Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; communism; cultureofdeath; darwinism; deatheaters; eugenics; fascism; gagdadbob; lifehate; moralabsolutes; onecosmosblog; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 651-669 next last
To: GourmetDan; allmendream; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; ...
amd: "Because such supernatural means are capricious, unpredictable and non-replicable - such supposition will lead nowhere as far as further discovery and useful applications."

GD: Are you claiming that evolution is steady, predictable and replicable?

View Replies = "No replies."

Dan, let me know if and when you ever get one......


351 posted on 02/25/2012 10:49:30 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Mudtiger; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; ...
amd post 288: “The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.”

mt: But neither does it hinder application and discovery, apparently. A lot of discoveries about the natural world, and applications from those discoveries, have been made by those who believe God created the world by miraculous means. Believing special, supernatural creation does not preclude discovery about the natural world — been going on for centuries. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

amd: It sure seems to hinder an understanding of biological processes, estimation of age of objects artifacts and species, and amazingly enough even acceptance that the Earth orbits the Sun.

In your dreams.....

Tell that to Newton who developed the scientific method based on the reasoning that since God was a God of order, He created an orderly universe which could be examined and investigated by systematic observations.

The claim that believing in a supernatural cause of the universe automatically precludes the use of the scientific method in investigating it, is totally bogus.

The universe is able to be studied by the scientific method because the method works, not because of how the universe got here.

352 posted on 02/25/2012 11:00:04 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; exDemMom; Quix

Thanks for answering that comment. That’s exactly what I was thinking.


353 posted on 02/25/2012 11:10:37 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; YHAOS; Quix; metmom; allmendream

“What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?”

Spirited: All of them hold in common two things.

First, their God-less naturalism and by extension, their lack of a source for life, consciousness, soul, and spirit. Six centuries before Jesus Christ Buddha already knew that if the living, transcendent Creator does not exist then there is no source for life.

In Psalm 30:3, David praises and thanks the Lord for bringing his “soul out of the grave,” meaning that without the living God Who is the only source of life and being, David was nothing. He was a walking dead men.

In freely rejecting the living God, Buddha, Hegel, Marx, Sanger, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler negated the source of their being, meaning that they freely chose to reduce themselves to nothing. They chose death instead of life. This being the case, God granted them their wish, meaning that henceforth all of them joined the ranks of the walking dead. They were the Walking Dead, and this is the second thing they held in common.


354 posted on 02/25/2012 11:12:05 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

THX


355 posted on 02/25/2012 11:17:43 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Fixed kinds = “a fox will always be a fox”. Strict Creationist. Even more strict than those who think a canine “kind” could give rise to foxes, dingos, coyotes and such.

He thought his race was created in “the Highest image of God”.

That was the lame attempt of the author to necklace the theory of evolution with Hitler. By Godwin’s law he loses in the first paragraph. Especially when Hitler believes in fixed kinds: “A fox will always be a fox.”.

There is no context where that isn’t a belief in fixed kinds. There is no context in which Hitler didn’t think his race was “the Highest image of God”.

Doesn’t speak well of Creationism that all they have is historic revisionist guilt by association.

Too bad that by pointing this out I got your goat. A goat that by Hitler’s creationist philosophy will ‘always be a goat’. ;)


356 posted on 02/25/2012 12:21:16 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I think it fair to repeat a question I've asked before (and for which no positive answer was forthcoming):

In the great advancements of science, of what importance was Darwinism to bringing these advancements about?

Advancements in understanding such as: Circulation of the blood, that nerves carried electrical impulses, atomic theory, development of antibiotics, metallurgy, electricity/magnetism,.....Anyone could add many more, but the point is that Darwinism has been a bust except as a motivation for the space program.

357 posted on 02/25/2012 1:55:12 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; GourmetDan; exDemMom; Mudtiger; spirited irish; GodGunsGuts; ...
"The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.”

So claims our brother allmendeam.

But I wonder: What could be more "miraculous" than a Universe that did not have a beginning in time and space? How can anything be anything without what the philosophers call a first cause? Even a pure mechanist could appreciate the idea of a first mover to set up the resultant chain reaction of successive causes down the line, a la billiard balls.

In my view, there is no "before" the Beginning; there is no "before" the Big Bang. The singularity may be viewed as instantiating the Logos of Genesis 1. Yet from the scientific standpoint, it is simply pointless to speculate about such things, since the human mind, and all its science, cannot ever go there to see.

I would just like to point out to my dear brother AMD that the Holy Scriptures actually tell us that there was a Beginning, a First Cause, Logos Alpha to Omega.

And that is why we have a "lawful" universe — an absolute prerequisite to any kind of rational thinking at all — scientific, philosophical, theological, religious. FWIW.

Thanks ever so much for writing dear sister in Christ!

358 posted on 02/25/2012 2:46:50 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; allmendream; metmom
The principle that evolution is a process of genetic change over time, and that those changes occur at a relatively steady rate.

Yes. We all know that doctrine is sacrosanct. It must not be doubted, let alone questioned.

The only problem is, the paleontological record does not lend a whole lot of support to the macroevolutionary aspects of Darwin's theory.

Even Richard Dawkins is aware of the problem of "missing" intermediate fossil forms.

...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertibrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987.]

If Darwin's theory is correct — that evolution is a process of gradualism, or as you say, a process of transformations occurring at "a relatively steady rate" — then where are the "missing fossils" in the run-up to the Cambrian Explosion, c. 500,000 B.C.?

I do not argue for Lamarck's theory either.

Thanks so much for writing, exDemMom, and for the valuable link!

359 posted on 02/25/2012 3:27:37 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

360 posted on 02/25/2012 8:37:39 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Zeroth law of thermodynamics aka the law of zero entropy. The zeroth law was the last one defined and was an obvious afterthought, has to do with reaching a theoretical absolute zero ~ never to be attained ~ and thus in the same realm as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Yet there's not any one website that defines it completely and correctly. per wiki... The zero point of any thermodynamic temperature scale, such as Kelvin or Rankine, is set at absolute zero. By international agreement, absolute zero is defined as 0K on the Kelvin scale and as −273.15° on the Celsius scale. This equates to −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale and 0 R on the Rankine scale. Scientists have achieved temperatures very close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity. per innovateus.net... Thermodynamics can be broken down into 4 laws. They are as follows. Zeroth law of Thermodynamics: Even though the zeroth law is added to the laws of thermodynamics after the 3 laws, it is usually discussed first. The law states, “Two systems each in thermal equilibrium with a third system are in thermal equilibrium to each other”. In other words, if 2 systems are in the same temperature as in the third system, then all 3 are in the same temperatures. First law of thermodynamics: The law states, “The change in the energy of a system is the amount of energy added to the system minus the energy spent doing work”. It means the total energy of a system remains a constant, even if it is converted from one form to another. For instance, the kinetic energy which is the energy that an object possesses when it moves is converted to heat energy when a driver presses the brakes on the car to slow down. There are often many phrases that are catchy to help people remember this law like, “Work is heat, and heat is work”. Basically, work and heat are equal. Second law of thermodynamics: This law states, “It is impossible for a process to have as its sole result the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter one”. It is one of the most basic laws in science. If we put this in simple words, it says that heat could not flow to a system at a higher temperature from a system at a lower temperature by its own violation. For such an action, work must be done. If an ice cube is place in a cup of warm water, the ice cube melts as the heat from the water flows into it. The end result would be a cup of water that is slightly cooler. Ice cubes can only form if energy is used. Third law of thermodynamics: This law states that, “It is impossible to reduce any system to absolute zero in a finite series of operations”. This means that a perfectly efficient heat engine cannot be created. The change in entropy (measure of disorder) of a system when it converts from one form to another gets close to 0 as its temperature nears 0 on the Kelvin scale. Zero on the Kelvin scale is absolute lower limit to temperature - when atoms and molecules have the least possible energy. Entropy is defined as the availability of a system’s energy to do work. So, it follows that there is an absolute scale of entropy. As a result, no real system can ever reach 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale.
361 posted on 02/25/2012 8:42:15 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Zeroth law of thermodynamics aka the law of zero entropy.

The zeroth law was the last one defined and was an obvious afterthought, has to do with reaching a theoretical absolute zero ~ never to be attained ~ and thus in the same realm as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Yet there’s not any one website that defines it completely and correctly ~ nor one that won’t mess up my formatting.


362 posted on 02/25/2012 8:48:25 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Very well put Betty Boop!


363 posted on 02/25/2012 8:59:45 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; allmendream; metmom; wagglebee; GourmetDan; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl

In fact so well put in 358 and 359 that you rendered amd speechless - first time I’ve ever seen that one...


364 posted on 02/25/2012 9:03:39 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
I always heard of it as the Third Law.

One wag paraphrased the laws of thermo as:

1) You can't win

2) You can't even break even

3) You can't get out of the game (cannot reach absolute zero in a finite number of steps)

Must be a generational thing.

Cheers!

