Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolutionary Explanations Assume Evolution Explains
CEH ^ | December 4, 2009

Posted on 12/06/2009 7:20:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 last
To: sickoflibs

>>I still need to post about the creationist got-ya games.<<

No need, I am familiar with them.


151 posted on 12/08/2009 7:43:18 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
RE :”You have to know what a scientific theory is and why there is no such thing as a “scientific fact” before we can proceed”

But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.

Then Dawkins writes things like “evolution proves there is no God”. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.

152 posted on 12/08/2009 7:45:23 PM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

>> But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.<<

One is not the same as the other. Sadly, scientists get sloppy. The term “scientific fact” is shorthand for “the science is so overwhelming that there is little point in pursuing alternatives.” That is NOT what most people think of as “scientific fact.” And, the same loose colloquialism has hung me out to dry on things like “the theory of multiverses” (there is no such Scientific Theory).

>>Then Dawkins writes things like “evolution proves there is no God”. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.<<

Dawkins is flat out wrong and has made it difficult as you note. The fact is, science is SILENT on God, since theology is a different domain of though. In that statement, Dawkins walks into that alternate realm, where he is overmatched.

But, the effect of Gravity is not analogous to TToE. The TToG is and it is much less understood or settled than TToG.


153 posted on 12/08/2009 7:51:57 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
They ask you a pointed question where one answer supposedly proves creation, ID, whatever. The other answer supposedly rules you out from giving an opinion. The assumptions are hidden from you until you reply. Two tipoffs is they ask ‘what you think?” and say “It's a simple question”.

Rather than repeat their example here, I remember a Chris Mathews got-ya he uses frequently: “Do you think gays were born that way?”. If you answer no, then 1) you are ill informed (your opinion is invalid) and 2) He demands you prove how you know that. If you answer yes then since they were born with a sexual desire, basic human rights demand we allow them to act it out. For very few things liberals use this assumption.

But this is what creationists call scientific debate. Heads I win, tails you lose.

154 posted on 12/08/2009 7:59:45 PM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
RE :”The term “scientific fact” is shorthand for “the science is so overwhelming that there is little point in pursuing alternatives.”

I read that years ago in a book countering creationism. I also took a course in college called “The philosophy of science” that taught about scientific paradigms.

Yes, evolution is unlikely to be replaced with anything better. And contrary to atheists and creationist it is not a fact (provable.)

155 posted on 12/08/2009 8:09:35 PM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Fair enough — thanks for the perspective.

Time to call it a night — buenos noches.


156 posted on 12/08/2009 8:17:33 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson