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

Skip to comments.

What Is Science?
AiG ^ | Roger Patterson

Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-408 next last
To: tpanther
What lawsuits to “silence” Creationists? I hear this garbage all the time. Creationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence? What cases are you talking about tpanter, the ones the voices tell you about? The same voices that whisper “ACLU, NEA, liberal strawman”?
251 posted on 02/19/2009 10:54:36 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Darwinism in the schools is like I remember grits in the cafes in Georgia.

Darwinism should not be taught in schools. One reason is this: natural selection presupposes the truth of the Malthus population principle. So, when your kids emerge from state-enforced Darwinism brainwashing, they are firm believers in Malthusianism, whether they are aware of it or not. And, as you know, this is indeed a damnable and pernicious doctrine. There is no way it could ever be taught to public-school students except clandestinely, disguised and buried as part of the "biology" curriculum, without parents knowing it. But Malthus is part of the deal and that's what the students ingest when they are fed natural selection.

252 posted on 02/20/2009 5:09:49 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

As I’ve said before, evo-atheists want us to believe that most organisms that are born die before they reproduce, a la Malthus. What a damnable doctrine indeed. Anybody can see that God would be a cruel and vicious God if He allowed that kind of carnage to exist in His Creation. Nature is not “red in tooth and claw”.
The evo-atheists want us to accept Malthus because they want to be the ones to “cull the human herd” to stop the imaginary geometric growth that Malthus said would happen if reproduction were to be unchecked. They want to be the un-natural selectors of death for those they deem “unfit”


253 posted on 02/20/2009 5:28:18 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
[Darwin would] be more amazed I think that because certain animals share similar DNA, people are gullible enough to believe this can only mean they share a common ancestor based on sheer conjecture and nothing more.

Perhaps. But then he's delve into the mountains of other evidence that was discovered before DNA analysis and match it all up and would be quite proud of his theory.

It's crystal clear to people that aren't caught up in the God-hating cult that's clearly hijacked the theory now taught as fact by secualar humanist liberals.

... And Christian conservatives and Jews and scientists of all stripes and flavors.

you take money from Christians to pay for your failed godless debacles after running them off.

Whatever you say.
254 posted on 02/20/2009 5:28:51 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999


Dr. Todd has it right.

The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

It's scientific to say that one should make sure that one's instruments should provide accurate measurements. But it's not scientific to say that nothing exists except that which is, at least in principle and via instrumentation, open to observation by our senses. It's scientific to say that effects have causes. It's not scientific to say that effects can have only materialist causes.

Thus, if it is true that there exists a reality that is ontologically discontinuous from our reality but which is able, at will, to interact with it and to effect changes in it, the naturalist has put himself into a position of being unable to make an accurate assessment of cause and effect. He has done this because he has, from the beginning, simply declared certain possibilities not to exist. He doesn't do this upon a scientific basis, but upon a philosophical one.
255 posted on 02/20/2009 5:37:48 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isn’t it Buck.”

Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.

It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.


256 posted on 02/20/2009 6:16:31 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isn’t it Buck.”

Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.

It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.


257 posted on 02/20/2009 6:16:32 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“If you think that there’s no difference between a lie and an allegory and you believe that the Bible is an allegory, what exactly do you believe?”

I do so enjoy the “komodo dragon” argument approach that creationints take. What’s the komodo dragon approach, you ask? Well, here’s a hint for you to start you research: I’m Bob and you’re Ray. Now, go to YouTube.


258 posted on 02/20/2009 6:19:27 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

That Malthus population principle is at the heart of the environmental/deep ecology movement also. A doctrine of “reduce the population by some means because there will never be enough for all.”

And as you say, pernicious because it seems logical. Draw a graph with lines showing this and such, all very reasonable looking and wrong.


259 posted on 02/20/2009 6:20:48 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; ToGodBeTheGlory
A doctrine of “reduce the population by some means because there will never be enough for all.”

Malthus's theories have been modified or adapted in various ways by neo-malthusians and communists. But Malthus's original full-strength theory is the insanest of all, and it is that theory which Darwin relies on for natural selection to work. You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that's why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them. This isn't a catastrophe to happen in the future. It is supposed to be happening now and always. The purpose of his theory was to explain why the rich class existed alongside a huge class of miserable vice-ridden paupers in England, and what to do about it.

