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

Skip to comments.

Delusions of Evolution
Norcalblogs.com ^ | April 04, 2009 | by OneVike

Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...

(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; faith; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-389 next last
To: OneVike
[Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them.]

Lets see what one of the biggest defenders of evolution has to say about this so called theory that is scientifically provable. Ok?

Ok.

One of the biggest defenders of the theory of evolution is a scientist named, Michael Ruse.

Nice try. Michael Ruse is not a scientist. He's a philosopher and historian.

In 2005 five he wrote a book titled "The Evolution Creation Struggle". Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design.

No, he didn't. He wrote it as an overview of the clash of cultures.

And there is no "growing evidence that supports intelligent design". There is a growing volume of false ID propaganda which is dishonestly claimed to be "growing evidence" by its proponents. I've been following the "ID" movement since day one, and examined the so-called evidence they've proferred. It's PR, not evidence.

Here is and excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book, "My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."

That's nice and all, but Ruse is not a scientist, and as he makes entirely clear in the introduction of his book (you *have* actually read it, I hope), he's not addressing the actual state of the *science* here, he's addressing the "culture clash". The *clash* in his view is due mostly to those with opposing worldviews, *not* a clash over the science itself. He makes this clear in the introduction when he makes a distinction between "evolution" (the science) and "evolutionism" (a metaphysical worldview which incorporates parts of evolution). In the intro, he writes, "At the most basic level, the clash is between those who push some form of evolutionism and those who push some form of creaitonism -- a clash between two rival metaphysical world pictures."

Could you please explain why you misrepresented his actual view by presenting the passage from page 253 out of context?

And could you also please explain why you mispresented this passage as a statement about the validity of the *science* of evolutionary biology, when it most certainly was NOT?

Let me say that I totally agree with Mr Ruse on his analogy, this is a battle between two religions.

Even if that were the case -- if the culture clash over evolution was based on metaphysical worldviews and not in large part also a battle between those who feel it is very imporant that valid science not be dishonestly maligned by those who wish to shout it down out of a misplaced belief that it's a threat to their religion -- that still wouldn't magically turn his comment into any kind of statement on the validity of the science, since that's NOT the topic he was addressing.

So again, please explain why you misrepresented this passage as what Ruse has to say about "this so called theory that is scientifically provable" when that's not what he was saying?

But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we?

How about: ". . . the Creationists fail entirely to make their case. Their arguments are rotten, through and through." (Darwinism Defended, p. 321). How about: "[Interview question:] Is it appropriate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in biology class? [Ruse's answer:] I do not think it appropriate to teach non-science in a biology class – especially non-science that is really a form of literalist Christianity in disguise. Even if it were appropriate, I would not want the kind of conservative evangelical religion taught, that I think ID represents." (Paul Comstock inverview with Ruse, April 2007). How about: "[describing his court testimony:] Technically speaking, they were just trying to show that creation science is not science. So my job as a philosopher was to testify as to the nature of science and the nature of religion, and show that evolution is science, and creation science is religion." (Interview in March/April 2009 issue of "The Believer").

Gee, it turns out that Ruse really does consider evolution to be valid science, and creation science and "ID" to be not science. How about that?

301 posted on 04/04/2009 9:55:54 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Wonder who the evo's will blame for their deception come judgment day? Darwin? their professors? In any case, it won't matter - it will be too late.

I pray we can turn some heads back towards God before it is to late for them. However you are so correct that it will be too late then,"

Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (Romans 14:11)"
302 posted on 04/04/2009 9:59:37 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I thought you didn't rejoin FR to fight the crevo wars again.


What happened to your promise to not belittle, demean or insult your fellow FReepers on a thread?


