Philosophy - The commenters make my case for me
The soon-to-come posting will begin to address Genesis 10 and 11 and how the names found in the Bible have been documented to have been recorded in cultures around the world, startling proof of the veracity of the Bible. But let us first digress into the world of the commmenters....
"Everyone who has had my beliefs forced on them, please raise your hands?" (my words)
"All the kids in Kansas can now raise their hands." (an anonymous commenter)
The above is an example of why I have previously stated that the current evolutionist majority is currently playing the role of the Catholic Church and creationists find themselves playing Gallileo. Here is a commenter who is upset because Kansas school children can see both sides of the issue of origins rather than simply having the orthodox (Darwinist view) presented to them as scientific fact. It would be laughable were it not so true...
Right now, it is the majority of the kids not in Kansas who are having Darwinist beliefs forced upon them at school. The above commenter no doubt thinks that is just fine.
"Science is not a world view. It's a process.
I don't object to your world view, I object to you framing your world view as science when it's clearly not." (an anonymous commenter)
To paraphrase George Lucas, "Ah, the prejudice is strong in this one!" The commenter is saying that only his world view is scientific. How arrogant a remark, and yet it is commonly held. Materialists, being in the majority, now believe they own the field.
"You want to trivialize what I say because you fear that there may be truth there," (my statement)
"No I don't. I trivialize what you say because it's ignorant and not scientific. It's also not backed up by any observations." ( an anonymous commenter)
The above reply is one of the more ignorant comments ever made to this blog! I have spent a lot of time illustrating how creation fits into the observable present more neatly than Darwinism and also presented a great deal of evidence at the same time. My commenters may not agree with the evidence (in fact many of them object very strongly!), but to say that there are no observations and that it is not scientific means that this commenter has really drunk the kool-aid. Drunk it, binged on it, begged for more.
I am glad for the comments, though, because they prove the point of my posting. One's world view has a great effect on one's scientific stance. That particular commenter is incapable of even considering anything that does not fit into his world view, no matter what the evidence. Not only that, he cannot see it. Perhaps he is not even capable of seeing it?
"However - i do disagree in your belief that ONLY your world view has any merit, and should be taught as factual truth. I can't speak for American schools, but that is NOT how we teach evolution over here. we say, this is the evidence found, and these are the scientific theories that seem to fit the evidence. we are still looking for further evidence & new theories." (Mrs. Aginoth)
Mrs. A, I did not say that only my point of view has any merit and only it should be taught. That is what the evolutionists are saying, as I just illustrated above. I am saying that, as you say, that both sides should be presented along with the evidence for both. Being in England, I believe, you don't know how it goes here in the states but in our schools Darwinism is presented as the ONLY possibility, which smacks of indoctrination rather than education.
She goes on to say..."I do not look to science to disprove God. i would be quite delighted if you could come up with a single scrap of scientific evidence to proove he definitely exists - it absolves us of all responsibility."
God bless you, Mrs. A! You look at it quite differently than I. I believe that the existence of God actually comes with responsibility to Him, as our maker. Perhaps you would consider the existence of Jesus Christ and the miracles he performed as evidence? Just a suggestion. But most of the other evidences such as the fossil record and rock layering depend entirely on how you wish to see them, it would seem.
"...It's the lazy man's way of looking at the world IMO. However, neither you, nor any of your creationist buddies have managed to come up with any proper evidence. Just saying "but we're all here" is not evidence, it is belief (as you have so rightly said) and therefore, we all have the right to believe differently if we so wish."
Lazy? Not sure how that would apply? Whereas I disagree with your review of the evidence, may I point out that it is Darwinist commenters who have stated that we must have evolved 'because we are here' whereas I have said that we were created. But yes, yes, YES!!!! We all have the right to believe as we will. I agree entirely. Let's be honest enough intellectually to present more than one side and let students come to an informed conclusion, shall we?
SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS DEPENDED ON LOGIC
Newton said, when complimented on his success in science, that "we stand on the shoulders of giants," referring to those who made discoveries in the past. Science has depended on a world that was orderly and logical. How odd that this world that materialists believe has occurred quite randomly nevertheless is very orderly. Every single discipline has found this and counted upon it. One can find and conclude that there are laws of motion, for instance, rather than forces being arbitrary and unpredictable.
The universe, and nature, have the appearance and the earmarks of design. Materialists hate to admit this but it is quite true. Not one of my commenters ought to argue with that, but rather that the appearance of design does not mean design has occurred.
I have admitted my world view and how it filters and colors what I see. I fear I am more honest than some of you in this way. I admit it, I understand it and am able to think logically anyway. If I were to use my commenters as an example, I would say that some evolutionists cannot even admit to themselves that their world view filters and colors their view of science. No, they will bluster and accuse and deny and denigrate but they mostly will not admit to it.
I am a Christian and a creationist and I hold a creationist viewpoint. There are hundreds of scientists, some of whom have won major scientific awards, who are either creationists or at least adherents to Intelligent Design. Many more are willing to say that macroevolution is not proven and there needs to be more study on the subject. My commenters know this is true and try to ignore it. They wish to trivialize creation science.
Dan S admits to having a world view that is part of his scientific beliefs. Mrs. A is willing to say that people should be able to make up their own minds. But there are other commenters who just cannot tell it like it is. They should admit it, "I am a materialist and I have a materialist view of science."
HONESTY
Let's go there. (I have one commenter who keeps asking me about the ACLU when I have already taken a stand and made my statement on the subject. Get a life, dude! It is off the subject, but the ACLU gets a large part of their income from tax dollars and in fact legislators are working on ways to prevent them from doing so in the future. If they couldn't draw big settlements and attorney's fees from suing a municipality for displaying a creche, then maybe they would just do what they say they are there for instead. That is what I say, what I believe and I am not going to swerve from that. Period!)
I hear people say I duck the statistical issues and also bring up the second law of thermodynamics. I posted a thorough look at statistics and have not been given back a straight answer yet. Take the Houdini out of your answers and play it straight, people. Mumbo jumbo with math might impress your friends but not me. Every answer a commenter has tried to give me began by reframing the question. No!
The second law? I did a long post on that one, carefully and patiently explaining why macroevolution, if it operates, must do so against the second law of thermodynamics. It just so happens that we must bring effort into this world to overcome that law. I clean my desk because it gets messy. Men work at factories because the parts would not assemble themselves without bringing in outside effort. Yet despite this, on the whole, entropy continues to win the fight against energy and of course one day energy will cease to be available, assuming nothing changes in the interim. I plan to be dead before then. But the point is that we must bring in outside effort to a system to overcome the second law. Random mutation within the gene pool of organisms will tend to bring about harm to the creature. We bring in outside effort (animal husbandry) to get fatter turkeys, specific dog traits, cows that give more milk and so on. These things don't just happen. Yet, in the mind of the macroevolutionist they do and they have. If you want to believe that, it is your right, but know that it is against the second law of thermodynamics.
I was accused of evading Dan S concerning his faith question (although Dan himself did not say so)? I thought I had made that clear. I believe in God and that He created and nothing that Dan can say will change that. How many of you have the guts to say, "I believe in macroevolution and that life has evolved. Nothing radar can say will change that?" Dan, I hope that is a complete answer to your question. But if you wish to frame it another way I will address that too, because I am not trying to avoid it. I just thought I had answered already.
As I said, I had been on the evolutionist side and have changed sides. My hope is that some of the people who read this blog may follow that same road. Therefore I plod away at my task. I know full well that some come here, lured by the idea that this is "an hilarious anti-science blog" and I dialogue with those who are merely here to mock. That is because I believe some of the evolutionists that come here are honest with me and with themselves and some honest exchange of ideas takes place. I therefore learn from those individuals and appreciate their participation.
Furthermore, sometimes the conversation goes elsewhere. IAMB pointed out The Mars Volta to me, a group I had not otherwise encountered. Jim just sent me a funny little video, thanks very much. It also seems I have received contributions from both sides of the fence for the next Carnival, so that should be interesting. And, yes, I am posting the pro-Darwin contributions, too!
Therefore, to commenters like Mrs A and Dan S and Matt among others, thanks. You disagree with me but you are straightforward and I am glad you are around. Actually, sometimes I think Dan S has longer commment contributions than that of the posts to which they pertain! To commenters who know where I am coming from like Tim and Mark and Amy and Jim, I appreciate your support!
Your world view determines to a great extent where you stand on the creation versus evolution question.
"Everyone who has had my beliefs forced on them, please raise your hands?" (my words)
"All the kids in Kansas can now raise their hands." (an anonymous commenter)
The above is an example of why I have previously stated that the current evolutionist majority is currently playing the role of the Catholic Church and creationists find themselves playing Gallileo. Here is a commenter who is upset because Kansas school children can see both sides of the issue of origins rather than simply having the orthodox (Darwinist view) presented to them as scientific fact. It would be laughable were it not so true...
Right now, it is the majority of the kids not in Kansas who are having Darwinist beliefs forced upon them at school. The above commenter no doubt thinks that is just fine.
"Science is not a world view. It's a process.
I don't object to your world view, I object to you framing your world view as science when it's clearly not." (an anonymous commenter)
To paraphrase George Lucas, "Ah, the prejudice is strong in this one!" The commenter is saying that only his world view is scientific. How arrogant a remark, and yet it is commonly held. Materialists, being in the majority, now believe they own the field.
"You want to trivialize what I say because you fear that there may be truth there," (my statement)
"No I don't. I trivialize what you say because it's ignorant and not scientific. It's also not backed up by any observations." ( an anonymous commenter)
The above reply is one of the more ignorant comments ever made to this blog! I have spent a lot of time illustrating how creation fits into the observable present more neatly than Darwinism and also presented a great deal of evidence at the same time. My commenters may not agree with the evidence (in fact many of them object very strongly!), but to say that there are no observations and that it is not scientific means that this commenter has really drunk the kool-aid. Drunk it, binged on it, begged for more.
I am glad for the comments, though, because they prove the point of my posting. One's world view has a great effect on one's scientific stance. That particular commenter is incapable of even considering anything that does not fit into his world view, no matter what the evidence. Not only that, he cannot see it. Perhaps he is not even capable of seeing it?
"However - i do disagree in your belief that ONLY your world view has any merit, and should be taught as factual truth. I can't speak for American schools, but that is NOT how we teach evolution over here. we say, this is the evidence found, and these are the scientific theories that seem to fit the evidence. we are still looking for further evidence & new theories." (Mrs. Aginoth)
Mrs. A, I did not say that only my point of view has any merit and only it should be taught. That is what the evolutionists are saying, as I just illustrated above. I am saying that, as you say, that both sides should be presented along with the evidence for both. Being in England, I believe, you don't know how it goes here in the states but in our schools Darwinism is presented as the ONLY possibility, which smacks of indoctrination rather than education.
She goes on to say..."I do not look to science to disprove God. i would be quite delighted if you could come up with a single scrap of scientific evidence to proove he definitely exists - it absolves us of all responsibility."
God bless you, Mrs. A! You look at it quite differently than I. I believe that the existence of God actually comes with responsibility to Him, as our maker. Perhaps you would consider the existence of Jesus Christ and the miracles he performed as evidence? Just a suggestion. But most of the other evidences such as the fossil record and rock layering depend entirely on how you wish to see them, it would seem.
"...It's the lazy man's way of looking at the world IMO. However, neither you, nor any of your creationist buddies have managed to come up with any proper evidence. Just saying "but we're all here" is not evidence, it is belief (as you have so rightly said) and therefore, we all have the right to believe differently if we so wish."
Lazy? Not sure how that would apply? Whereas I disagree with your review of the evidence, may I point out that it is Darwinist commenters who have stated that we must have evolved 'because we are here' whereas I have said that we were created. But yes, yes, YES!!!! We all have the right to believe as we will. I agree entirely. Let's be honest enough intellectually to present more than one side and let students come to an informed conclusion, shall we?
SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS DEPENDED ON LOGIC
Newton said, when complimented on his success in science, that "we stand on the shoulders of giants," referring to those who made discoveries in the past. Science has depended on a world that was orderly and logical. How odd that this world that materialists believe has occurred quite randomly nevertheless is very orderly. Every single discipline has found this and counted upon it. One can find and conclude that there are laws of motion, for instance, rather than forces being arbitrary and unpredictable.