365 posted on 02/25/2012 9:04:36 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
In freely rejecting the living God, Buddha, Hegel, Marx, Sanger, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler negated the source of their being, meaning that they freely chose to reduce themselves to nothing. They chose death instead of life. This being the case, God granted them their wish, meaning that henceforth all of them joined the ranks of the walking dead. They were the Walking Dead, and this is the second thing they held in common.

And they probably considered themselves brilliant for their choice. Jeepers...

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

366 posted on 02/25/2012 10:00:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I would just like to point out to my dear brother AMD that the Holy Scriptures actually tell us that there was a Beginning, a First Cause, Logos Alpha to Omega.

And that is why we have a "lawful" universe — an absolute prerequisite to any kind of rational thinking at all — scientific, philosophical, theological, religious. FWIW.

So very true. Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

367 posted on 02/25/2012 10:02:40 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; BrandtMichaels; metmom
I'm so glad you raised the Cambrian Explosion, dearest sister in Christ!

To your remarks, I'd like to add Dr. Gerald Schroeder's article on Evolution: Rationality v Randomness which includes this comment:

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.

It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992). It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the data presented by the fossil record and by the discoveries of molecular biology.


368 posted on 02/25/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

And they probably considered themselves brilliant for their choice. Jeepers...

Spirited: No doubt. But of course they are not in control, as they foolishly believe. For neither are our minds (spirits) nor the ideas that occur to our minds things that we can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. They are of the unseen dimension. Thus saith the Lord:

“This wicked people have refused to hear my word....Behold, I will fill them....with madness.” (Jeremiah 13:10, 13

And so——fools (in their madness) say in their hearts, there is no God.


369 posted on 02/26/2012 2:02:37 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: metmom

His last statement there, that you quoted, is so obviously “begging the question” that I question his self-claimed sense of intellect.

Oh, and as for “if you assume a supernatural event at ANY point in history, then you can’t do science argument”...

Well, either you have to totally repudiate even the CONCEPT of a Creator, or there was a “supernatural event” at some point. The very fact that you CAN predict using laws of science and universal constants and the assumption of uniformity is proof that this universe was not accidental and had a Creator, ie, a “supernatural event” occurred.


370 posted on 02/26/2012 4:43:48 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I answered that one in the other reply.

Either “supernatural means” were used at some point,
or there is no Creator, and you have totally undermined the foundation of Christianity, because, to Whom are you accountable if there is no Creator?

So, whether that supernatural even occurred at the supposed “Big Bang”, slightly before, or during the 6 days of creation, followed by “non-interference” afterwards, it matters not in the ability of prediction, discovery, and useful predictions.

I’ve ready about non-Christian cultures and their attempts at science. The basis of modern science assumes orderliness and predictability, which is exactly the Biblical description of the post-Creation universe.


371 posted on 02/26/2012 4:49:00 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.


372 posted on 02/26/2012 5:37:35 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
A brief comment for now, will enter the fray again later today, wife willing.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that sets scientists apart from other people as far as beliefs, lifestyles, etc., is that we chose science for a career instead of something else, like accounting or firefighting.

Intellectual pride sets them apart as well. The closest thing to an intellectually humble scientist I have ever seen (and surely they broke the mold when they made him) was Richard Feynman.

Cheers!

373 posted on 02/26/2012 5:46:23 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I edited/rewrote major sections of English journal articles for Taiwan’s top geologist for years.

I’m extensively aware of the process in my field of psychology. So much so that I somewhat rebelled against the process and never bothered with it.

Thankfully, my Dissertation Chairman was even more sharply attuned to such absurd things than I. And he once presented . . . I forget . . . somewhere between 8-11 papers—I think it was 11—at the same American Psychological Association convention. No slouch, for sure.

Yes, I have read well over a thousand peer reviewed journal articles. Possibly over 3,000 . . . probably not more than 5,000. I’ve taught at the university level for more than 30 years.

Your assumptions about my level of awareness of the problem appear to be greatly flawed.


374 posted on 02/26/2012 5:50:07 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
'Credibility' is simply the generally-accepted opinion of the group. The whole peer-review process is nothing more than one big appeal to the popular opinion of philosophical naturalists. No one with a shred of critical-thinking skills would be surprised that the conclusions beg the question of philosophical naturalism.

I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem, and the doctor proposes a treatment that was first described in the peer-review literature (such as antibiotics for bacterial infection), do you reject that treatment? Would you be more accepting of a treatment you first read about in some free new-age publication you found lying about someplace?

If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs, are the certifications hanging on the wall a signal for you to walk out? Do you instead look for someone who has some tools and talks big about being better at car repair than any certified mechanic?