303 posted on 04/04/2009 10:04:20 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; OneVike
“But since you like Ruse as some kind of authority, let's check out some of his *other* comments which more directly bear on whether he considers evolutionary biology credible or anti-evolution positions to be an improvement, shall we?” [excerpt]
You like Michael Ruse?
‘Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.’ —Michael Ruse [link]

304 posted on 04/04/2009 10:13:42 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
Your cute but show me in my replies where I called anyone an idiot like I was

You might want to reword your above comment. You want me to show you where you called someone an idiot like you are? I don't remember reading the word idiot until now. I don't use my time on childish things.
305 posted on 04/04/2009 10:15:39 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

don’t want to reword anything, don’t want to show you anything. If your interested in what post called names first, check it out yourself...don’t even want to hear from you again...wouldn’t want you to waste time being childish.. :O)


306 posted on 04/04/2009 10:40:52 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Tell me what part of Evolution created a Lamborghini.. I'd say some form of Intelligent Design created it.
307 posted on 04/04/2009 10:43:26 PM PDT by divine_moment_of_facts ("Hey Liberals.. We don't lower our standards, so up yours!" - Andrew Wilkow show)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
You like Michael Ruse?

Not really. You're mistaking me for OneVike.

Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works. The same goes for lawyers.

308 posted on 04/04/2009 11:16:55 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts; freedumb2003
Tell me what part of Evolution created a Lamborghini..

Since Lamborhinis don't reproduce, don't pass on heritable variations, and aren't acted upon by selection, it's pretty safe to say that Lamborghinis, unlike living things, didn't get here via evolution, because those are the processes which need to be present for evolution to occur.

I'd say some form of Intelligent Design created it.

In the case of the Lamborghini, you'd be right. In the case of living things, you'd be wrong if you said that they haven't evolved.

Don't compare typewriters and oranges in inappropriate ways. There are a large number of very significant differences between wristwatches and oak trees.

309 posted on 04/04/2009 11:22:09 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
“You're mistaking me for OneVike.” [excerpt]
No.

“Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works.” [excerpt]
Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?
310 posted on 04/04/2009 11:25:30 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Interesting how you are so quick to jump on Ruse. It is your guys who put him out there as the defender of your faith. So now you want to go against the myriad of credentialed evolutionists who count on his expertise for their support.

They pay him big bucks to debate creationists and to give speeches at universities across this country. Am I now to believe he is disqualified to speak what he thinks of evolution?

You better tell that to the University of Florida who pays him big bucks to help convince the students evolution is more substantially supported then creationism.

I mean he is out there being quoted by all the media and university brochures and an expert against all the men in my article that started this thread.

Even the Arkansas Supreme court overruled a law put in place to teach creationism in schools based upon his testimony in their court. Are you better then the Arkansas Supreme Court?

Quick, call all these places to start with.
call Florida State university
call Harvard university;
call the University of Guelph, Ontario Canada;
call the Arkansas Supreme Court;
call the University of Sydney Australia
call Richard Dawkins (close friend and fellow debater)

Everyone of these places and including Mr. Dawkins have crowned Mr Ruse as one of the Kingpins of the evolution/Creationism debate. Mr. Dawkis regularly calls him a scientist of reputable fame. Am I to believe yo over all the people from all these places? I ran out of time or I am sure I could have found even more people much more, should we say, reputable than you are.

Better watch your self, these guys have egos, and they do not like being told their opinion sucks!

Now, I'll let you slide because you just want to win a debate here. But I don't think you really know what you are talking about when you discredit your own biggest supporter of evolution there is out there.

But you are smarter than these guys right?

Yeah right!
311 posted on 04/04/2009 11:32:43 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
No I do not like him. I used him as an example of how one of their icons think evolution is a religion. Read my post #291 and you will see in what context I used him to make my point that evolution is a religion and it is so stated by Mr, Ruse in his book.
312 posted on 04/04/2009 11:38:46 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
“No I do not like him. I used him as an example of how one of their icons think evolution is a religion.” [excerpt]

I don't like him either.

He is a useful idiot though.
313 posted on 04/04/2009 11:44:30 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
So you do think Mr. Ruse is qualified to speak for evolution. Make up your mind, either he is worthy of quoting or he is not. However, I will post his quote again. I have to set it up again for the new lurkers, you understand, right?

