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 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 651-669 next last
To: Agamemnon

That was one of the most well conceived and executed posts I have yet seen.


401 posted on 02/27/2012 6:20:32 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

“ejacu-gelato splooge between your ears” Agamemnon

An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.


402 posted on 02/27/2012 7:04:32 AM 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 395 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; BrandtMichaels; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; ...
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.

So true: Darwin did say that about the [paleontologically still missing] "transitional forms"; e.g., in the pre-Cambrian....

What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong. But if it is "false," so is the psyche constructed on it....

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Dear Agamemnon, you wrote:

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.

Absolutely outstanding observation Agamemnon!

Kudos to you for this simply outstanding essay/post!

403 posted on 02/27/2012 10:45:47 AM 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 395 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; allmendream; Alamo-Girl
... you rendered amd speechless....

And allmendream is evidently still speechless. But he did reply to me at Post #360.

As I said, he's still speechless.

Oh, well....

404 posted on 02/27/2012 10:53:51 AM 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 364 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So when a novel antibiotic targeting ribosomes is introduced to a naive population and wipes out over 90% of it, and the surviving population is seen to have mutational DNA variations in the gene for its ribosomes so that the antibiotic doesn't bind to and inhibit as well - why and how did those survivors ‘call upon information with which it was programed by its creator’ - while the majority that died did not?

Are you suggesting that every member of the population HAD the information to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but that only SOME chose to express it? How and why?

405 posted on 02/27/2012 10:56:43 AM 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 403 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Agamemnon
An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

Which is still stratospherically above what I've seen evos post about creationists, especially over at DC without the moderating effects of the mods.

406 posted on 02/27/2012 11:06:18 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 402 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Well than, maybe you like Agamemnon's “ejacu-gelato splooge”. I think it is disgusting and typical of how Creationists argue - no need to go to DU or DC or anywhere else - that is how they like to argue HERE and NOW on THIS THREAD - with disgusting personal attacks rather than discussing the issues.
407 posted on 02/27/2012 11:31:00 AM 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 406 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Whosoever
[ What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong. But if it is "false," so is the psyche constructed on it.... ]

Exactly.. its a matter if INDENTITY..

Are you a temporal flesh-suit housing an eternal spirit waiting for a freedom event..
-OR-
Are you a Suit of Flesh waiting to be made road-kill by an unforeseen event..
You know..... death.. (by some vehicle)

This drama is palpable.. attended by many prop-comics..
Who are you?.. is the identifying phrase..

Are you a would-be Carrot-top or one more serious in "tone and demeanor"..
The whole planet is indeed "a stage".. and we all are merely actors..

"Evolutionists" metaphorically wearing a monocle and smoking a pipe speaking in serious tones..
Do not fool me a bit... even with good dialog wearing a tie using the pipe as a pointer at a blackboard......

408 posted on 02/27/2012 11:53:57 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Agamemnon; Alamo-Girl; metmom; trisham; spirited irish
What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong.

I think, and few of them would ever publicly admit this, the reason is because they have complete and pathological hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition.

From the Garden forward, Satan's temptations of man have all boiled down to the simple notion that man could play god at least within his own sphere. In Darwinism, Satan took this temptation to an even greater level, he showed man a way to replace God with science and that God doesn't exist.

Darwinism is Satan's masterpiece because it marks the only time that he has been able to tempt the masses by convincing them that God isn't real. It is this that Darwinists have staked their lives on and it is the terror of being wrong that keeps them from even considering being wrong. It goes back to the adage that if you live as if God exists and at the end of your life you find out you were wrong, you haven't really lost anything,\; but if you live as if there is no God, you will be in a lot of trouble when you find out He does exist.

409 posted on 02/27/2012 12:14:30 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Excellent post!


410 posted on 02/27/2012 12:25:25 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; BrandtMichaels; metmom; wagglebee; GourmetDan; YHAOS; xzins; ...
Are you suggesting that every member of the population HAD the information to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but that only SOME chose to express it? How and why?

Well at the very least, allmendream, to ask questions as to "how" and "why" indicates that the problems to which such questions refer might be valid problems. That's progress.

To answer your question: The "survivors" weren't programmed for "success" "internally," each and every one. Rather, they were responding to a non-local cause "external" to themselves. The "non-survivors" simply weren't "in communicado" with that cause or were irrelevant to it. (So to speak.)