If you need to have your taxes done, does seeing that the accountant is a CPA make you turn around and walk out that door? Do you instead seek out some high school math whiz, because, after all, quality-control mechanisms really are nothing more than gate-keepers meant to keep out people who really know what they're talking about?

BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion.

375 posted on 02/26/2012 5:50:27 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

In terms of my posting style re fonts etc . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2347476/posts

In terms of the rest of that paragraph, I sometimes reply in the language &/or tone of the poster I’m replying to.


376 posted on 02/26/2012 5:55:10 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"The model that it all happened miraculously is absolutely useless in terms of application and further discovery about the natural world.”

So claims our brother allmendeam.

I tend to agree with allmendream on this. From a working scientific viewpoint, metaphysical considerations really are irrelevant. Many people are familiar with the chemical process of cake baking. First, all the reagents are mixed together. Next, they are subjected to high heat that drives the chemical reactions. This process works equally well for Christians of any denomination, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, atheists, or anyone adhering to any other faith. As a scientist, the recipes I mix usually fit into a space smaller than a drop of water, but are equally unaffected by religious faith or considerations.

As a scientist, I am perfectly happy to let people who feel compelled to consider metaphysical matters do so. I'm fairly certain that whatever experiments I do in my test tubes or on my computer are equally non-relevant to their work.

377 posted on 02/26/2012 6:05:11 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Quix
Projection by ad hominem placemarker.

First recorded "slow motion" snapback placemarker.

Let's examine your post in more detail.

I suppose your extensive knowledge of the quality of scientific journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process comes from having read thousands of scientific articles published in dozens or hundreds of peer-review journals, and from having participated extensively in the peer-review process, either as an author or a reviewer?

ad hominem. One can be aware of controversies within a particular field, and the personality conflicts which simmer beneath the surface, contaminating the supposedly pristine peer review process, by reading on various blogs; by reading news stories on scientific fraud; or by listening to friends and co-workers who have been involved in the whole shebang, without any requirement that one has been involved in the process.

The problem is more subtle than you suggest however, on the principle that "he who is closest to a problem has the greatest likelihood to know all about it, but also the greatest temptation to hide his own personal interests in it."

Those who practice science, whose livelihood depends on it, and whose career, professional pride, professional standing, and self-esteem are all wrapped up in it, are likely going to be the ones least likely to own up to cracks in the edifice; least of all to philistines who aren't capable of understanding anyway.

Or are those just talking points you found in some “creation science” blog-screed floating around the internet?

Nice use of the 'heads I win, tails you lose' : when evos here cite arguments lifted straight from atheist talking points, they are allowed to hide behind "SCIENCE": but when people attack the actual practice of science as compared to the PR, they must be derided has having merely copied by rote from creationist sites.

Again, it need not hold, it does not follow.

It is instructive that such an accusation is the first thing you fly to.

If you bother to look, you can find postings by avowed (contradiction in terms) atheists talking about partisanship within science, and politics openly interjecting itself into science -- at the hand of DEM Congresscritters. (No fundies involved.)

P.S. Using various sizes and types of font in different colors doesn’t make a weak, baseless argument into a strong one. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you have nothing substantive to say. Likewise with personal attacks and insults to people’s intelligence.

Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Once again, Dilbert to the rescue:

Cheers!

378 posted on 02/26/2012 6:16:50 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Intellectual pride sets them apart as well. The closest thing to an intellectually humble scientist I have ever seen (and surely they broke the mold when they made him) was Richard Feynman.

I think that is a matter of perception more than anything else. A scientist is always aware that the conclusions they make on the basis of their research can be overturned or shown to be wrong by someone who approaches the same topic from a different direction. As a result, our language tends to be uncertain--the scientific literature is full of probabilistic language "might, possibly, could, suggests".

It occurs to me that you might have made that judgment based on scientists popularized by the media (like Carl Sagan). If that is the case, then please keep in mind that they no more represent ordinary scientists than Joy Behar of The View represents ordinary women.

379 posted on 02/26/2012 6:35:31 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem..."

"If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs.."

"If you need to have your taxes done..."

The fact that the doctor can observe the effect of antibiotics on an infection does not mean that his opinion on the origin of bacteria is accurate. The fact that a mechanic can fix a problem does not mean that cars self-assemble for no reason at all. The fact that an accountant can calculate my tax bill does not mean that government spontaneously appeared out of nothing.

Typical bait-and-switch tactics used by committed philosophical naturalists are so predictable and so laughable that it's difficult to believe that an honest 'scientist' would even use them.

"BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion."

My, my you are a legend in your own mind, aren't you.

380 posted on 02/26/2012 6:39:07 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Photobucket

Photobucket

YOU A FAITHFUL TREASURE!
GREAT DISCERNMENT.
THANKS!