Mr Ruse wrote his book as a defense against the growing evidence that supports intelligent design. Here is an excerpt from what he wrote on page 287 of his book "The Evolution Creation Struggle",

"My area of expertise is the clash between evolutionists and creationists, and my analysis is that we have no simple clash between science and religion, but rather a clash between two religions."

No need to thank me though.
314 posted on 04/04/2009 11:48:20 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
He is a useful idiot though.

So true, so true.

I like to hold out on his quote out until real late in the debate when they get tired. Then I spring it upon them. It works every time. They try to dismiss him, but then they have to dismiss everyone who likes to use him for debating purposes, including his close friend and Dawkins.
315 posted on 04/04/2009 11:55:42 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
“… including his close friend and Dawkins.” [excerpt]
Dawkins. (Another useful idiot)


The truth of the matter is, Evolutionists & Friends do not make scientific discoveries.

They only propose conventions, which have a tendency to turn into dogmas. (Al Gore & James Hansen anyone?)

316 posted on 04/05/2009 12:31:12 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; Fichori
Interesting how you are so quick to jump on Ruse. It is your guys who put him out there as the defender of your faith. So now you want to go against the myriad of credentialed evolutionists who count on his expertise for their support. They pay him big bucks to debate creationists and to give speeches at universities across this country. Am I now to believe he is disqualified to speak what he thinks of evolution? You better tell that to the University of Florida who pays him big bucks to help convince the students evolution is more substantially supported then creationism. I mean he is out there being quoted by all the media and university brochures and an expert against all the men in my article that started this thread. Even the Arkansas Supreme court overruled a law put in place to teach creationism in schools based upon his testimony in their court. Are you better then the Arkansas Supreme Court? Quick, call all these places to start with. call Florida State university call Harvard university; call the University of Guelph, Ontario Canada; call the Arkansas Supreme Court; call the University of Sydney Australia call Richard Dawkins (close friend and fellow debater) Everyone of these places and including Mr. Dawkins have crowned Mr Ruse as one of the Kingpins of the evolution/Creationism debate. Mr. Dawkis regularly calls him a scientist of reputable fame. Am I to believe yo over all the people from all these places? I ran out of time or I am sure I could have found even more people much more, should we say, reputable than you are. Better watch your self, these guys have egos, and they do not like being told their opinion sucks! Now, I'll let you slide because you just want to win a debate here. But I don't think you really know what you are talking about when you discredit your own biggest supporter of evolution there is out there. But you are smarter than these guys right? Yeah right!

Wow, that's pathetic. I pointed out that you had misrepresented what Ruse had said, and I asked you to explain why you had done that, and now the best you can do is to falsely accusing me of "jumping on Ruse" and falsely accusing me of claiming to be smarter/better than a bunch of people, instead of explaining yourself.

Then in a subsequent post you just repeat the quote you had misused inappropriately, beat your chest about how effectively you smack people with it, then declared some kind of weird victory.

I don't know how people score debates on Planet Anti-Evo, but that's not how mature adults discuss issues. Not honorable ones, anyway.

An honorable person would actually deal directly with the fact that I had caught them misrepsenting Ruse's comment, misstating his position, and misusing a quote out of context. They wouldn't pretend not to have read what I said and then gone off on a big goofy rant about things I haven't said while they pretended I had.

Look, if you can't bring yourself to deal with what I actually wrote, just don't respond and pretend you got busy with something else -- don't make a fool of yourself by posting desperate nonsense like what you just posted.

I had previously mistaken you for someone who honestly wanted to discuss the issue. I won't make that mistake again. I've met a few intellectually honest anti-evolutionists in the past thirty five years I've been investigating and discussing this subject, but not many, and sadly most of them are like you -- never showing the slightest embarassment when caught misrepresenting something, never admitting fault even when caught clearly red-handed, and brashly repeating the misrepresentations without shame at the next available opportunity.