The "secret" of Life does not consist in what cells do; it consists in the organizational principle that governs the entire biological organism, a complex system in Nature.

There is a common presupposition in science that the way to study a complex system is to reduce it to its parts, and then study the parts. The expectation here is that if we know what all the parts are doing, we just "add up" the results and get a full picture of the system.

But this is impossible, especially if the question is: What is Life? To study parts of a biological organism, you pretty much have to kill it first. But if you do, what do you expect to discover about Life?

"We murder to dissect," as a great poet put it.

Here's an analogy that might help, courtesy of the mathematician, complex systems theorist and theoretical biologist Robert Rosen:

Taking a hammer to a watch, for example, will give us a spectrum of parts all right; these may be separated and characterized to our heart's content, but only by a miracle will they tell us either how a watch works or how to make one. This is because two things have happened: application of the hammer has lost information about the original articulated watch and at the same time, it has added irrelevant information about the hammer. What the hammer has given us, then, is not so much a set of parts as a set of artifacts. — Life Itself, New York:Columbia University Press 1991, p. 22. [Emphasis added.]

People clinging to a materialist, mechanistic view of Nature are missing the "big picture."

Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

Thank you so much for writing, dear amd!

411 posted on 02/27/2012 12:33:21 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 405 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; wagglebee; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; trisham; MrB; spirited irish; ...
An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

And that reply is what passes for "I think I just lost the argument."

Cheers.


412 posted on 02/27/2012 1:23:23 PM PST by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

Comment #413 Removed by Moderator

To: wagglebee; allmendream; Agamemnon; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; BrandtMichaels; metmom; YHAOS; xzins; ...
Darwinism is Satan's masterpiece because it marks the only time that he has been able to tempt the masses by convincing them that God isn't real. It is this that Darwinists have staked their lives on and it is the terror of being wrong that keeps them from even considering being wrong.

Sounds about right to me, dear wagglebee! Sometimes I just think such folks are experiencing the same kind of terror that comes when ones is trying to "whistle past the graveyard"....

Satan's work always goes to an "inversion of Reality."

Pascal's Wager is particularly addressed to people who are tempted by such an inversion. Who do not seem to realize that simply "wishing God away" doesn't make God "go away." He is still there, no matter what these people want to be otherwise.

And His Judgement will catch up with them, sooner or later.

We try to warn them. They do not listen.

And if they think I'm wrong about this, the risk they bear for not heeding to "my mistake" is all their own to absorb and bear — with fatal consequences to themselves, now and forevermore.

Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!

414 posted on 02/27/2012 1:49:05 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 409 | View Replies]

To: MrB; metmom
“imageo dei” or “imageo goo”?

Exactly the point, MrB! Or is it perhaps, "goo" to "glue?"

I happen to mention something about "glue" in tagline in fact.

It's interesting see how perfectly humorless evolutionists are at their core, isn't it?

To mock their premise is the equivalent of mocking their religion or something -- kind of like the same offense taken by the Church of Liberalism, and the doctrinaire evolutionists, global-warmists, and racists who populate it.

FReegards!


415 posted on 02/27/2012 2:05:09 PM PST by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

I learned long ago, and I make sure my kids understand this as well -

you can’t debate someone to salvation.


416 posted on 02/27/2012 2:11:39 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; allmendream; Agamemnon; Alamo-Girl; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee
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.

Dear exDemMom, I am perfectly aware that there are differences in fundamental approach as between theoretical scientists and working scientists. (I gather you are a member of the latter category. Fine.)

Theoretical scientists are alway going for the biggest picture they can get. Working scientisists do not much care for big pictures; what they want is reliable working tools derived from the theoretical sciences.

They don't care about the "hows" and the "whys," only about what works.

Of course, some things can work all the time without any reference to the fundamental causality structure of universal Nature (Reality), to the laws, principles, or truths of the Reality as it actually is — which is precisely what makes the tools oh-so fundamentally reliable as dependable working tools in the first place.

Although it appears you have little use for cosmological questions of any description at all, this does not mean that you are relieved from living in this Cosmos. If you are the least bit interested in that subject, then I'd say: You've got to raise up your eyes to a fuller vision.

Otherwise, you may get your "scientific problems" right every time; but you will never understand anything about the world in which you live and work and breathe....

Just a thought, dear exDemMom. Thank you so much for writing!

