Posted on 11/23/2004 9:53:55 PM PST by nickcarraway
Is there a difference between a "Creationist" and a creationist?
What is the part of the universe that you don't get? I hate to break it to you, but Earth is NOT the center of the universe. Let alone this Galaxy or solar system. It is larger than that.
"I'm not a Creationist."
And what in my post, pray, made you think that I was referring to you?
"try reading the original article".
I DID read that article. As a professional working in biochemistry, I could tell you that, besides a small thing that other that within evolution theory, the field does not make much sense, this field is where the next (or even the current) wave of not-yet-outsourced knowledge jobs is going to be, just like computerese was a decade ago. Thus we need a serious educational effort (way better than what we have now) in this field. And that effort better be evolutionist, not creationist.
this is really a reply to everyone so far...
We'll see :)
The problem with evolution theory is that it is not treated like a theory at all, but rather a religious faith. Subscribers have structured both the debate and the inquiry around a framework where evolution cannot ever be proven wrong. I don't mean to say it can't be proven wrong because they have shown it to be true, I mean it can't be proven wrong because it is has been exempted from the most basic of scientific requirements--that the evidence has to support the thesis. Instead, what we see is that any evidence that does not fit is either seamlessly assimilated ("ahh, it appears that under certain circumstances, X will happen, despite our previous expectation of Y") or pushed aside ("we still do not understand why we have not found X, and instead find Y, but someday we will"). In other words, it cannot be proved wrong. You can't really consider a discipline that does not allow for the possibility its organizing theory could be proven wrong, no matter what the evidence, to be truly scientific. Actually, it sounds a lot like liberalism, doesn't it?
I remember reading about a Chinese paleontologist (?) who was asked about the biggest difference between working in America and working in China. He said in China you can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin. I think that says it all.
Ping for later reading.
...William Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe, have published books providing even more powerful critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis based on intelligent design theory.
Sanctuary, intelligent design theory, sanctuary! Oops, you were refuted--in the 18th century!--by this giant. Those who forget the past are...oh to hell with it...
Humans can barely coexist with other ethnic groups. Do you really think we would have tolerated another intelligent species? We would have murdered them by any means available.
Moral Absolutes ping - Absolutely the last ping of the day. I probably wouldn't be able to understand the book in question, I find it hard to read very scientific tomes without getting narcolepsy.
But I am always glad such books are there! Maybe I will give it a try anyway. This article confirms something that is very significant - liberals/atheists/secularists [including the subset here of "Darwinists"] always hate to debate fact. They are reduced to name calling, sloganeering, ridicule, straw man arguments, and attempting to define terms and stand on agreed upon foundation which only they believe in. IOW, if a person disagrees with their premise in the beginning (say evolution), then the disagreer is condemned at the outset as a Neanderthal (no pun intended!), knuckledragger, etc.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
(Another interesting book about the lack of real evidence for evolution, and how the Darwinists lie and cheat, is "Forbidden Archeology - the Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo.)
Check out the book I recommend at the end of my post above. It doesn't claim any of those things.
The problem with evolution theory is that it doesn't take into consideration what happened pre-Earth. I believe the 4 billion year fossil record is accurate. I believe that evolution occured. I just think that the Creator planned/designed (whatever it is they do) it all. To me, it's not one or the other, it's both. Geez, what a peacemaker I am.
Or one can go with Hume and his modern relatives, Derrida and his disciples, and settle for "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".
You're comparing Hume to some flavor-of-the-week charlatan? I'm appalled, and curious: what does Derrida have in common with Hume?
The absolute, scientific proof is simply not there for evolutionists, no matter what they say.
I could have written that comment. ;-)
What I would have added is that I get two types of responses. The most common response is to imply that I'm so backwards and ignorant that I'm proof of the missing link. The other approach to discussions is to bombard me with a gazillion, boring links (often from the same site) with the expectation that I should read and refute the thousands of pages of blather that is presented.
It always surprises me how fiercely frustrated evolutionists are when somebody doubts the dogma, but if they truly believed in evolution, why don't they relax: we that disagree should eventually disappear from the gene pool anyway. ;-)
I suspect that most evolutionists got their belief because they were ridiculed or intimidated by people who they respected as somehow intellectual. Later, when somebody comes along and pokes holes in the new religion that these evolutionary converts accepted via intimidation, they resort to the same technique of ridicule and forward the tougher cases either to the "intellectuals" or to All Those People Who Know Better (a gazillion web pages) as their second line of defense.
If they had actually finished the trial, I could agree with you here.
But the problem is that, after they played Beat Up the Religious Guy in Court, they cheated and bowed out early so that there was never a chance for a rebuttal.
Imagine having John Kerry getting to go on for hours and hours in the debate and then, just as Bush gets his chance to say something, one of the liberal moderators says, "Whoa, times up! And the winner is ... surprise ... John Kerry!"
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.