The universe, and nature, have the appearance and the earmarks of design. Materialists hate to admit this but it is quite true. Not one of my commenters ought to argue with that, but rather that the appearance of design does not mean design has occurred.
I have admitted my world view and how it filters and colors what I see. I fear I am more honest than some of you in this way. I admit it, I understand it and am able to think logically anyway. If I were to use my commenters as an example, I would say that some evolutionists cannot even admit to themselves that their world view filters and colors their view of science. No, they will bluster and accuse and deny and denigrate but they mostly will not admit to it.
I am a Christian and a creationist and I hold a creationist viewpoint. There are hundreds of scientists, some of whom have won major scientific awards, who are either creationists or at least adherents to Intelligent Design. Many more are willing to say that macroevolution is not proven and there needs to be more study on the subject. My commenters know this is true and try to ignore it. They wish to trivialize creation science.
Dan S admits to having a world view that is part of his scientific beliefs. Mrs. A is willing to say that people should be able to make up their own minds. But there are other commenters who just cannot tell it like it is. They should admit it, "I am a materialist and I have a materialist view of science."
HONESTY
Let's go there. (I have one commenter who keeps asking me about the ACLU when I have already taken a stand and made my statement on the subject. Get a life, dude! It is off the subject, but the ACLU gets a large part of their income from tax dollars and in fact legislators are working on ways to prevent them from doing so in the future. If they couldn't draw big settlements and attorney's fees from suing a municipality for displaying a creche, then maybe they would just do what they say they are there for instead. That is what I say, what I believe and I am not going to swerve from that. Period!)
I hear people say I duck the statistical issues and also bring up the second law of thermodynamics. I posted a thorough look at statistics and have not been given back a straight answer yet. Take the Houdini out of your answers and play it straight, people. Mumbo jumbo with math might impress your friends but not me. Every answer a commenter has tried to give me began by reframing the question. No!
The second law? I did a long post on that one, carefully and patiently explaining why macroevolution, if it operates, must do so against the second law of thermodynamics. It just so happens that we must bring effort into this world to overcome that law. I clean my desk because it gets messy. Men work at factories because the parts would not assemble themselves without bringing in outside effort. Yet despite this, on the whole, entropy continues to win the fight against energy and of course one day energy will cease to be available, assuming nothing changes in the interim. I plan to be dead before then. But the point is that we must bring in outside effort to a system to overcome the second law. Random mutation within the gene pool of organisms will tend to bring about harm to the creature. We bring in outside effort (animal husbandry) to get fatter turkeys, specific dog traits, cows that give more milk and so on. These things don't just happen. Yet, in the mind of the macroevolutionist they do and they have. If you want to believe that, it is your right, but know that it is against the second law of thermodynamics.
I was accused of evading Dan S concerning his faith question (although Dan himself did not say so)? I thought I had made that clear. I believe in God and that He created and nothing that Dan can say will change that. How many of you have the guts to say, "I believe in macroevolution and that life has evolved. Nothing radar can say will change that?" Dan, I hope that is a complete answer to your question. But if you wish to frame it another way I will address that too, because I am not trying to avoid it. I just thought I had answered already.
As I said, I had been on the evolutionist side and have changed sides. My hope is that some of the people who read this blog may follow that same road. Therefore I plod away at my task. I know full well that some come here, lured by the idea that this is "an hilarious anti-science blog" and I dialogue with those who are merely here to mock. That is because I believe some of the evolutionists that come here are honest with me and with themselves and some honest exchange of ideas takes place. I therefore learn from those individuals and appreciate their participation.
Furthermore, sometimes the conversation goes elsewhere. IAMB pointed out The Mars Volta to me, a group I had not otherwise encountered. Jim just sent me a funny little video, thanks very much. It also seems I have received contributions from both sides of the fence for the next Carnival, so that should be interesting. And, yes, I am posting the pro-Darwin contributions, too!
Therefore, to commenters like Mrs A and Dan S and Matt among others, thanks. You disagree with me but you are straightforward and I am glad you are around. Actually, sometimes I think Dan S has longer commment contributions than that of the posts to which they pertain! To commenters who know where I am coming from like Tim and Mark and Amy and Jim, I appreciate your support!
Your world view determines to a great extent where you stand on the creation versus evolution question.