417 posted on 02/27/2012 2:18:17 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 377 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

:)


418 posted on 02/27/2012 2:33:08 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Agamemnon
An example of what passes for reasonable discourse among Creationists.

You have a bone to pick with the whole of Judeo-Christian tradition? Or, what? Unless you wish to be more specific, we have to assume your grudge is against all Judeo-Christian belief, or that your object is dirty up a whole people. To what end?

Similar to Shakespeare, the question bears heavily on your shoulders; ‘To sneer, or not to sneer.’

419 posted on 02/27/2012 2:39:43 PM PST by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So both the survivors and the non-survivors had the DNA to make the mutated non-susceptible ribosomes - but only a few percent were “programmed for success internally”?

How and why? What was the difference between those who were “programmed for success” and those that were not?

One had a better filing system to FIND the “in case of novel anti-ribosome antibiotic - break out THIS gene” part of the genome?

Couldn't I just show how fantasyland your proposed mechanism is by showing the genome of the initial population had only ONE gene for ribosomes?

So where did that starting population of one with only ONE gene for a ribosome grow into a population where some were “programmed for success” and others were not - apparently with access to several different variations of the ribosome gene?

Saying something doesn't indicate a mechanism. How were some “programmed for success” and how were others programmed for failure? What was the molecular difference between the majority of the population that died and the small part of the population that survived?

420 posted on 02/27/2012 2:58:03 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 411 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Are you a temporal flesh-suit housing an eternal spirit waiting for a freedom event..

I am, and I like your language!

421 posted on 03/01/2012 4:18:15 AM PST by .30Carbine (But you can call me Whosoever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop

It is glaringly apparent to this casual observer that you did not even read betty boop’s post. It is as if you are responding to someone else and some other post entirely! I wonder that anyone has the patience to continue trying to post to you at all. But that’s the betty boop I remember!


422 posted on 03/01/2012 4:28:15 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
It is glaringly apparent that your observation was way too “casual”.

betty boop said this: To answer your question: The “survivors” weren't programmed for “success” “internally,” each and every one. Rather, they were responding to a non-local cause “external” to themselves. The “non-survivors” simply weren't “in communicado” with that cause or were irrelevant to it. (So to speak.)

I responded to that by asking what the molecular difference was such that a small minority were “programmed for “success” “internally,”” while the vast majority were not.

I am one of the few on this thread who is willing (or able)to actually discuss the issues rather than making it personal.

Care to discuss the issue? Or are you going to try to make it personal again?

423 posted on 03/01/2012 6:49:33 AM 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 422 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine

lol....... joy is such a blessing...

Even joy bouncing like a loose football all random and willy nilly.. -OR-
soaring like an eagle in peace and regal comfort.. as a heavenly display of promise..


424 posted on 03/01/2012 11:46:37 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What I don't understand is how and why a person would want to derive his entire sense of self-identity and self-worth from a scientific theory that rests on shaky evidentiary grounds. It's as if such folks absolutely refuse to let Darwin's theory be wrong. But if it is "false," so is the psyche constructed on it....

I know of no scientist who derives his/her identity or self-worth from a theory. If you have an example of such a scientist, could you post it here? If you have any credible evidence that scientists, in general, base their sense of self-worth or identity in scientific theories, could you present it, please?

There is no issue of "refusing to let Darwin's theory be wrong" here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn't, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.

Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.

425 posted on 03/03/2012 2:12:29 PM 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 403 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; allmendream; .30Carbine; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; MrB; metmom; ..
The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn't, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.

Except for this one. This one continues to flourish in the minds of many, despite the fact that the scientific (evidentiary) underpinnings are simply not there.

The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.

My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.

IMHO, at minimum, to truly get a grip on understanding the world around us, a two-value (Aristotelian, as in the Law of the Excluded Middle) logical system cannot suffice. We need at least a three-value logical system: True, False, Undecidable.

You wrote:

Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.

But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.

To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.

So, what do you and I have to talk about? We're not even standing on the same ground.

426 posted on 03/05/2012 1:19:24 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 425 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
what we know about the world

That line jumped out at me the most. They don't KNOW what they are asserting, they conjecture and extrapolate what they are asserting. And those conjectures and extrapolations are based on assumptions that have holes that are easily punched through and can be demonstrated to be inaccurate.

