Posted on 07/28/2013 3:57:08 PM PDT by spirited irish
Bttt.
I and most Creationists have no problem with “ science” it’s the evolutionists lies about creation that is an offence to us. I have three or four different books showing that The religion on Darwin is not only false but impossible I will go so far as to say that anyone that believes that NOTHING created something and the human eyeball was the work of chance is more than stupid. Yet some so called Scientist would rather believe that than admit to a super natural Creator.
Any evolution believers here that would like to explain what caused the “ big bang”? I thought not.
Sorry. Hogwash.
Political evolutionists, by ignorance or intent, use only a portion of the title of Charles Darwin’s book. The full title is “The Origin of Species and The Superiority of the Races.” Whoops...that doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.
“Political evolutionists, by ignorance or intent, use only a portion of the title of Charles Darwin’s book. The full title is “The Origin of Species and The Superiority of the Races.” Whoops...that doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.”
Sorry, but no. The full title of the first edition of the book was: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin doesn’t even talk about human beings in the book. The word “Race” in the title is used in the 19th Century Victorian English sense, as in a group of animals that can interbreed. Modern readers who obviously haven’t read the book and regard Darwin as some kind of comic-book super-villain see the word “race” and point and sputter, but Darwin wasn’t referring to what we now term human races.
For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to “The Origin of Species.”
“What is a “Darwinist?””
Spirited: To the narrow-eyed and small-minded it’s an exciting bone to endlessly gnaw and contend against.
Sorry, but those arguments are all bogus.
They've been addressed and refuted many times by serious scientists.
Many have been presented on these threads, and answered by amatures like myself.
If you wish to report your favorites here, I'll be happy to respond to each.
Let me just remind you now that it's very important not to confuse scientific facts with hypotheses and theories.
There are many confirmed observations (aka "facts") supporting evolution related hypotheses, but confirmation of a hypothesis is required before it can be classified as "theory".
Since some hypotheses related to evolution have been confirmed many times, they are classified as "theories".
But others have not been confirmed and are still considered as just hypotheses.
Examples are origin of life ideas like abiogenesis and panspermia.
fish hawk: "I will go so far as to say that anyone that believes that NOTHING created something and the human eyeball was the work of chance is more than stupid."
Let me explain your problem with some questions:
Question: do you believe in G*d? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that G*d created the Universe? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that G*d created the Universe with His purposes, design and plan in mind? Answer: of course.
Question: do you believe that what we see in the material world represents the unfolding of G*d's original plan? Answer: of course.
Question: then, if what we see appears to be evolutionary, in what possible sense is that not part of G*d's plan? Answer: in no sense.
So what is your problem with evolution?
I came across this in my reading the other day, and it seems to confirm your insight:
Today's science has achieved remarkable successes and is an indispensable aspect of humanity. Without science, there can be no progress. Yet, science cannot explain, it is not equipped to explain anything that is not subject to algorithmic rules, to ordinary mathematical descriptions, or in the case of physical systems, partial differential equations. It cannot explain the qualitative aspects of reality. Present science cannot completely explain not only living processes in large aggregates of cells, organisms, etc., or what we may term holistic organizations (it certainly has had great success to account for molecular biochemical processes), but also noetic aspects of reality, mind and consciousness. It cannot explain or even account for the experiences of art, for the entire experience of human life, driven by the emotional levels of the psyche. And certainly it has little to say about the deep underlying nature of the cosmos, or reality, in general.... We believe that present-day science needs to be extended beyond its present limits and it needs a new ontological model of reality, what we term here the science of wholeness. — Menas Kafatos, "The Science of Wholeness," in Analectica Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Volume CVII — Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment, 2011, A-T Tymieniecka and A. Grandpierre, eds.Kafatos wrote a wonderful book, coauthored with Robert Nadeau, The Non-Local Universe. Highly recommended!
It will be argued that it is not science's business to deal with the qualitative aspects of reality. But if one is trying to understand the Universe in toto, and man's place in it (not to mention the emergence of life and mind), one cannot leave them out. To attempt to do so is a kind of falsification of reality.
Thank you for writing, freerepublicchat!
Spirited: To the narrow-eyed and small-minded it’s an exciting bone to endlessly gnaw and contend against.
Perhaps you should stop using the term, then, lest someone conclude that you are narrow-eyed and small-minded.
The point of my response is this: nitpickers are narrow-eyed and small-minded precisely because they focus on and chew away at the small and unimportant as a way of controlling and dominating other people. As for your suggestion: I never allow such people to control and dominate my thoughts and speech.
And the point of my response is that you seem to be the person here who’s determined to gnaw on the term “Darwinist.” Your post is an excellent pot-kettle-black example.
Whoever can control the terminology controls the debate. Agreeing to an immutable definition means a loss of control.
My problem with the religion of evolution is: they talk like there is fossil evidence when there isn’t, put down creationists because they have faith ( so that is religion and not science) when evos have absolutely no proof to lay out before us fossil or otherwise but they have faith that someday they will dig it up ( religion not science). The play like the first and second laws of thermodynamics ( and entropy) does not exist. (which of course makes evolution impossible) And Mathematics which tells ;us that if life was by selection and time and chance, it would be a one with enough zeros behind it to fill enough book pages to reach to the moon if stacked up. So how ‘bout YOU entering here your absolute proof of evolution, NOT Micro (changes in a species like dogs and bird beaks) but Macro, dogs to cats, lizards to birds chimps to man.) If you can show us that, you have more proof than the leading Evo scientist alive today. Question: what evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules? Evos answer: Don’t reject a scientific theory just because you have a religious prejudice. This is because they can’t answer the question. try reading Defeating Darwinism by opening minds by Phillip E. Johnson ( yes, Darwin is an ism) Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, PHD. The collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse. Ready with an Answer by Ankerberg and Weldon ( False assumptions concerning Evolution. Read these and point out to us all the false info in them.
Do lies of omission count as "false info"?
My problem with some critics of evolution is that they hold to some cartoon version of the subject no matter how often they’re exposed to the facts. There’s tons of fossil evidence assuming you don’t refuse to see it. The 2nd Law has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody claims dogs evolved to cats or chimps to man. Evolution doesn’t depend on life “evolving” from nonliving molecules. It’s very easy to criticize a field when you don’t take the trouble to learn the first (true) thing about it.
BY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, no doubt I know way more truth than you do. Enjoy the cool aid. ( and read the books I mentioned.)Oh, BTW would you tell us what caused what we call the Big Bang. only a God hating idiot would think that nothing nowhere made matter. Notice, I didn’t say YOU were an idiot, just those that are religious zealots for Darwin.
evidently lies of omission do count, as you people try to make the general public believe there is a fossil that proves evolution is a fact. Fossil data has so many gaps and holes in it , it looks like the bodies at the St. Valentines shooting.
“you people”?
Apparently you don't know enough not to pull out the old "cats evolving from dogs" canard.
only a God hating idiot would think that nothing nowhere made matter.
So without saying I believe that, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of (a) why that's idiotic and (b) why it implies a hatred of God.
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.