Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert

"Obviously, you have absolutely no understanding of how the scientific method works, and no desire to learn how it works. I included a link to an explanation of it, even though I think that trying to describe it to you is a waste of time."

Ah, again with assigning motive to me. Do you feel that you need to do that to establish a position?

One question. How is the scientific method able to reproduce extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed evolutionary events?

"All anti-scientists have a motivation."

And scientists don't? LOL!

"That is the only motivation that makes sense within the context of creationism-based anti-science. If you didn't feel that scientific fact is a threat to your religion, you wouldn't be arguing so strenuously against it."

Again with implying that you know my motivations. How often should I tell you that you have no idea what my motivations are before you stop assigning motive to me? Hmmm?

"If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well."

So you equate science with criminal law? Do you realize how subjective criminal law is? You do realize that police are allowed to lie to suspects to gain confessions and prosecutors withhold evidence if the right questions aren't asked (Ted Stevens' trial as the most recent example). Are scientists likewise allowed to lie to the public and withhold evidence that doesn't support the story they want the public to believe? I don't think you meant to be quite so honest in your comparison, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

"You mean, like testing the supposition that events outlined in Genesis actually took place as described--that circa 6000 years ago, God spoke and the entire universe sprang into existence? That God spoke again, and all of the plants and animals sprang fully formed from the soil? That God took a bit more of the soil and formed a man, and took a rib from that man to make his nearly identical twin sister? Please, you tell me, because I have no idea."

By admitting that extrapolations into unobserved time and unobserved assumed events are equivalent to the Biblical account of creation, you have admitted the philosophical and religious nature of 'science' (aka philosophical naturalism).

Can you not see that you simply 'begged the question' as to whether you and your stated belief that 'most real scientists you know' (fallacy of appeal to popular opinion noted) are, in fact, real scientists? A scientist relies on observation and testing. There is simply no way to scientifically observe and test the claim that 'evolution resultd in sapient and sentient species'. You pile fallacy on top of fallacy on top of fallacy and claim it is 'science'. It is not. That is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Again, your lack of understanding of the scientific method and flat-out refusal to believe the voluminous evidence of geology, the fossil record, astrophysics, modern biology, and several other scientific disciplines do not make science into a "philosophical position."

"If logical deductions are not a valid part of scientific method, then not only must we throw away science, but we should ditch criminal law, as well."

Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.

"People make extrapolations about the most likely sequence of events all the time, without direct observation. Fact of life: we cannot observe every process at all times.

This time we have the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. The fact that people make extrapolations all the time and the fact that we cannot observe every process at all times does not mean that it is 'scientific' to extrapolate back into unobserved time frames and assumed unobserved events to support the philsophical belief in evolution.

Logical deduction =/= philosophy."

Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.

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.