I'm sure it's a lot easier to "debate" something if you don't give a fig for accuracy or honesty, and have no shame in making false accusations and pretending that you didn't see where people have identified your inaccuracies and asked you to justify your behavior. Just keep obstinately repeating the misrepresentations until everyone gets tired of the futility of it and gives up challenging you -- it's the anti-evos' favorite tactic.

I just don't understand how they can face themselves in the mirror, or ludicrously claim the high road as the bastions of truth and righteousness... No deity I can conceive of would actually approve of such behavior.

317 posted on 04/05/2009 12:34:28 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Will you be answering my question in 310 re Popper?


318 posted on 04/05/2009 12:49:56 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; OneVike
The truth of the matter is, Evolutionists & Friends do not make scientific discoveries.

Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published?

Start here for example, just one journal out of thousands: The Journal of Molecular Evolution

You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren.

319 posted on 04/05/2009 1:04:14 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
“Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published?” [excerpt]
Well, if they are using a naturalistic methodology, then the resulting discoveries are nothing more than proposed conventions.

“You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren.” [excerpt]
So, are you going to answer my question about Popper?
320 posted on 04/05/2009 1:20:27 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
[“Through long experience, I tend not to find the ruminations of philosophers very reliable when it comes to how science actually works.”]

Was Karl Popper one of these philosophers who was vary unreliable in regards to how science actually works?

Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself? Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter. Not very honest of them, is it?

Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.

So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in), nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.

So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel. If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic. Read this if you're still unclear on the concept: Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution. "Argument from authority" is still a logical fallacy.

Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.

321 posted on 04/05/2009 1:25:46 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
“Which Karl Popper? The early Karl Popper, or the late Karl Popper who came to realize that he had made some mistakes on the subject and revised himself?” [excerpt]
Ah yes, you must be referring to his statement that Darwinism was not testable.

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.[13] In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.[14] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[15]

[link]

Definitively a hot button subject.

“Anti-evolutionists love to quote-mine the former and not the latter.” [excerpt]
I do find it interesting how the lines between the former and the latter are blurred.

“Popper's later works are reasonably good, but even those get misleadingly misrepresented by anti-Evolutionists -- once they latch on to someone, they get stuck in a rut.” [excerpt]
Perhaps its because Popper's works were so damaging to these sudo-sciences?

“So yes, Popper's later comments on the topic are generally good, but that doesn't mean that I think he gets everything exactly right (few non-scientists manage to do that, something is usually lost in translation when being an outsider-looking-in),” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Well, Darwin was no scientist, he was just a med school dropout turned theologian.

“nor should I be expected/required to agree to any particular anti-evolutionist's Popper quote yanked and presented in isolation, nor whatever spin the anti-evolutionist attempts to put on it.” [excerpt]
I don't expect you to agree with something that you disagree with.

“So to head off what is bound to be your next post, don't bother quote-mining Popper (or anyone else) for me. Popper isn't gospel.” [excerpt]
Sounds like you don't like Popper.

“If you have a point you want to make, attempt to put it in your own words and we'll see if it holds water. I care about facts, evidence, and valid arguments, not something that a so-called authority might have announced when he was feeling pedantic.” [excerpt]
Facts?

Or conventions.

“Read this if you're still unclear on the concept:” [excerpt]
I learn about science from talkorigins like I learn about Capitalism from a Communist.

“Science really isn't religion -- its validity doesn't depend upon "and so it is written" nor the pronouncement of some apostle.” [excerpt]
Correct, science is not a religion.

Naturalism on the other hand, is.
322 posted on 04/05/2009 2:01:21 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Don't compare typewriters and oranges in inappropriate ways.

Suit yourself.. Intelligent Design is all around you. It's as simple as that.
323 posted on 04/05/2009 8:02:15 AM PDT by divine_moment_of_facts ("Hey Liberals.. We don't lower our standards, so up yours!" - Andrew Wilkow show)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: metmom

>>Geez, fd, you know better than to equate Christianity and creationism with islam.

