Posted on 09/07/2009 10:41:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
When we hear arguments against the the Theory of Evolution from those of a religious mindset, it’s always the same half-baked sophistry, pop pseudoscience, and street corner theology. I demand, in the name of intellectual honesty, that those who disagree with the Theory of Evolution state once and for all that their objections are of a religious and aesthetic nature and have nothing to do with science.
As I’ve said before, if the logic of Evolution dictated that we where descended from cats, clean, pretty cats that smell good and have nice ways, then there would be far less objection to this idea. But since we’re descended from ugly, smelly apes that scratch themselves and masturbate in public, this bothers some people. There are numerous scientific theories that conflict with the Bible but don’t draw a peep, but this one really gets people’s goat.
I would also like to say that labeling Darwin’s theory as “Darwinism” is a tactic designed to make the theory out to be some kind of evil ideology like communism. It’s not an ideology any more than the Pythagorean Theorem is an ideology. It’s science, and it stands or falls on its own merit and has no moral imperative built into it whatsoever, except for what has been imputed to it by those with a theological ax to grind.
If you want to attack the Theory of Evolution because it conflicts with religion, maybe you should also try to prove the Book of Genesis with science. Neither one is possible. When you can prove scientifically that Adam was created from mud and Eve from his rib, then I’ll sit up and take notice.
Why not just stand up and say “I disagree with the Theory of Evolution because it’s against the Bible” and spare us all the phony baloney? That would at least be intellectually honest.
This is a fascinating post...the evos continually demand religion be excluded from science, but when their pet theory is exposed it’s blatantly obvious any and all criticisms are immediately taken to be religious attacks on science 100% of the time, even when no religion is involved.
They are simply incapable oif understanding it’s rejected because of flawed scientific arguments...I don’t even think it’s possible for FR closet liberals to understand this premise.
Thus the fraud of peer review etc.
I reject evolution for many reasons, and I’m capable of rejecting it solely on the basis of science alone, because it’s scientifically illogical!
This what Delurker posted in his comment #32 and what is represented in the first exchange in the posted article:
“You seem to be taking an awful lot for granted. How did nature become comprehensible?
That is not a question that is addressed by modern evolutionary theory. To the extent that nature is comprehensible, modern evolutionary theory predicts that alignment with reality will be selected for.”
Then, according to Delurkr’s own comment #32, a SECOND QUESTION WITH ANOTHER ANSWER:
“How did the mind develop the capacity to comprehend it?
That’s an interesting question. Biologists investigating the evolution of the human brain are attempting to answer it. Thus far the answer appears to be “incrementally.”
Delurker posts his answer to the one question. His answer seems to show how HE was interpreting the one question and not as you say:
“It's clear from the context that his first answer is *only* to “how did nature become comprehensible?”
Who separates what? It's not Arrington, who copies Delurker’s post #32 in the article.
Its Deluker that says “selects” and then “incrementally”.
Sorry, you found a nit to pick that doesn't exist, but who knows? Maybe one will show up.
You, my friend, are the inheritor of that system, whereas I am spiritual kin to Galileo and Kepler, who where victims of the church. The only difference now is that the church can't burn people any more, although the quire boys do have to watch their behinds.
Say, while you're worrying about creation, why don't you also try figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? That used to be an important religious question. Might still be for all I know.
While every other primitive creation story is high magical, it **amazes** me how much of Genesis is absolutely smack on right!
What I would like some evo to explain to me some day, is just how those allegedly ignorant sheepherders got so much of the creation account so right with the total lack of knowledge about the kind of things they'd need to know to figure it out in the first place.
Yes, there are some discrepancies between what Genesis says and what the current interpretation of modern science has to say about the evidence that has been investigated, but just HOW would those primatives have known any of that?
I can't believe that they just made it up. The chances of them just guessing that right would be astronomical. And if they did, their creation account would a lot more closely resemble the creation accounts in the rest of the world, instead of being so unique.
There are so many comments in the Bible about the world around us that the writers of the Bible had no way of knowing and no way of figuring out, that to blow them off as mythology is ludicrous. It's almost like they had to have someone tell them that stuff, or something.
See what I mean, Tpanther? Batrachian never argues the science because he’s a Temple of Darwin fanatic who is only interested in spreading Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth. And I can see why, because whenever they actually debate the science, they lose big time.
