On pseudo science

Discussion in 'Science' started by Paul of Eugene, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, I enjoyed skimming through it and think it is a good description of neo-Darwinist beliefs, ideas, theories and scenarios of the origins and evolution of the first tribe of African people from non-human ancestors of African apes.
     
  3. fossilman

    fossilman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    jc,

    Probably just an oversight, but you forgot to use the word "racist" in the above post. I encourage you to be more careful next time.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm truly amazed at how well YECism fits into those categories. I had never considered YECism as pseudoscience until now.
     
  5. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's odd. YEC's have been calling neo-Darwinism pseudoscience for 40 years now.
     
  6. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably just an oversight, but you forgot to use the word "racist" in the above post. I encourage you to be more careful next time. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting that it is not implied and self-evident that neo-Darwinist beliefs, ideas, theories and scenarios of the origins and evolution of the "first tribe of African people from non-human ancestors of African apes," are obviously racist?
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue of darwinism aside, the fact remains that YECism fits into the categories of the OP. That in and of itself should be of concern to us Christians.
     
  8. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether "YECism fits into the categories of the OP" or not, and should be of concern to "us Christians," or not, all depends on what category of Christian "us Christians" are. Six-day creationists or Christians seduced by neo-Darwinst race theories about the origins of the human race in Africa and the evolution of the first 'species' of African people into fully human people like neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it doesn't depend on what one's view is. YECism fits into the categories of the OP. That in and of itself should be of concern to us Christians, regardless of one's view.
     
  10. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are only publically posting your own personal and private opinions about your particular viewpoints here, Johnv, and can neither expect nor demand everyone else to agree with your personal opinion or private viewpoint on any subject.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a matter of personal opinion, but it is a matter of objectivity. When a person looks at the list in the OP link, it's clear that YECism fits into the categories of the OP. That should be of concern to us Christians, whether one favors YEC or opposes it.
     
  12. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can it be a matter of objectivity when you are subjectively comparing what you call "YECism" (whatever that is) with the pseudoscience of neo-Darwinist racial opinions about the first African people on earth?

    You haven't even made it clear what your personal opinion and explanation of "YECism" is.

    Christians should be more concerned about anti-Christian and neo-Darwinist race theories being taught to children in public schools by pseudoscientific high school teachers working for the government.
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    It works out just as I thought it would. Everybody says the other side fits the pseudo science catagory. [​IMG]
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    You are in error. Look at my posts in this thread. I have not addressed the topic of Darwinism in regards to the topic.

    My personal view is irrelevant to the fact that I was looking at the OP objectively.
    Again, I wasn't addressing darwinism. I was addressing YECism based strictly on its own merits. Whether one should be concerned about darwinism does not change the fact that, in accordanace with te OP, YECism fits the categories of pseudoscience. Christians should be concerned about that in and of itself. The fact that you are completely disregarding that issue is of greater concern, because I doubt that you are alone in doing so.
     
  15. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    And which part of the article do you think describes the science behind the theory of evolution?
    That's about all they've been able to do. They certainly don't back it up with real science.
     
  16. jcrawford

    jcrawford
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's exactly my point. You can't discuss pseudoscience without including Darwin's racist theories of African people mutating from ancestors of African apes by 'natural selection.'

    As a neo-Darwinist, you've lost your capacity to be objective about either science or pseudoscience.

    Not really, since whatever you call "YECism" is based on the prejudices of your own pseudoscientific belief in neo-Darwinist racial theories about African Eve and her tribe being genetic descendents of African ape ancestors.

    Now you're converting your personal beliefs and theories about "YECism, science and pseudoscience into "facts." I suppose you have some personal beliefs or scientific theories and opinions about what constitutes a "fact."

    Why?

    Oooh, another neo-Darwinist "fact."
     
  17. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Of course. Everything I agree with is science and everything I disagree with is pseudoscience. ;)
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't it make you wish and long for some way to tell the difference - some way of distinguishing the pseudo science from the real - telling the facts from the fancies -

    Oh wait, that's what the first post was all about after all.
     

Share This Page

Loading...