I had abandoned this thread, but let me address your post. Perhaps I wasn’t clear (God knows that has happened). I am not equating islam with Christianity — I am equating the result of anti-scientific theology with the OUTCOME which we see today in islam, which started the same way.

Have a blessed day.


324 posted on 04/05/2009 12:36:19 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

“No it hasn’t, there has been futile attempts to debunk the proof of dinosaurs being around when men where but never have they done more then write a paper with their opinion. An opinion of a drawing is just that, an opinion.”

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the people who want to teach science to your kids. Thank God their peculiar microcosm of creation rationalism is confined to otherwise fine home school environments.

Evolution (and the the existence of a very old earth) is perfectly compatible with Christianity.


325 posted on 04/05/2009 7:02:44 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; OneVike
[[The truth of the matter is, Evolutionists & Friends do not make scientific discoveries.]]

[Gee, really? Then what are those hundreds of journal articles I read every year in the field of evolutionary biology, which are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast numbers which are published?]

Well, if they are using a naturalistic methodology, then the resulting discoveries are nothing more than proposed conventions.

Wow, Fich -- that attempt to re-define words on the fly in order to avoid admitting you told a whopper is even more desperate and transparent than Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...

You claimed that evolutionists "do not make scientific discoveries".

I pointed out how ludicrous this is -- there are thousands of such scientific discoveries, large and small, as anyone who has ever cracked a biology journal (or even read pop-sci coverage) is fully aware of.

When called on your transparently false claim, you did what anti-evolutionists typically do -- you failed to admit that you had made a false claim, you failed to show any kind of chagrin whatsoever at being caught telling a big giant whopper, and instead you just attempt to redefine reality into some alternate universe where what you said was somehow not wrong after all.

You goofily tried to redefine "scientific discovery" in a way that made them not "discoveries", but "proposed conventions", whatever in the hell *that* might mean on Planet Fichori... In your own private little universe, discoveries simply aren't actually discoveries, and thus you think you can get away with saying that evolutionists don't make discoveries, they just make things that *look* like discoveries but are something else, so there...

Oh, come ON!

Evolutionists do make scientific discoveries, Fich. You know they do. Just admit it, and admit that you got caught telling a big fat untruth when you said they didn't, and that you were being silly when you tried to re-define simple terms to magically make your initial falsehood somehow "true".

Remember, kids, this is the kind of double-speak, the kind of "words mean whatever I want them to mean if it helps me avoid having to admit anything", that anti-Evos want to confuse schoolchildren with in order to try to tear down actual science (yes, Viriginia, that includes evolutionary biology) and raise doubts about, while pushing their own non-scientific agendas masquerading as "science" when it isn't.

Fich, if you're done playing your silly "discoveries aren't discoveries" word games, it's time to go ahead and admit that you told a whopper, retract it, and apologize for wasting out time with blatant falsehoods.

If on the other hand you want to bluff and bluster on and pretend that you didn't get caught red-handed telling a big old fib in the service of your anti-evolution propaganda, be my guest, it only makes clear to all astute lurkers just how little concern you guys have for truth and accuracy.

But don't expect it to help your credibility any, and don't expect me to waste much time talking with you -- the dodging and weaving and gameplaying gets really old really fast. I prefer to discuss and debate issues with people who actually have things of value to add to the conversation.

[“You guys amaze me -- you have no shame when you tell such enormous, transparently false whoppers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so creepy, and if you weren't trying like hell to get this know-nothing nonsense taught to schoolchildren.”]

So, are you going to answer my question about Popper?

I have -- so are you going to respond to my amazement at your blatent misrepresentation? Or are you going to continue to pretend that such behavior is unremarkable for anti-evos, just business as usual?

326 posted on 04/05/2009 9:29:22 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; OneVike; Nathan Zachary; metmom
“Wow, Fich -- that attempt to re-define words on the fly in order to avoid admitting you told a whopper is even more desperate and transparent than Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"...” [excerpt]
Quit sounding like you've been throughly pwned.