381 posted on 02/26/2012 7:18:07 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The only problem is, the paleontological record does not lend a whole lot of support to the macroevolutionary aspects of Darwin's theory.

The only difference between "microevolutionary" and "macroevolutionary" (as they relate to the ToE, and NOT as portrayed by advocates of "creation science") is the time scale.

The paleontological record most certainly supports the ToE; observations made on the basis of that record were what led to the formulation of the various competing ToEs in the first place.

I'm not going to comment on Richard Dawkins' quote; without seeing its context, I can guess that he goes on to explain why the fossil record behaves more like snapshots taken at random intervals than a continuous record, but I don't know.

Now, as far as the gradualism goes--most small, gradual changes won't appear in the fossil record. A single amino acid change that makes a trans-membrane calcium transporter able to pull calcium into cells at a lower serum calcium concentration is unlikely to show up in the fossil record. However, we might be able to observe that "newer" fossils exist in an area where the soil contains less calcium than where the "older" fossils were found. Our best bet of revealing such a minute change would be in finding some ancient DNA that we can analyze--but, given the instability of DNA, finding that DNA happens quite rarely. So, in order to build a more complete picture, we have to compare what we know of DNA mutation rates from various other lines of research.

A characteristic of evolutionary research is that there is no single line of evidence that fully supports the evolutionary picture. We have, instead, millions of pieces of disparate evidence that we must piece together like a giant puzzle, we have no picture on the cover of the box to guide us, and most of the pieces are missing.

Technically speaking, every one of us is a "transitional" form. The only pieces of DNA that are passed (mostly) unchanged from parent to child would be the mitochondrial DNA (remnant of ancient bacteria that lived inside other cells) from the mother, and the Y chromosome from the father.

382 posted on 02/26/2012 7:23:09 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Quix
A scientist is always aware that the conclusions they make on the basis of their research can be overturned or shown to be wrong by someone who approaches the same topic from a different direction. As a result, our language tends to be uncertain--the scientific literature is full of probabilistic language "might, possibly, could, suggests".

That's the model for public consumption. Get a couple of beers into a scientist (after hours, at a conference) and they often start venting about rivals.

And get most scientists talking to someone whom they perceive as being not academicically trained, or from a "lesser" institution, where the gap between the institutions involved is great enough, and the whole "my degree is bigger than yours" arrogance comes out...witness your treatment of Quix elsewhere in this thread.

But what's really interesting in this regard is that the "publish or perish" phenomenon has produced so many PhDs from "stellar" schools that there simply is not room for them at stellar schools, and the academic progeny are often forced to accept postings at schools which would otherwise be considered "beneath" them; while academic postings are often made on the basis of a "hot" thesis topic or other considerations. Examples include a posting of a Harvard English / Lit PhD bemoaning having to accept an academic position down in Georgia among the fundies; a personal anecdote (who shall remain unnamed) of a PhD in chemistry who was awarded a professorship at a Big Ten school on the strength of having cracked an intractable technological problem with his prof's apparatus as a grad student; a Cal Tech grad taking a professorship at a Minneapolis College which accepts 75% of its applicants; etc. etc.

A scientist is always aware that the conclusions they make on the basis of their research can be overturned or shown to be wrong by someone who approaches the same topic from a different direction. As a result, our language tends to be uncertain--the scientific literature is full of probabilistic language "might, possibly, could, suggests".

You happen to be incorrect; I have dealt with many arrogant scientists during my life.

I could give amusing personal anecdotes but it would necessarily lead to "too much information" syndrome.

In the meantime, here's another Dilbert strip or two for the amusement of lurkers.

Cheers!

383 posted on 02/26/2012 8:31:11 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; wagglebee; spirited irish
Again, you're lying: and this time by omission.

Let's take a paragraph from the original source, which is only three paragraphs before the one you quote-mine:

Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law – one may call it an iron law of Nature – which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.

Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defence against outer attack.

Isn't the very *definition* of species, related to whether or not mating results in offspring, or more precisely, of fertile offspring?

And as for your assertion that

"Hitler was a rather strict Creationist - he doesn't even allow that a canine “kind” could give rise to foxes, dingos, coyotes, and wolves - all in record time when needed. Nope - to him “a fox is always a fox”.

try to reconcile that with the paragraph before the one you posted:

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

And a couple of paragraphs later he says:

If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and health.

This is by definition survival of the fittest.

The difference, since you seem unable to grasp it, is that Adolph reasoned that changes in kind only came about by breeding of different kinds to create a new kind, whereas "evolution" suggests that changes come about by random changes in the allele -- but both are subject to selection pressures.