427 posted on 03/05/2012 1:49:55 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Alamo-Girl; exDemMom; allmendream; .30Carbine; Agamemnon; BrandtMichaels; wagglebee; metmom
They don't KNOW what they are asserting, they conjecture and extrapolate what they are asserting. And those conjectures and extrapolations are based on assumptions that have holes that are easily punched through and can be demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Indeed, MrB. That is precisely the problem — the existence of which they simply REFUSE to acknowledge.

All I can say is this: May God have mercy on their souls. For they ought to know better. And they will be held accountable for the sheer sneering contempt they display towards the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — on Judgement Day, when Christ Logos Alpha and Omega — the Ultimate Judge — separates the wheat from the chaff....

Thank you so very much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

428 posted on 03/05/2012 3:43:20 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 427 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"This one (evolution) continues to flourish in the minds of many, despite the fact that the scientific (evidentiary) underpinnings are simply not there."

Well, it's not just evolution but any theory that pretends to be able to look back into unobserved time. The Big Bang also comes to mind. Such 'theories' are based on the assumption of naturalism (the fallacy of begging the question) and the fallacy of composition. We could add others.

The fallacy of composition says that something that is true of a part is also true of the whole. You often see this one when 'scientists' argue that because the 'scientific method' can be used to create computers that it is also useful for explaining origins (of life, the universe, etc).

429 posted on 03/05/2012 3:50:29 PM 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 426 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl

“The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.”

Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit:
“Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts

Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.

Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.

Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.


430 posted on 03/05/2012 3:59:06 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.

I very strongly agree.

IMHO, only when third party undecideds are lurking is it worth the effort to engage a poster with an upside down worldview.

Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

431 posted on 03/05/2012 8:45:26 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
432 posted on 03/05/2012 8:50:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Whosoever

Actually I would be very interested in the person that could reasonable prove to me that the third human on this planet DID NOT come from two other people..

Where did the two originals come from?..
Now theres a question... but the third one is my dilemma..

It may be possible that the Adam and Eve story was a metaphor or metaphorical “inference”.. true.. but even so they came from somewhere.. And the “evolution” story was and is just that “a story”.. A convoluted Yarn to be sure but really its just a Yarn..

Its even possible there was another society of beings somewhat like humans before Adam and Eve.. Who is to know?.. It may be “we’ll” never know for sure.. how humanity started really..

Humans definitely do not like not knowing.. so they make up things.. Like atoms, little balls rolling around other balls.. which is a cartoon.. Humans like cartoons.. Einstein studied the world telescopically and Bohrs studied microscopically.. They argued the same page within different books.. Did GOD get the whole thing started or not?..

Nobody really knows what God is.. but everything needs a source.. God is a good X factor.. Until another source comes along better.. I’m going with God.. Whatever God is.. Yes, that means I do not know.. I am good with that..

One thing is for sure.. if you know.. faith is no longer needed..
Having faith is an important needed lesson of life..
LIFE!.. no one knows what life is either.. or death..


NOTE: My next rant will be on “eternity”.. What a concept that is.. If eternity future is possible then eternity past is also possible.. So much for the big bang.. Groovey; then I could crawl the nape of other smart alecks that know more of whats impossible to know.. I surely am blessed.. I think God loves me..


433 posted on 03/05/2012 9:10:20 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

betty: The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.

Spirited: “It is better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her whelps, than a fool in his folly.” Proverbs 17:12

Lacking free will a bear does what a bear must do. Fools freely choose folly and then rationalize on its’ behalf.


434 posted on 03/06/2012 1:30:01 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I think God loves me..

I'm sure He does.

Thank you for sharing your views, dear hosepipe!

435 posted on 03/06/2012 7:40:17 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Lacking free will a bear does what a bear must do. Fools freely choose folly and then rationalize on its’ behalf.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!

436 posted on 03/06/2012 7:41:35 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
IMHO, only when third party undecideds are lurking is it worth the effort to engage a poster with an upside down worldview.

An "upside down worldview" indeed. An inversion of reality....

I do agree with your statement, dearest sister in Christ. It's just sometimes, I get a little frustrated trying to engage the upside-down worldview people in rational discourse.

I'm not here to tell people what to think, but to show them where to look. But these folks won't even go look.... It's as if they are hermetically sealed against any new idea that does not conform to their iron-clad presuppositions. Sigh....

Thank you so very much for your kind words of support, dearest sister in Christ!

