Posted on 05/03/2011 9:41:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
THAT is an issue you need to take up with JimRob. His site, you know?
Still can’t figure out how they built a spaceship though.
Look ma, no hands!
It sure won’t help to appeal to the better nature of Creationists. I have just accepted the hypocrisy of it and have no desire to petition Jim about it. He has no desire to try and control how people act AFAIK.
LOL They’re ants. They probably took them by force from the primates on their planet.
I find your lament to be oddly humorous after all the persecution that creation scientists have received in secular humanist universities.
Must be hell trying to drive the spaceship using your mandibles.
Give your biases I guess you would.
They suffer a lot of mandibular tendinitis because of it. But ants, being the purest of socialists, have a health care system that takes care of every ailing ant. When one gets sick or injured the others pounce on it and tear it to pieces. And the parts are put to good use making compost to grow fungus for their aphids. It’s a perfect society.
All they spend is a little energy. It’s good exercise for the healthy ones.
Creationism isn’t anti-science, it’s non-science. Or put more succinctly, nonsense. And if you think the Earth is 6000 years old, you deserve to be ridiculed.
Of course, as a “scientific evolutionist”, you have no pre-suppositions or biases, I’m sure.
Define science, and then tell me how such a methodology “proves” evolution and the age of the earth.
I used to give the scientists a far harder time than Creationists do but I didn't use insults or warnings of hell to do it. I questioned their premises with logic and points of established science. Sometimes it made them very mad but that's because they were put on the defensive with the flood of irrational flames they received.
“warnings of hell”
Belief in origins is not a salvation issue, for Christians, at least. It does seem to be a matter of extreme orthodoxy on the part of the evos, though.
“Science” cannot be used to prove either one, if I inferred from your post, we agree on that point.
Mostly because the conclusions about origins of either cannot be repeated. You can’t show “molecules to man” evolution any more than you could demonstrate supernatural creation in 6 days. This is where I take exception, when demeaning attacks come from the “scientists” when their conclusions are as much about pre-assumptions and faith as Creationism is.
Do you agree with the decision to build a nuclear waste storage facility on Yucca Mountain? Why or why not?
Good grief - are you that dense? Science is a method of organizing and measuring observed phenomena, hypothesizing about their origin and meaning, and making predictions about the relationships within and between them and other objects in the natural world. Science “proves” nothing, it never has, it never will; proof isn’t the goal of science. The goal of science is to take all the information regarding a phenomena that is available and create a model that describes it and the processes associated with it.
Great, I’m glad you admit that “science” is not the answer when you are asked “why do you think the earth is old” or “why do you believe man evolved from goo”.
You should tell that to all the Creationists. Like the one on this thread who has a bit about it on his profile page. But you have just pointed to one of the un-scientific things about Creationism. Evolution is not in any way about the ultimate origin of life yet Creationists constantly make that the premise of their arguments.
It does seem to be a matter of extreme orthodoxy on the part of the evos, though.
That's your opinion. Some of them do seem to talk that way but anyone who firmly believes in something will hold to that view and it can be characterized as "extreme orthodoxy" I suppose.
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.