“You claimed that evolutionists "do not make scientific discoveries".” [excerpt]
Evolutionists, or anyone using a naturalistic methodology, do not discover scientific facts, they only propose conventions.

“I pointed out how ludicrous this is -- there are thousands of such scientific discoveries, large and small, as anyone who has ever cracked a biology journal (or even read pop-sci coverage) is fully aware of.” [excerpt]
These ‘discoveries’ are nothing more than conventions that have turned into dogmas.

“When called on your transparently false claim, you did what anti-evolutionists typically do -- you failed to admit that you had made a false claim,” [excerpt]
Why would I when I haven't?

“You goofily tried to redefine "scientific discovery" in a way that made them not "discoveries", but "proposed conventions",” [excerpt]
Uh, no.

In methodological naturalism, there are no scientific discoveries of fact, only proposed conventions.

“whatever in the hell *that* might mean on Planet Fichori...” [excerpt]
Easy ol' boy, you don't want to blow a fuse.

“Oh, come ON!” [excerpt]
LOL!

“Evolutionists do make scientific discoveries, Fich.” [excerpt]
Only if they are not using a naturalistic methodology.

“Just admit it, and admit that you got caught telling a big fat untruth when you said they didn't, and that you were being silly when you tried to re-define simple terms to magically make your initial falsehood somehow "true".” [excerpt]
I don't break for bullies.

“Fich, if you're done playing your silly "discoveries aren't discoveries" word games, it's time to go ahead and admit that you told a whopper, retract it, and apologize for wasting out time with blatant falsehoods.” [excerpt]
I have no statements I wish to retract at this point, and I certainly will not be apologizing for, as you put it, wasting out time.

In a naturalistic methodology, you do not discover facts, you only propose conventions.

Sorry if that makes you queasy.

“But don't expect it to help your credibility any, and don't expect me to waste much time talking with you -- the dodging and weaving and gameplaying gets really old really fast. I prefer to discuss and debate issues with people who actually have things of value to add to the conversation.” [excerpt]
I'm so devastated! *pout*

“I have -- so are you going to respond to my amazement at your blatent misrepresentation?” [excerpt]
I have — You have only misrepresented what I've said.


Nice job stomping on the flaming paper bag ;-)
327 posted on 04/05/2009 10:06:13 PM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

>>It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1<<

I’m coming late to the party but I’m guessing the majority of Americans understand that the sun is older than the earth and that other parts of the universe are older still.


328 posted on 04/06/2009 1:25:30 AM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Nice job stomping on the flaming paper bag ;-)

That looks like an admission you put it there, and set fire to it.

329 posted on 04/06/2009 5:24:05 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Are you kidding? Some people DEFINE THEMSELVES on there being a difference. They won’t stop until all of scientific progress ceases and bows its collective head to Biblical teachings. You know, like islam.

***************

Christians and Muslims are alike? Do you really mean to say this?

330 posted on 04/06/2009 7:02:46 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trisham

fervently religious people are alike in many ways, the system matters not. one analogy would be young filipino men flagellating themselves with steel barbs attached to leather strips to commemorate the passion of the christ, and the day of ashura a shiite muslim holy day where young shiite men do the same while honoring the martyrdom of ali.


331 posted on 04/06/2009 7:12:57 AM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: trisham

1 Cor 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

We shouldn’t expect the atheist to see the truth, and we should expect him to see all religions as the same.


332 posted on 04/06/2009 7:16:13 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer
And the Christian equivalent of flying airplanes into buildings? How about the Christian equivalent of beheading ones “enemies”?
333 posted on 04/06/2009 7:17:26 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: MrB
We shouldn’t expect the atheist to see the truth, and we should expect him to see all religions as the same.

***************

Good point, MrB.

334 posted on 04/06/2009 7:18:34 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: trisham

are you offended by the thought that christianity and islam have much in common?


