Posted on 11/05/2009 10:29:44 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I’m with you on this one. You’re delusional, not a moron.
See my last.
“See my last.”
ONE CAN ONLY HOPE!
IMHO, yes they are. They are assisting in the discrediting of the Bible, Gods written word.
Oh OK - it’s only science if it indicates more than 10,000 years huh?!
Let’s see some more of your evolutionary explanations for why these natural clocks are ignored in favor of carbon and radio-isotope dating please. Last time I think only one natural clock was predominantly discussed.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts
Your honesty is refreshing. I disagree, but I feel that we can actually have a conversation.
:)
Let me get this straight—you are putting forth 101 evidences for a young earth that originally appeared on the Creation Ministries site. Is that correct? If so, do you see a conflict? Are you concerned by the lack of scientific peer review?
Sadly, that probably is your only hope.
You are incorrect.
Leftists are the biggest bunch of morons on the planet.
I put creationists somewhere near my neighbor who let his kids store his leftover wood from his deck up against my garage.
I was not under the impression that the Catholic church had succumbed to the “Man comes from apes” idea yet. If this is true, perhaps it is a further sign of where the church is at in these ‘Last Days”. Something about a ‘great falling away’ or something.
This is observational in nature, not a perjorative. God will and does test Faith in many ways. Eve, Abraham, et al can testify to Gods testing of faith. Where is your faith that what God says is true? Where is the Catholic church’s faith in His Word?, or is it just trying to accomodate the world to entice people who would otherwise not be members?
So, if Genesis be Not True, if is just ‘allegory’, Then what else in the Bible is merely allegory? The 3 Hebrew children in the fire? Oh, I know, perhaps Jonah. I mean EVERYBODY knows that if a fish eats a man, the man does not survive at all, much less 3 days, much less being vomited back out to finally do Gods bidding. Maybe the Virgin Birth is allegory..... Hmmmm.
Does pi=3?
Where do you buy your slaves?
On the contrary.
"For an atheist to reject religion means only that he has failed to understand it, precisely. A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?"
“..For reason is only a faculty of knowing something indirectly in the absence of direct vision, while God is known directly, the same way one knows one is alive, perceives reality, or is aware of free will. In order to see something, it is not necessary to logically prove the existence of sight. Many of the most important truths are known simply by their “superabundance of clarity,” by pure intellect, not by the reason which is its servant. Reason is not Intelligence in itself, only an instrument of intelligence.
Few things create more mischief than reason in the hands of an unintelligent or immoral wonker. .[..] Not for nothing did Richard Weaver say that “every attack upon religion is inevitably an attack upon mind.”
Naturally there are many forms of stupid religion, for there is nothing touched by humans wonkers that cannot be made stupid. But at least religion as such does not exclude the possibility and priority of Intelligence, and therefore, Truth. ...” The Absolute Science of the Center and the Darwinist Religion of the Periphery
Without God, what would they be?
The "hole" at the center of their being would be exposed, so they would merely be a-holes.
Here’s a clue how Darwin appears to have bent the rules of peer review, outright deception, circular reasoning, and straw-men arguments (and the evos still persist in the same tactics today).
From the OP article linked by GGG:
“According to Professor Gould, the first bit of cunning was to set up a “straw man” to demolish. This was to imply that his scientific opponents argued against his theory on the basis of a belief in a young earth, which was untrue. The arguments against Lyell’s theory were based on geological observations, and were presented by people who believed in an ancient earth as well as those who believed in a young earth. The second bit of cunning was to persuade his readers that the rejection of his uniformitarianism would amount per se to a rejection of science itself. That is, acceptance of the scientific principle of the uniformity (unchanging character) of natural law necessitated an acceptance of the uniformity (unchanging character) of geological processes.”
Cute. Still a non-answer to my questions. When cornered, change direction!!
Not sure of the pi reference, but cute none the less.
The there are mention in the bible several ‘practices’ that were common in those times. Keeping of slaves was one of them. I do not believe that God, thru the Bible, advocated the practice, but merely acknowledged it AND forbade mistreatment. Also, the word slave is not the same as the experience here in early America. In those days it was common to indenture yourself to another. God did not advocate the forced slavery of others. If I am mistaken, please show me otherwise.
“I was not under the impression that the Catholic church had succumbed to the “Man comes from apes” idea yet.” - RoadGumby
It’s not that simple.
“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.
By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.
Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
bttt
22 posted on 05/25/2007 8:41:28 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22
What are they? They weren't listed in the thread.
It’s not that simple.
Yes, it truly is that simple, hence my stance on being grounded in faith. Even the Pope is but a man, I care not much what he thinks when he conflicts with the Word of the One he is supposed to be speaking for. I place my faith in what God says in the Bible, not on the writings of a man.
“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
To address this is to consider the question, "Why did God lie to me, AND where else in his Book did He Lie">
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.