260 posted on 02/20/2009 7:03:35 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Nope. No answer to that question. As usual, only an answer to something I never asked.

You cannot demand a from someone to select an option when neither option is acceptable. I gave you my position in very clear words.

261 posted on 02/20/2009 7:27:32 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

But as insane as Malthus’ views were and however discredited they’ve enjoyed a comfortable existence in Darwinism and as you said those accepting Darwinism are getting more than just Darwin, they’re getting Malthus too unto the point they hardly recognize it.

I mentioned the environmental/deep ecology movement because one logical conclusion of Malthus’ doctrine is that increasing the sustenance supply would actually be a waste of time and only put off the inevitable.
An increased food supply would increase population and another cycle would start, leading one to the idea that only a major decrease in population made sense.
Of course we know who would be selected to be decreased.


262 posted on 02/20/2009 7:45:19 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If we’re not in the center, then we must be closer to one edge than the other. How far away is the closest edge and how far away is the furthest edge?

No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?

263 posted on 02/20/2009 7:52:29 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinism should not be taught in schools. One reason is this: natural selection presupposes the truth of the Malthus population principle. So, when your kids emerge from state-enforced Darwinism brainwashing, they are firm believers in Malthusianism, whether they are aware of it or not.

Is there a creationist version of mathematics also?

Every living, reproducing thing, has the ability to produce more offspring than necessary to replace itself -- assuming nothing bad happens. The observed fact is that populations are generally stable. And in the unusual cases where populations temporarily expand without check, they invariably collapse.

Most plants and many animals produce tens of thousands of offspring. Simple arithmetic requires that most do not survive long enough to reproduce.

264 posted on 02/20/2009 8:01:36 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Ethan Clive Osgoode
Darwinism should not be taught in schools.

And here I thought that a number of folks on this board had the position that they wanted “Creationism” or its kissing cousin “ID” to be taught along side evolution and for students to be free to compare, contrast and openly discuss both. Now we know.

The Creationist “Fairness Doctrine”
265 posted on 02/20/2009 8:11:29 AM PST by Caramelgal (This tagline is currently on strike, waiting for my bail out. I want me some tagline porkulus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory
As I’ve said before, evo-atheists want us to believe that most organisms that are born die before they reproduce, a la Malthus. What a damnable doctrine indeed. Anybody can see that God would be a cruel and vicious God if He allowed that kind of carnage to exist in His Creation. Nature is not “red in tooth and claw”.

I've wondered for some time if you aren't a mole posing as a religious person. Certainly this post reinforces my suspicion.

Let's take a look at your line of reasoning:

  1. God would not allow carnage in his creation.
  2. Therefore carnage does not exist.

What this disguises is the rather obvious syllogism:

  1. IF God exists He would not allow carnage.
  2. Carnage exists
  3. Therefore God does not exist

Theodicy is a tricky business. There are reasons why most religious people do not pretend to know the mind of God and do not presume to speak for His motives and intentions.

Both of the arguments I outlined are crap. And whether you close your eyes to it or not, the Malthusian check on population is both an observable fact and an inevitable mathematical conclusion.

Birds typically have four babies a year, and yet the population of birds doesn't double every year. Two thirds of polar bears die before age three -- before they are sexually mature. Most die of starvation. This list could go on and on.

You would do less damage to your cause by acknowledging the existence of pain in the world. I believe you have a doctrine that covers it. Maybe C.S. Lewis could help.

266 posted on 02/20/2009 10:27:55 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; metmom
Read and get educated ... http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part9/section-5.html

I can “see” that there is no “center” to the surface of a sphere (there is a center to a sphere, yes? but that is a different and unrelated matter, no?). For this analogy to have any significance, FAQA.ORG would have to be proposing that the Universe is a two dimensional spherical surface, and that we can neither look into (towards the center of) the sphere nor “out” from the sphere, but only along the surface of the sphere. Otherwise, I don’t know how it is helpful (conceptually speaking).

Is this the latest state of scientific thinking on the nature of the Universe? Einstein would be amazed.

267 posted on 02/20/2009 12:47:27 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Anything less than understanding that Christ is your savior and forgives you of your transgressions when you ask Him of forgiveness, is a successful attempt in diverting you from the truth.

I honestly don’t need a website to understand this and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, creation websites or whatever strawman people drone on about.