And it is the selection pressure which Adolph uses as his excuse for racism. As he writes in the next paragraph:

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

To recap:

Evolutionists claim that the diversity of species results from random changes to the allele coupled with selection pressure leading to differentially greater chances for survival and hence reproduction among the offspring who happen to have characteristics more conducive to survival in a local environment; that such characteristics become dominant within a species over time; and that when enough genetic changes accumulate, representative individuals who possess enough of those changes become mutually infertile with members of the population who do not -- hence the "origin of species".

Hitler was only an amateur painter and dictator, we have no evidence he was a serious student of biology. He seemed to think new races came about by breeding of existing disparate populations or kinds; and that nature herself rejected the miscegenation of the stronger by making the offspring infertile, thereby preserving purity of races; and that if by any chance the offspring *were* fertile, they would represent a dead end since they did not have the survivability of the "stronger" parent.

In both cases, then, the action of culling by external actors applies: in the one case a nebulous 'fitness' function, in the other case strength and health (which are probably pretty well correlated with "fitness" btw, if one reads the endless articles in popular magazines about how people choosing mates based on appearance has an evolutionary origin and component...)

What Adolph did was to emphasize the fitness part and use it as a springboard for racism and eugenics. It is the philosophical feature of "survival of the fittest" taken out of its scientific context within evolutionary theory which served as the underpinning for this.

(Incidentally, the other feature of 'selection pressure' which lends itself to eugenics is its strictly statistical nature, with no notion of mercy, compassion, or forgiveness. Those who wish to engage in cruelty will always have an easier time justifying their actions by pointing to nature as a guide, since morality as expressed in Christianity is simply unknown when considering selection pressure per se The error consists in assuming or insisting that a model construct useful for approximating statistical populations of biological entities, is either an adequate reflection of, or a normative guide to, conscious behaviour of sentient beings within a socio-historical context.)

Cheers!

384 posted on 02/26/2012 9:04:22 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: MrB; GourmetDan

I was thinking of getting an answer from the person Dan asked.


385 posted on 02/26/2012 10:26:53 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Projection by ad hominem placemarker.

Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Not hardly.

May I draw your attention to Quix's posts #345 and #346, where he/she used huge fonts, garish colors, and irrelevant pictures to essentially scream at me, like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum? And where the whole gist of both posts can essentially be distilled down into, "OMG i cnat belive ur so stoopid adn u sya ur such a smrt sinetst LOLOLOL !!!!!!1111elevenone"

I really don't appreciate being the recipient of such posts, and my (albeit somewhat sarcastic) reply reflected both the fact that the entire basis of Quix's argument sounded like it had been lifted straight from some "creation science" screed, and that any kind of further discussion with him/her is impossible.

386 posted on 02/26/2012 10:30:00 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
So very true. Thank you for your insights and that beautiful Scripture, dear sister in Christ!
387 posted on 02/26/2012 10:48:12 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
(Incidentally, the other feature of 'selection pressure' which lends itself to eugenics is its strictly statistical nature, with no notion of mercy, compassion, or forgiveness. Those who wish to engage in cruelty will always have an easier time justifying their actions by pointing to nature as a guide, since morality as expressed in Christianity is simply unknown when considering selection pressure per se The error consists in assuming or insisting that a model construct useful for approximating statistical populations of biological entities, is either an adequate reflection of, or a normative guide to, conscious behaviour of sentient beings within a socio-historical context.)

Well and truly said, dear grey_whiskers!

388 posted on 02/26/2012 10:52:14 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Actually, using sizes and types of font and color is highly recommended to avoid putting people to sleep, by those who are professionals in corporate marketing and communications.

Not hardly.

Know anybody in marketing / layout / design? I've had to attend seminars on this kind of stuff (to help the technical types "get up to speed" on effective communications) at work. The Dilbert strip on the brochure is pretty accurate.

May I draw your attention to Quix's posts #345 and #346, where he/she used huge fonts, garish colors, and irrelevant pictures to essentially scream at me, like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum? And where the whole gist of both posts can essentially be distilled down into, "OMG i cnat belive ur so stoopid adn u sya ur such a smrt sinetst LOLOLOL !!!!!!1111elevenone"

Apparently you and I got different messages out of the same posts. The "O RLY?" is a common internet meme; and I ignored the fonts and colours in favor of the text involved.

As far as "scientism" goes, think of the politicization of science: Quix is (as far as I can tell) in psychology: look what the social pressures have done to the DSM over the years (e.g. homosexuality no longer "abnormal" by fiat). Or consider the treatment of Martin Haskell and his candidacy for the post of Observatory Director at the U of Kentucky. He was explicitly denied the job on the grounds that he was a creationist, despite being far-and-away, vastly, completely the most qualified for the position.