437 posted on 03/06/2012 8:06:47 AM 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 431 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; exDemMom; allmendream; Alamo-Girl
"...The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible. ..."

"When we talk about "the degrees of knowledge," we implicitly acknowledge the degrees of being that correspond to them. .....

"What is necessary above all is "to discriminate and discern degrees of knowing, its organization and its internal differentiations....

"....a shallow soul is satisfied by staying on the surface of things. The deep soul knows that no merely scientific explanation can ever satisfy man, whereas the shallow soul seems content to play in the little blandbox of efficient causes. .....

"[What we need is something] capable of speaking to our age of stupidity."

bttt

438 posted on 03/06/2012 10:07:14 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; exDemMom; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; metmom; spirited irish; MrB; Agamemnon; hosepipe; ..
...any form of scientism ... is a non-starter, because it reduces the hierarchical complexity of the world to a vulgar monism. In so doing, it reduces reality to our most simple way of knowing it, and in the process denies any reality outside its narrow scope. "Leveling" ... is the barbarian's substitute for order.

In the past, I have discussed the idea that the measure of soul is depth. To put it bluntly, a developed soul will see much more deeply into the nature of reality, whereas a shallow soul is satisfied by staying on the surface of things. The deep soul knows that no merely scientific explanation can ever satisfy man, whereas the shallow soul seems content to play in the little blandbox of efficient causes.

Thus spake the ineffable Gagdad Bob!

But I'd bet our "scientistic friends" do not have a CLUE about that of which Gagdad Bob is speaking. For one thing, they deny the existence of soul hands-down, not just the existence of God.

They are machine-like thinkers. All questions reduce to Yes/No, True/False, 1/0 answers. They creep along the horizontal, thinking that only efficient causes are needed to explain the action of an evolving Universe.

The idea of Final Cause — purpose, goals — is absolutely excluded from the universe contained within their own minds. Contemporary science refuses to engage the idea of Final Cause.

But absent Final Cause, there is no meaning to be found in the world. And human beings cannot live in, cannot orient themselves to, a meaningless world. That's just a fact of human nature.

Thank you ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the link!!!

439 posted on 03/06/2012 12:15:33 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 438 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; Alamo-Girl
Lacking free will a bear does what a bear must do. Fools freely choose folly and then rationalize on its behalf.

So true, dear sister in Christ! Also, bears cannot lie. Either to themselves or to other bears. Only foolish humans can think lying can bring any good into existence. They do not understand that any lie — "white" or "'black" — constitutes a defacement of the Reality in which they themselves must live.

JMHO FWIW.

Thank you ever so much for your insights, dear sister!

440 posted on 03/06/2012 12:22:47 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 434 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Nobody really knows what God is.. but everything needs a source.. God is a good X factor.. Until another source comes along better.. I’m going with God.. Whatever God is.. Yes, that means I do not know.. I am good with that..

Love it. Ping me to subsequent editions of your rants.

441 posted on 03/06/2012 12:31:53 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 433 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
Einstein studied the world telescopically and Bohrs studied microscopically.. They argued the same page within different books.. Did GOD get the whole thing started or not?

Well, I do believe that Einstein thought so. And that it was his job to figure out what "the Old Man" (as he called God) did "in the Beginning."

Niels Bohr appears to be fairly agnostic on such questions. He did not sweat them at all. Still, it also appears that he understood that his scientific work involved a disclosure of what already IS....

Both men understood that the picture of the atom as "little balls rolling around other balls" turns out to be completely false. That there's more to the Universe than "matter in its motions."

I can't wait to see your "rant on eternity” dear brother in Christ! Please do be sure to ping me.

Thank you ever so much for writing!

442 posted on 03/06/2012 12:35:43 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 433 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

eDM wrote: ‘There is no issue of “refusing to let Darwin’s theory be wrong” here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.’

And yet after 170 years there’s still not one theory for evolution nor any solid refutations for the pesky facts you evolving ‘scientists’ normally ignore. At least there is a growing chorus of those refuting it [much the same as man-caused global warming].

Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts

Pesky facts like:

1) DNA that rewrites itself by millions and billions of lines for each new lifeform [omit for now how the first simple lifeform wrote hundreds of millions of DNA logic],

2) Symbiotic relationship of DNA and RNA needing to complement each other for each unique lifeform,

3) Chirality where only left-handed outcomes are selected,

4) Cambrian explosion,

5) Polystrate fossils,

6) Stasis in the fossil record where lifeforms come and go with zero evidence of any macro-type changes,

7) Over 100 natural clocks indicating much much less than millions let alone billions of years for natural history [see my links page for more],

8) Moon formation and age - esp. since all lifeforms are dependent on the motion of the moon,

9) Zero missing links - far short of the thousands upon thousands Darwin predicted or ‘my theory completely falls apart’,

10) The Law of Biogenesis or life from life.

I’ll stop here but the list of problematic data points is long and completely without any evolutionary explanations. Furthermore the list continues to grow so much so that mathematicians [pure logic not science] now have the highest group percentage of evo deniers.

Remember this please - Darwin saw a blob of tissue when he peered into the 1800’s microscopes yet today scientists can observe more complexity of interactions than what is found on any factory floor.


443 posted on 03/06/2012 1:27:44 PM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Except for this one. This one continues to flourish in the minds of many, despite the fact that the scientific (evidentiary) underpinnings are simply not there.

What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn't actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven't you published it yet?

The burden of proof is really on you to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today. What evidence do you have?

The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.

I live in the same world, and I do not think like a machine. I think and speak like a scientist, because that is what years of college and work experience have taught me to do. It is true that scientists have their own special language; most professions do.

My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.

I'm sorry, but it simply does not follow that because I am not a literal creationist that I am the sort of crazy-eyed lunatic who typically frequents sites like DU. Nor do I think that is true of allmendream. Furthermore, it is my experience that logic and fact are distinctly unwelcome in leftist circles, so the chances of me ever visiting DU are almost non-existent.

I must ask, why is it that you assume that being a scientist is incompatible with Christianity? As far as I can tell, the creation/evolution debate is not driven by scientists; it is driven by literalists who, for some reason, have decided that the entire basis of their faith is invalid if Genesis is not a literal account of the beginning of the universe, the earth, and life. Since scientists first showed hundreds of years ago that creation as portrayed in Genesis is not supported by scientific evidence, I have to wonder, what is the big deal? Why the attacks on biological sciences, when no branch of science supports a literal creationist view?

I would say it's not scientists who are stuck with the "0 or 1" mentality.

But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.

To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.

So--you are now saying that you do not, in fact, believe that the creation account put forth in Genesis is a literal account of the beginning of life, the universe, and everything? Then why do you resist accepting that scientific concepts and theories are, in fact, based on empirical observation of the world around us?

444 posted on 03/06/2012 3:55:13 PM 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 426 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
“The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.”

Spirited: First of all, evolutionism is not empirical science, as even Karl Popper was honest enough to admit: “Imagine There’s No God-—only evolution” http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2787047/posts

And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today?

No, according to Wikipedia, he was a philosopher trained in psychology, who worked at an economics school. Why should some non-scientist's philosophical musings hold more weight than the observations of actual scientists?

Evolutionism, whether a spiritual concept such as Teilhard’s or a material concept such as Darwins’ is a metaphysical program purpotedly answering the ultimate question of origins. However, it ultimately implodes into nihilism.

Next, the taproot of Darwin’s concept stretches back to the most ancient evolutionary conception so far translated, that is the Enuma Elish.

Man is fully capable of deceiving himself and deceiving others. And when men do not want the true, living God to exist they inevitably turn to evolutionary conceptions and then mock, scoff, and belittle those who refuse to follow them into their folly.

This, in a nutshell, is why I jump into the creationist threads. I honestly don't care how anti-science you are, as long as your brand of anti-science doesn't kill people. But it is *extremely* annoying that literal creationists have to invent religions that they then claim scientists all adhere to. You have no proof whatsoever that scientists follow whatever your imaginary religion is, whether you call it "evolutionism" or something else, yet you have no compunctions whatsoever about categorizing us as devotees of that religion.

I believe that that practice is an example of bearing false witness. That's breaking one of the ten commandments, isn't it?

If you have concrete evidence that science is, in fact, just another religion, and that performing experiments is no different than worshipping in a church, present that evidence. Don't go around quoting obscure philosophers as "proof" of your claim that scientists are practicing some oddball religion, because it is not. Proof, in this case, would be a survey of a random sample of scientists large enough to be sure the sample is statistically significant.

As long as you're providing proof that we follow your invented religion, how about also providing proof that you know anything about our motives for becoming scientists? Nothing you said indicates that you have any clue about that, either, although that didn't stop you from saying nonsense about it.