268 posted on 02/20/2009 1:24:58 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: stylecouncilor

Feynman ping


269 posted on 02/20/2009 1:47:50 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom

What lawsuits to “silence” Creationists? I hear this garbage all the time. Creationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence? What cases are you talking about tpanter, the ones the voices tell you about? The same voices that whisper “ACLU, NEA, liberal strawman”?


LOL!!!!

There’s probably treatment for that in your area.

It’s telling that when you get yourself painted into a corner you come unglued like this allmendream, you should reflect on that awhile.

Metmom’s posted links, I’ve posted links, as if it’s some obscure secret.

So now that you’ve gotten all your tantrums out of the way, where ARE the lawsuits to silence algore’s hot air cult?

string-theorists?

multiverse-theorists?

Pretending like there aren’t lawsuits by the hundreds by the ACLU and others to silence Christians across the board, and yes including science class, (heck, even before a textbook can get INTO class the minions of liberals with God-hang-ups are suing to get stickers off of textbooks); doesn’t even come close to getting you off the hook!


270 posted on 02/20/2009 1:59:25 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
And Christian conservatives and Jews and scientists of all stripes and flavors.

You're confusing the theory with the cult. Well, what's left of the theory.

271 posted on 02/20/2009 2:01:50 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Myriad of lawsuits to “silence” Creationists and you cannot even name one?

Moreover there is no “right” to have your views taught in science class, so if by “silence” you mean, “rejected as part of the curriculum” you are making a laughable claim; that Creationists have the “right” to teach their religious views in public schools in conjunction with science education, and that lawsuits are depriving them of this “right”.

272 posted on 02/20/2009 2:12:44 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: js1138; metmom
Metmom: If we’re not in the center, then we must be closer to one edge than the other. How far away is the closest edge and how far away is the furthest edge?

js: No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?

I guess "edge" and "center" are too abstract for students...

Sheesh! Liberals.

Like Klintoon and his insane that depends on what "is" "is" nonsense.

And I keep forgetting, liberals believe that everyone has a right to have input to their children's educations, except Christian conservatives.

273 posted on 02/20/2009 2:19:04 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal

It would help to understand the terms...

evolution...not to mention what version, the theory or the cult.

darwinism...still trying to sort through this one myself, like nailing jello to a wall.


274 posted on 02/20/2009 2:21:56 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

In your frenzy you left out the reading comprehension part...

no lawsuits over string, multiverse...your fellow liberal algoreacle...

your asserting such rubbish as “it ain’t science unless it’s measurable and observable” died waaaaaay up thread allmendream.

Come to think of it on several threads now.

One death is all that’s necessary allmendream.


275 posted on 02/20/2009 2:30:44 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Is there a creationist version of mathematics also?

No, that's the same old tired liberal strawmen liberals are desperate to interject into their failing debate.

276 posted on 02/20/2009 2:34:12 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
One would have to buy your inane premise that there was a myriad of lawsuits to “silence” Creationists first. Something you have claimed but provided no examples of.

Secondly one must assume that there are no measurable or observable predictions that could be made for string theory.

Then one would have to ignore the fact that nobody is lying and perjuring themselves in an attempting to have “multiverse” or “string” taught in public schools.

If one assumes all that then you might possibly have a valid point. But those assumptions are asinine.

277 posted on 02/20/2009 2:34:47 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; allmendream; metmom
allmendreamCreationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence?

tpantherwhere ARE the lawsuits to silence algore’s hot air cult? string-theorists? multiverse-theorists?

Not to mention “warped passages.”

I don’t recall that you’ve ever said that lawsuits have been successful in silencing “Creationists” (that is, Christians). It seems to me that you and many others (Hi! metmom) have been identifying various ways (lawsuits being one) that attempts are being incessantly made to silence Christians. The difference is not difficult to discern. It cannot be attributed to a failed effort to understand, made by hopelessly confused, conscientious thinkers. The answer must be found elsewhere. Perhaps it is a question of sincerity and intellectual honesty?

278 posted on 02/20/2009 2:56:34 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Telling a “cdesign proponentist” that they cannot teach their particularly peculiar religious beliefs in public school is not “silencing” them, unless you feel they have a right to have their religious views taught in public school.

Do you think any religious group has the “right” to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?

279 posted on 02/20/2009 2:59:23 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: js1138; tpanther; YHAOS

Can an evo ever just answer a question?