Really? Then you find living in a cave or grubbing in the dirt acceptable, as long as your notions of morality are adhered to? People who live like that can't afford such niceties as morality (although there's always time to propitiate the gods). Besides, morality and religion have very little to do with each other, as even a cursory understanding of history shows us.
Anyway, I'm not mocking the moral underpinning of a Judeo-Christian worldview. I'm mocking people who refuse to admit that their disbelief and enmity in a certain scientific theory is strictly religious in nature. Why don't they tell the truth instead of coming up with idiocies like Intelligent Design?
I admire his spunk and persistence, but the problem with these spam like posts is that GGG has no scientific or mathematical education or understanding. For him it is like trying to converse in a language he doesn’t speak.
Exactly!
If a person today were trying to explain the substance from which man were man, would a primitive people understand the concept of chemicals, atoms, and the period table. No! Using the expression “dust of the earth” would be about the best anyone could do.
If we wanted to explain the fundamental difference between man and woman would we talk about XX and XY chromosomes to a primitive people? Again, No! We might say a “rib” (XY) was taken from Adam’s side!
It is remarkable how much of the Bible account of creation is now found to be absolutely correct and in the order in which it did indeed happen.
Your projection is very revealing about how you feel about others who disagree with you. Sorry, we don't think like you do even if you think we do.
You, my friend, are the inheritor of that system, whereas I am spiritual kin to Galileo and Kepler, who where victims of the church.
What a martyr.....
Or these two verses....
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
That’s a pretty concise way of explaining the inception of the universe and the earth.
Of course, the ancients would not really understand the solar nebula theory and the proto-earth model. *Formless and void* is about the most concise way of describing it and remaining factual and accurate that I can think of. There’s a lot covered in those simple sentences that no one can demonstrate to be wrong.
And besides, what would be the point of going into more detail. Even if God did, if it didn’t mesh with the current scientific explanation, it would STILL be considered wrong, even though it wouldn’t be.
The only thing that the evos/atheists would accept as true from the Bible is if it fit with science as we know it now, never mind the limited scope of the knowledge we have.
And that is? You seem to love to sling half-arguments at ideas that you don't bother to detail.
As such, it is a faithbased religion that only seeks answers within its faithbased assumption.
Not that I agree with your "result", but which faith-based religions seek answers outside of their faith-based assumptions? LOL
I'm going to call your bluff on this one. I'll dust off my copy of Origin Of Species and you dust off yours. Then we can argue science all day long. That would be pleasant. Is it a deal?
One other point: I'm not interested in spreading anything, but only interested in refuting pseudo-scientific hogwash. I'm trying to get people to stop coating their religious beliefs, which I have no ideological objections to, in a ludicrous mantle of semi-scientific drivel.
I try to do the same with people who want to legalize drugs. They couch their arguments in constitutional terms when what they really want is to be able to consume drugs without being harassed by the cops. All well and good. It's a defensible point if only they'd admit it.
Your just jealous because your Temple of Darwin co-religionists routinely get destroyed on Free Republic. And do you know why that is, NL? It’s because the debate between Creation/ID and Evolution is not censored on FR. There was a time when evos dared to debate creation scientists in public, but those days are long gone because the evos (by their own admission) grew tired of being eaten for lunch by creationists. So the word went out, “use censorship”, “say you don’t want to legitimate their ideas”, “do anything you have to, just don’t debate them, because you’ll lose”!
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And...beautifully written as well.
Well how about we start with the fact that Darwin’s main prediction, his o-called “tree of life”, has been falsified. Has this cause you to doubt your evo-religion, or to increase your faith in the same?
FR is the last place I look for theological or scientific validation. Science is not about debate or the volume of posts and number of irrelevant citations. It isn't even about clever quips. If you had ever participated in actual research you might understand, but I am more convinced than ever that that is a language you don't speak.
You misunderstood me. It’s a fact that the evo-atheists who misuse their science credentials to push their Temple of Darwin religion routinely get destroyed by creation scientists on any forum, FR or otherwise, as the evos themselves have admitted. You’re just pissed the debate is not censored here...that is what has got your labcoat all in a twist.
Morals are what separates us from animals, not the ability to use tools.
Animals can use tools but there’s nothing in an animal’s nature that gives it any reason not to eat its own young.
The problems we have in the world today are moral ones. While tools make life more comfortable, morals make it more civil.
Your earlier attacks on Christianity show otherwise. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone of anything different at this point.
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.