Cheers!

389 posted on 02/26/2012 11:08:27 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I wrote "self-selection" error since there are many experimental sciences which don't give a rat's tail about genetics, TOE, abiogenesis, or the like.

Computational fluid dynamics comes to mind; as does Group Theory; or yet again mechanical engineering.

You get the idea.

Cheers!

390 posted on 02/26/2012 11:46:15 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; All
Gotta run.

Major water leak in the kitchen which went through the floorboards and soaked the laundry room.

(Grabs mop and blueprint for an Ark.)

391 posted on 02/26/2012 11:48:09 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; grey_whiskers
Photobucket

!OH DEAR! !OH HELP!

Photobucket

Photobucket

Perhaps a good exhortation would be . . . if the shoe fits, wear it and learn something from it, oh lofty one.

When posts scream for gifs, I'm happy to oblige and provide them.

When posts scream for sarcasm, I'm somewhat happy to provide it.

When posts seem to have chips on their shoulders a mile high, I'm happy to post chip-reducers.

When posts come across as arrogance to the max, I'm happy to help provide some arrogance reducer meds.

392 posted on 02/26/2012 3:07:36 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Prayers for speedy and easier clean up and repair.

Leaks are no fun.

Wheeeee.

LUB


393 posted on 02/26/2012 3:09:51 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Clarification: fluid dynamics, not computational fluid dynamics, if we are talking experimental; I know because of the sink / disposal / leak issues. Don't need any Navier-Stokes to do plumbing work.

Similar for group theory / crystallography.

I hate household maintenance crises.

Cheers!

394 posted on 02/26/2012 4:41:26 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; GourmetDan; ...
This isn't about me.

To the extent that you have been called out for the dishonest poster that you are, and as much as you might wish it wasn’t about you, this article in fact is all very much about you and people like you

Care to address any of the points I made.

Moth to flame: read and learn.

Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds.

Whether you realize it or not, everyone is a creationist (or Creationist, depending upon the esteem one holds that entity/Entity which created him). You see, whether you just spoke and brought yourself into existence (as Jesus Christ did the entire Universe), or by some intelligent mechanism of your own design – if you created yourself supposedly without any Divine help -- you are a creationist. Get used to it.

Maybe that simple concept has escaped you until now, but from this point forward you are without excuse – unless of course your dishonesty insists that you continue fooling yourself.

You are a creationist in very much the same way Hitler or even Darwin was a creationist:

1. Like Hitler, you believe your Creator is not the God of the Bible.

2. Like Hitler, you believe you are your own Creator – not that either you or he in spite of your self-adulatory collective “brilliance” could possibly tell anyone how it was that either of you brought yourselves into existence

3. As your own “Creators” you mistakenly believe you are the masters of your own destinies, and answerable only to your megalomaniacal selves.

4. Hitler called himself a Christian much like you do, but Hitler, like you, do/did not claim to be created by the God of the Bible. This is because the Bible declares that the Creator of the Universe and all life is Jesus Christ Himself -- who you reject, of course, even as did Hitler.

5. You are a “Christian” in name only, even as RINOs are Republicans in name only.

6. One is a Christian-In-Name-Only when one does not affirm what Jesus Christ claimed about Himself: The Truth, Creator, Son of God, and Redeemer of His Creation.

7. Hitler – also a Christian-in-Name Only – pathologically lied to himself and to those around him – again, much like yourself.

8. Darwin, at one time claimed to be a Christian, but ultimately rejected Biblical authority, much as you have.

9. Darwin’s writing manifests little to no original thought, much like yours does.

10. Darwin surprisingly enough manifested enough humility to admit that if credible evidence of reproducing transitional forms didn’t exist, his whole premise was toast. Remarkably, it’s his philosophical inheritors like yourself who have hitched your self-worth to this failed premise, and who can’t seem able to let go in face of all the failure, because to do so upends your whole identity. The facts be damned – it’s an ego and intellectual self-preservation thing for you now. It never was about science. In your case it is merely “survival of the petty ego.”

Biblical Creationists like myself have been calling out Christians-In-Name-Only like yourself on these boards for years. If you do not believe what Jesus Christ says and conduct yourself as though you do, you simply are not by any biblical definition a Christian.

The Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.