Do they ALWAYS have to create a strawman to knock down to think that they’ve made some point against non-evos?


280 posted on 02/20/2009 3:04:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You cannot demand a from someone to select an option when neither option is acceptable. I gave you my position in very clear words.

IOW, you would not favor an opt out option for evos who don't want their kids to hear about creation in public schools. Only a complete ban of the topic will suit you, eh?

No surprise there.

281 posted on 02/20/2009 3:06:13 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: metmom
IOW, you would not favor an opt out option for evos who don't want their kids to hear about creation in public schools. Only a complete ban of the topic will suit you, eh?

What happens when little Babaganoush's parents want "equal time" for the Hindu creation myth, which is as equally valid as yours? You think you have lawsuits now (though we've yet to see one of the ones referenced no this post), imagine the lawsuits THEN. Though it would be entertaining to see the YECs fighting the OECs fighting the biblical literalists fighting the theological evolutionists fighting the Hindus fighting the Muslims fighting the Wiccans.

But I guess that's what you want, right?
282 posted on 02/20/2009 4:02:13 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Then if we’re not going to have all of them, we should have none of them, even the secular humanist creation account, aka the ToE.


283 posted on 02/20/2009 4:09:21 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

But the Hindu story is a myth, while the Biblical account is God’s Word. This country was founded on His Word, and was understood to be a Christian nation for most of its history until the godless evo-atheists turned to the courts. It’s only for so long that Christians will sit idly by while this persecution continues. God doesn’t smile on nations that treat the Gospel with such disdain.


284 posted on 02/20/2009 4:10:27 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: ToGodBeTheGlory; whattajoke

Bible reading and prayer were a part of this country’s education system for centuries. The creation account of the Bible was part of that.

I don’t see that it hurt scientific progress during that time.

It isn’t like creationists want something new taught in the schools, as if evolution was always taught in schools and creation never was. We’re simply asking that it be included as it had been for all those years.

It got kicked out by the evo/atheist crowd and people just want it back, and expecting the creation account of the Bible that this country is founded on, is not unreasonable.

The other issue is that the ToE is of so little consequence for most people in this world. It has next to nothing to do with what most people choose as a career in life. Even among those who choose a scientific field to pursue a career in, evolution doesn’t necessarily enter into it.

Looking at physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc. the ToE does not enter into them as necessary to be proficient in those areas.

Those who need the ToE for their chosen career fields can take it at the college level. The only reason to push it in high school to kids who are never going to need it, is to push an ideology on them.

What I find interesting is that it’s the creationists who want equal time and the evos who are demanding a monopoly for their pet theory. Talk about trying to impose an ideology......


285 posted on 02/20/2009 4:45:30 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Learning biology is not learning an ideology, but learning about the results of a scientific discipline. And anybody who wants to be in physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc; is ill served by the claptrap that creationists have put together to try to explain how physical constants of the universe must change, starlight is fake evidence of things that never actually existed within the span of this universe, atomic decay doesn’t happen the way science says it does, the fossil record and geological evidence of an old earth is false, etc, etc.


286 posted on 02/20/2009 5:38:15 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; tpanther
"Do you think any religious group has the “right” to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?"

Do you think any secular group has the "right" to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?

It's not possible to create and present a values-free education. Which set of values do you advocate be taught in the public schools?

There's only one reasonable conclusion one can make with respect to "public" schools. It's always a bit of a kick watching the contortions some people on both sides of this issue put themselves through avoiding that conclusion (assuming there are only two sides).

287 posted on 02/20/2009 6:44:45 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: metmom; tpanther; js1138
"Can an evo ever just answer a question?"

Sure they can . . . When it fits their agenda. Otherwise, it's alaman left, dosey doe, and great billowing clouds of smoke.

288 posted on 02/20/2009 7:04:46 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; YHAOS
And anybody who wants to be in physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, oceanography, etc; is ill served by the claptrap that creationists have put together to try to explain how physical constants of the universe must change, starlight is fake evidence of things that never actually existed within the span of this universe, atomic decay doesn’t happen the way science says it does, the fossil record and geological evidence of an old earth is false, etc, etc.

All of which has nothing to do with what I said.

Those physical sciences do not depend in any way, on the ToE. Anyone who goes into one of those fields does not need to know it.

