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 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 521-533 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 521-533 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