Comrade, get it through your head. Darwinism, Owen-ism, Wallace-ism, Hobbes-ism, Lamark-ism, Gobineau-ism, Spenser-ism, Plato-ism, Aristotle-ism, Haeckel-ism, Huxley-ism, Lyell-ism, Galton-ism, Sanger-ism are all joined at the hip of evolutionary self-transformation with all the self-importance attached to establishing an exalted “elite,” -- a human super-race beyond some supposedly lesser -- and exploitable – predicate “others.”

"Darwinism" and by extension, "applied Darwinism," and "social Darwinism" in today’s parlance has come to mean the singular embodiment of “survival-of-the-fittest,” “might-makes-right” philosophy that has underpinned every philosophy that has sprung from the concept: Das Kapital to the Descent of Man to Mein Kampf. Social Darwinism informs crony capitalism as much as it ever informed Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project.” The Soviet Union survived as long as it did, because Western crony capitalism allowed for it to survive.

Some Commies rejected the term “Darwinism” largely on the basis of its use by crony capitalists of the time to justify English hegemony and the global political power projected by it, and with it, England’s regents who were cousins to the deposed Romanovs. Contrasting Darwinian with Lamarkian evolution is a distinction without a difference.

Will you also try to say that Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto did not inform the political and social system, which became the Soviet Union, in spite of the fact Marx credited Darwin with the biological rationale for his political theory – and you’ll do so all because some latter-day Reds were jealous of the powerful, well-heeled Brits? Get some historical perspective before you post such amateurish drool.

Creationists claim to not accept evolution and the (semi)common descent of species - except when they helpfully explain how it all happened at many hundreds of times the rate observed in evolutionary biology.

Biblical creationists say no such thing. You’ve transited from a polluted stream of consciousness into a world of babbling incoherent nonsense.

Creationists claim to accept ‘micro’-evolution when they fell [sic.] it is politic to do so…

I never use the term “micro-evolution,” because it tends to confuse people just like you. The correct concept is that of “adaptation,” because the organism is merely calling upon information with which it has been programmed by its Creator to adapt and to cope with its environment. You keep playing your politics with all the failed polemics and biblical Creationists will continue to do the credible, truth-seeking science.

…but then helpfully explain how any such mechanism is absolutely impossible - and that every useful DNA variation that ever existed was created and placed in the genome of the primordial “kinds”.

“Primordial” is a term of the evolutionist’s art, as in the oft referenced, “primordial soup” -- a la Miller and Urey’s failed abiogenesis experiments of the early 50’s. It is not a term Biblical creationist’s either need or use. You have to accept the fact that your premise of evolution requires an abiogenetically-derived system, belching forth directive biological information for processes not yet brought into existence, or equipped in any predicate fashion to either interpret or to act upon the messenger RNA thereof.

It’s like designing and launching a computer program driver into the ozone in search of a program that has yet to be written for a purpose that yet has to establish any rationale for its existence. You have failed to identify first cause or the predicate rationale for any of your evolutionary premise. What’s the purpose?

And if one must call upon sentient rationale, is one not now forced to speak of an Intelligent Designer to establish the First cause and from it the rationale behind the Creation – of anything?

Your evolutionary premise gives you no reason for existing apart from your inherent meaninglessness. In your world you can create yourself without a predicate rationale for doing so and you can therefore pretend to be anything you want to be on this board – a “conservative,” perhaps, or maybe even posturing as a “Christian.”

You can fool yourself. You can lie to others. Fools don’t last for long on FR and liars are often dispatched with extreme prejudice around here.

And are Creationists incapable of standing behind their own words without pinging a dozen or more of their amen chorus?

Your FReeper sign up date says Aug 1, 2007, but most of us have long suspected that you are nothing more than a retread from the Darwin Central days, posting under a newer name. You waited long enough past the 2006 flushing of the Darwin Central cabal, but you and a few others have come back under newer names as the “bowl floaters” on the Board.

Most of that “amen chorus” of writhing, whining, space-cadet, Gollum-gasbagged, materialistic Darwinians were banned to the perdition of their respective chat rooms for atheists and the DU blog site long ago.

If you are finding yourself outnumbered by true conservatives around here, well, looks like you’ll just have to get used that.

The reasoning resident within all that ejacu-gelato splooge between your ears is likely to find a more receptive audience somewhere other than here.

Feel free to go there.


395 posted on 02/26/2012 6:20:26 PM PST by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Chewed him up and spat him out........


396 posted on 02/26/2012 8:02:01 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


397 posted on 02/26/2012 8:26:53 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Man that second strip sure encapsulates the arguments on this thread...


398 posted on 02/27/2012 5:16:50 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Incredible post!
399 posted on 02/27/2012 5:44:09 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

bkmk


400 posted on 02/27/2012 6:07:53 AM PST by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 651-669 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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