It's only relevant to a few fields of science. Let those who need to know it, learn it if they have to.

289 posted on 02/20/2009 9:28:59 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Ethan, excellent posts on Malthus.

It was a long wade though the valley of the shadow of brown noise and static (courtesy our fiends from DC), but it was worth it.


290 posted on 02/20/2009 10:18:07 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

“You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that’s why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them.”

What a deceptive fairy tale. It’s wrong in so many ways, but I’ll handicap myself; let’s assume that you’re interpreting Malthus correctly. Your point is still completely irrelevant to evolution and to Darwin’s role in its development. You have created the very type of strawman that creationists on this site accuse rational Christian scientists of putting forth at the slightest injection of reasoned debate.

I thank God (quite literally) that creation, based on such nonsense, is not taught as science in public schools.


291 posted on 02/21/2009 6:33:49 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Do you think any secular group has the "right" to teach their beliefs in public school?

Good question. Do Malthusians have the "right" to have their population ideology taught as fact in public school? The state is presently enforcing that "right".

292 posted on 02/21/2009 6:38:58 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And only let those who “need to know it” know about the age of the earth as well?

If Creationists were on the war path against biology alone then maybe if we ceded this ground to the zealots they would all go home happy? NO. They would move on to geology, astronomy, history, chemistry, and physics to try to get their ludicrous garbage taught as science, or tell people that those subjects (as they describe an ancient universe that directly conflicts with Creationists claims) are not relevant and should not be taught.

Science is science, and kids need to learn science. And all fields of science are in direct opposition to the “cdesign proponentists” garbage that they want people to swallow.

I imagine not learning any science would leave people more ignorantly amenable to creationist propaganda.

293 posted on 02/21/2009 6:49:29 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Your point is still completely irrelevant to evolution and to Darwin’s role in its development.

Have you ever read Origin of Species? Specifically, the part where Darwin explains that the Malthus population principle is what causes natural selection?

294 posted on 02/21/2009 6:51:16 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
No, I don't think any secular group has the “right” to teach their beliefs; but children in public schools should have the expectation of a good education. .

Anyone who wishes to be considered well educated should know the sciences of geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy and physics; all of which have findings that “cdesign proponentists” have problems with.

Do you think any science that's findings conflict with a particularly peculiar religious view should not be taught, do you think it is your “right” not to have science that conflicts with your religious beliefs taught to other people's children?

295 posted on 02/21/2009 6:57:55 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

1. Natural selection, like Christianity, isn’t “caused”, but they coexist beautifully...
2. Evolution doesn’t need Darwin, but a handful of wacky creationinsts with extremely weak faith need a villain, so have at him!
3. As a Christian, I would like to politely ask you to please stop making the sizeable majority of us look so silly. Thank you.


296 posted on 02/21/2009 7:29:34 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: js1138
We already have a working theory that explains the history of life. If you intend to replace or supplement that theory, you need to provide something new that can be tested.

And again, I point you to the biotech industry. Seriously, FRiend, you freely accuse those who would make an ID hypothesis of "not looking," when you're ridiculously guilty of doing the same thing.

297 posted on 02/21/2009 8:07:30 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

No you see Einstein, the assumption that was assinine was your incessaant “measurable, testable, blah blah” nonsense you keep spweing when tryin to denounce and silent dissenters of your cult.

Try to stay focused for just this once.


298 posted on 02/21/2009 9:05:24 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
The difference is not difficult to discern. It cannot be attributed to a failed effort to understand, made by hopelessly confused, conscientious thinkers. The answer must be found elsewhere. Perhaps it is a question of sincerity and intellectual honesty?

Not to mention the point was allmendream keeps demanding science always be natural or measurable or testable...but we don't see him spending any time whatsoever trying to silence, let alone even criticize all these others that do no such thing.

As several have pointed out time and again, it's got little to do with science and everything to do with multiple hang-ups with God.

299 posted on 02/21/2009 9:12:25 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; allmendream; metmom

Notice when a cultist fails at one argument, they just pull out another long failed argument?

In this case, allmendream failed in making the case creationists should be silenced, then he pulls out the long ago destroyed “teaching their religion” in schools.

Later, if someone dares question his cult, he’ll squeal some “anti-science” nonsense again.


300 posted on 02/21/2009 9:33:36 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-408 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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