335 posted on 04/06/2009 7:21:09 AM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer
are you offended by the thought that christianity and islam have much in common?

**********************

I guess you can't answer my questions. No problem. I didn't expect that you could.

336 posted on 04/06/2009 7:24:56 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: MrB; freedumb2003

“We shouldn’t expect the atheist to see the truth, and we should expect him to see all religions as the same.”

I smell a Christian litmus test!


337 posted on 04/06/2009 8:38:50 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

We sure have one around our house...

“As for me an my house, we will serve the Lord”


338 posted on 04/06/2009 8:59:14 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: MrB

How does denial of scientific evidence solely to retain the literal inerrancy of the bible serve the Lord?


339 posted on 04/06/2009 9:10:59 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

When the world’s INTERPRETATION of the evidence is in conflict with the Bible, I’m not going with the viewpoint that changes so frequently.

I’m staying with that which I know to be constant and consistent.

I know that biblical inerrancy is nonsense to you, so why bother bothering me with your sniping?


340 posted on 04/06/2009 9:18:35 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“That looks like an admission you put it there, and set fire to it.”
When I see an Evo desperately searching for a flaming paper bag to stomp, I do my best to facilitate them.
341 posted on 04/06/2009 10:10:27 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: MrB

You responded to my post, so I am surprised that you refer to my response thereto as “sniping”.

Since we’re engaged, may I expect a response to the question, that is, how does adherence to literal inerrancy of the bible serve the Lord? Consider two different people of equal piety and service. If one does not hold to literal inerrancy, does that person serve the Lord less effectively than the one who does?


342 posted on 04/06/2009 10:13:05 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
When I see an Evo desperately searching for a flaming paper bag to stomp, I do my best to facilitate them.

Did you ever see one that wasn't?

343 posted on 04/06/2009 10:28:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Did you ever see one that wasn't?”
Yes.

344 posted on 04/06/2009 10:43:05 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

Really? Just one, or more than that?


345 posted on 04/06/2009 10:48:03 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
All the evidence we have for the age of the universe is tied directly to their theory of the earth's age.

Fact-free statement.

The age of the earth comes from radiometric dating. The age of the universe is limited by the ages of the oldest main sequence stars and our limited understanding of the universe's expansion.

346 posted on 04/06/2009 10:51:28 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
Since He is eternal and doesn't change,

You are right that God's character doesn't change. However, His laws do at times (ex: Jews were required to sacrifice at the Temple...Christians are not).

There would have been no other way for Adams' sons to procreate except with their siblings. We are all descended from Adam and Eve. There were no other families around to marry with.

The Levitical laws were written thousands of years after Adam and Eve lived when the world was populated and there was no need to marry within the family. An example of how marrying one's sister was accepted back then: Sarah was Abrahams' half-sister (Abraham lived before the Levitical laws).

347 posted on 04/06/2009 11:26:46 AM PDT by Justice (Never trust a Russian. They are cheats and Liars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Justice

Hi Justice: Thank you for your well thought out and polite reply I just don’t know the answer and all we can do sometimes is try to fill in the blanks.. God Bless


348 posted on 04/06/2009 11:42:27 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: trisham

your questions are moot. i used examples of religious devotion that in most modern culture would seem as ‘extreme’ that have analogs in both christianity and islam.
terrorism is politics with religious overtones sometimes. the originators of the practice of suicide bombing were not religious zealots but are an ethnic minority.


349 posted on 04/06/2009 1:44:33 PM PDT by Nipplemancer (Abolish the DEA !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
Evolution (and the the existence of a very old earth) is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

I get very tired of re-posting my reasons why theistic evolution is incompatible with Christianity. You can go back and read what I wrote or not. Until another day, I don't care what you think right now.

Not being rude, I am just dealing with a severe allergic reaction to something and you of all people seemed to irritate me right now.
Have a nice day. Bye.
350 posted on 04/06/2009 6:38:36 PM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-389 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