asked whether if a cat were to spontaneously form for no reason out of nothing, would that be of no cause or effect. Your response? "Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing." Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

"As I implied in my original post, ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand, which led to animal sacrifice and the eventual sacrifice of GOD himself."

Again, this begs the question. You have no idea what 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.

291 posted on 08/24/2011 5:15:49 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Funny, I never took you for the Bible literalist type.

I am not, but everyone around here seems to be.

If the Bible isn't taken literally it is awesome.

292 posted on 08/24/2011 5:26:33 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande; betty boop

My original statement which led to our interchange was that one cannot prove a God and one cannot prove no-God. You told me, paraphrasing from memory rather than going back to check, to describe an attribute of my God and you would disprove it. I then said He was all attributes and from there you launched into a diatribe which foolishly led the conversation off course. So, let me take another stab at it.

God is all of creation. He set the whole thing in motion and He determined the principles on which everything operates. He is not full of crap, as you postulated, but He did set things up so that you can be.

He gave us free will to make errors and, in fact, seems to have made it easier to make errors than not to. Yet, in essence. God is Love, Truth, and Life.

So, help yourself. Disprove any of that. Prove No-God. Prove that God is not Love and conversely that Love is not Godly. The same with Truth and Life. It would also be helpful if, as you disprove those, you will show how evolution accounts for them. Surely you don’t deny those abstracts - Love, Truth, and Life - exist. Yet, are they scientific? Can they be affirmed using the Scientific Method?


293 posted on 08/24/2011 5:31:36 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (I retain the right to be inconsistent, contradictory and even flat-out wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
My first comment to you was based on your assertion that "True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do."

By your own standard, you are the one who is begging the question and has the burden of proof.

I don't believe you are really as stupid as you pretend to be. My first statement wasn't to you it was a reply to Betty Boops assertion. You are the interloper.

Causality is philosophy not science. Aristotle wasn't a scientist. If you think I am wrong point out the cause and effect theory in science please : )

294 posted on 08/24/2011 5:34:49 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Your response? "Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing." Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

Are you trying to dispute that 'everything comes from nothing'? LOL

You have no idea what 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.

I may actually be begging the question here if you disagree that the ancients practiced sacrifices, do you deny that? I can easily support my assertion : )

295 posted on 08/24/2011 5:41:40 PM PDT by LeGrande ("life's tough; it's tougher if you're stupid." John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Unfortunately this is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It'a a logical fallacy and no support for evolution. The mechanisms are assumed to be proof of evolution simply because they exist and evolution is presumed to be true. Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

If you can't make a logical progression from "if X, then Y; if not X, then Z", then there is no basis for any science. By your standards, we would make no scientific advancement at all.

296 posted on 08/24/2011 5:47:31 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"I don't believe you are really as stupid as you pretend to be. My first statement wasn't to you it was a reply to Betty Boops assertion. You are the interloper."

I am just the person who is calling your logical fallacies to account. Call me what you will, your fallacies stand for what they are.

"Causality is philosophy not science. Aristotle wasn't a scientist. If you think I am wrong point out the cause and effect theory in science please : )"

And begging the question will always be logical fallacy. You simply confirm that you accept 'no cause and effect' a priori, no matter what. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course.

297 posted on 08/24/2011 5:49:10 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"Are you trying to dispute that 'everything comes from nothing'? LOL"

As you posted when I asked if a cat were to spontaneously form for no reason out of nothing, would that be of no cause or effect. Your response? "Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing." Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

"I may actually be begging the question here if you disagree that the ancients practiced sacrifices, do you deny that? I can easily support my assertion : )"

You said, "...ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand...". You have no idea what the 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.

298 posted on 08/24/2011 5:53:31 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"If you can't make a logical progression from "if X, then Y; if not X, then Z", then there is no basis for any science. By your standards, we would make no scientific advancement at all."

Of course by defining evolution(X) as 'change'(Y), any Y is, by definition, 'proof' of X. It's a small logical circle that might be called 'reasoning' by some but remains firmly in the realm of fallacy.

299 posted on 08/24/2011 6:03:09 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
If seen these little games played on these forums long enough that I'm not taking your bait.

Interesting.

First, you disclaim any intention of taking my “bait,” then you take the bait. What “bait” is this that I offer? Let’s begin there.

Now that depends on who gets to judge credentials doesn't it.

Credentials are what they are. If the Scientific Community accepts as scientifically authoritative the statements of . . . oh say, Richard Dawkins (according even to Wikipedia) . . . then why would I challenge that judgment? It does not follow, however, that I am obliged to accept any conclusions off those scientific assertions as respects philosophy, religion, education, public policy, politics generally, or any subject not directly associated with Science. And, of course, even all scientific assertions are subject to further discovery.

Whatever source I cite, professors, Nobel laureates, published and peer reviewed papers, heck even the burning bush, will be ridiculed.

Suck it up, Cupcake, and take your sympathy play down the street.

300 posted on 08/24/2011 6:05:53 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-533 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