I don't care what your motives are, but lying or repeating lies about people you know nothing about is a sin.

445 posted on 03/06/2012 4:39:37 PM 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 430 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I'm not here to tell people what to think, but to show them where to look. But these folks won't even go look.... It's as if they are hermetically sealed against any new idea that does not conform to their iron-clad presuppositions. Sigh....

It reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Thank you for all your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

446 posted on 03/06/2012 9:00:27 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
The deep soul knows that no merely scientific explanation can ever satisfy man, whereas the shallow soul seems content to play in the little blandbox of efficient causes. .....

Well and truly said. Thank you so much for these insights, dear Matchett-PI!

447 posted on 03/06/2012 9:01:58 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; spirited irish; Agamemnon; wagglebee; hosepipe; All
"IMHO, only when third party undecideds are lurking is it worth the effort to engage a poster with an upside down worldview"

Although decidedly not undecided in this matter,this lurker is very appreciative of your efforts here.All of you.

The importance of this issue cannot be overstated.This is big,very big.

1 Corinthians 14:12 "...seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

I don't know if any of you are aware of this but to this little black duck you folks,over the last decade or more have been a great blessing in that very thing 1 Cor 14:12 talks about.

Also...

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10,11).......Is ample evidence to me that God meets us where we are....and helps us.Thanks guys!

God bless you

448 posted on 03/06/2012 11:21:33 PM PST by mitch5501 ("make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

“And who is Karl Popper? Is he some great biologist, who discovered some seminal concepts of biology that help to shape the study of biological science as we practice it today”

Spirited: Considering that what takes place in the unseen dimension, that is the mind, always precedes the spoken and written word and every action-—including yours-—then Karl Popper is important both as a philosopher and as an honest man.

Honesty is in very short supply in certain departments of the so-called ‘scientific’ community, evolutionary biologists in particular.

Like ancient pagans who superstitously studied sheep entrails for signs today’s biologists superstitiously study slime-mold colonies for knowledge about themselves. And just like Greece’s ancient nature philosophers-—the scientists of their time-— who taught that in other lives they had been females, trees, fish and other such nonsense their modern counterparts proclaim themselves to have been worms, fish, and apes in their former lives.

Evolutionists—including you-— confuse their religious cosmogony with real science. Though Karl Popper preferred the evolutionary cosmogony to the special creation cosmogony he was at least honest enough to admit that evolutionism is a cosmogony rather than empirical science.


449 posted on 03/07/2012 1:35:42 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: mitch5501; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Agamemnon; wagglebee; hosepipe

“Unto the righteous arises light in darkness; He is merciful and full of compassion.” Psalm 112:4

In times of almost over-whelming darkness our merciful Lord sends forth His warriors of light (truth) to contend against and ultimately expose the lies that hold men in bondage.

The lie is the father of contradiction, hypocrisy, betrayal, insincerity, treachery, envy, lust, hate, contempt, and murder. It is the thought, word, deed, and sign of cunning and intended ill will.

Through mocking, belittling, and other tactics of psychological bullying in conjunction with deliberate silence (repressing truth) and the twisting and redefining of words the liar deceives others of the right to know truth.

The greatest lie today is the Big Lie that ‘God does not exist.’ For over one-hundred years this lie has been engulfing whole nations in a holocaust of fire and brimstone-—fear, violence, paranoia, suspicion, terror, revenge, destruction and mass-murder unlike anything ever witnessed prior to the 20th century.

The use of the lie reveals the liar as a person of evil intentions, as one who lacks a love of truth. The liar lacks frankness, honesty and uprightness. He is an untrustworthy self-centered dissimulator who cunningly manipulates others for his own evil purposes. (The Roots of Violence, Vincent P. Micelli, S.J.)

Countering the liars are His truth warriors, those who love truth. Through their long-term labors the philosophies, ideologies, scientism, and false cosmogonies whose secret of success is found in an extraordinary power of synthesis, a reconciliation of contradictions, are analyzed, their contradictions and lies exposed, and then ultimately thrown down, thereby liberating those held in bondage.

We who you have thanked are but a few members of His army of truth warriors and we thank you, as well as all who have ever expressed to us their thanks, for gladdening our hearts by delivering to us His praise.


450 posted on 03/07/2012 5:19:27 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 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