Science Redefined in Kansas

</font>[/QUOTE]Since scientists can't define race or religion, the definition of science is long overdue for a change.

Since neo-Darwinists seem to be both anti-race and anti-religion, why not define neo-Darwinism as anti-religious racism?

After all, neo-Darwinists don't own the English language or our souls, and deserve the same religious respect which they show others.

 

Sociologists and psychologists will be perfectly willing to offer definitions of religion. They are also willing to acknowledge societal constructs of race. It is merely that they will, along with all other scientists, ignore the supernatural element in constructing their sciences.

Psychologists are today kind of stuck with the problem of consciousness. Will they ever succeed in a non-supernatural explanation of conciousness?

 

Sociologists and psychologists can't define religion without becoming religious themselves since the fundamental presuppositions and axioms upon which sociology and psychology are premised are themselves a form of religious belief.

They have to, since they are already defined and classified by their own racial features by society itself.

Only if they are behaviorists like Watson and Skinner who abandoned their minds in favor of cerebral impulses and brainwaves.

Of course not, since human consciousness (the mind) is metaphysical and supernatural in nature.

 

I don't define religion like you do. I define religion as belief in a supernatural being who influences the natural world and a belief in how to interact with such a being.

Sticking to my own definition, I don't have to consider sociology or psychology as religion at all.

But I'm curious about your verbal ploy of saying one can't study something without in a sense becoming that thing. Does this mean that by specializing in the identification and detection of racism, one becomes racist?

 

No it is not. The soul and spirit are metaphysical and supernatural in nature, but the mind is not.

 

I don't define religion like you do. I define religion as belief in a supernatural being who influences the natural world and a belief in how to interact with such a being. </font>[/QUOTE]Have Buddhists and Taoists no religion then, since they have no belief in any such supernatural being as you have described.

One need not consider anything to be anything when one makes up their own definitions of things.

That could only occur, as in the above case, when the student's fundamental propositions, premises, axioms and presuppositions are inherently racist to begin with, since it is obviously possible to study caterpillars without turning into a butterfly when they do.

 

No it is not. The soul and spirit are metaphysical and supernatural in nature, but the mind is not. </font>[/QUOTE]You must be a mind reader then or some sort of mental gymnast or genius. Where is your physical evidence of the mind's existence?

 

Some forms of Bhuddism may indeed be more a philosophy than a religion, but most forms of Bhuddism ascribe supernatural powers to Bhudda and the souls of men, such as reincarnation.

Taoists believe in an abstract supernatural principle of Tao.

Actual followers of these religions typically believe in hosts of gods, goddesses, reincarnation.

 

AS any intelligent and objective researcher can see - evolutionism is pseudoscience at best - and just plain "bad religion" at worst.

The fact that the Kansas case was handed over to an evolutionist should not surprise Christians. This world is not our home. Christ is "The Way the TRUTH and the life". Evolutionism is a religion bent on distorting truth and providing a non-God solution for the atheist problem of "origins". Obviously.

#1. The fact is - it is axiomatic that the CREATOR has the most to say - and the most to gain in his OWN statement on what HE DID in creation - on the subject of origins.

So (surprise surprise) we CAN trust His WORD! Yes - Even "the details"!!

#2. It is only "logical" that HE STARTS His Word with HIS WORK in Creation! Duh!!

It is also axiomatic that LAW does not base its authority and proof on "fairytale and myth". So in Exodus 20:8-11 we see the CREATOR referencing HIS OWN literal work in Gen 1-2:3 as "authorotative support" for the "command" given in "The LAW" of God.

So "that WORD" that HE gives does stat FACT (not fiction) about what HE did!

The ID proposal is simply making the obvious point that the painter leaves a "mark of intelligence" in the painting.

The atheist's contention is "there is no painter so how could the painting show any intelligence is behind it!".

Obviously.

The atheist must argue that the "painting happened on its own". But the atheist has "no choice" so it is perfectly understandable that thy must hold to that flawed compromised position no matter how bogus the proposal is to start with.

What about Christians?

THEY must claim that that "painter's painting does not indicate that the painter has any brains at all". Their compromised position in denying ID is much more extreme than is the Atheist's!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

MRIs, CAT scans, surgical experiments, electrical experiments, empirical observation of cognitive development and regression. </font>[/QUOTE]All that's evidence of is brain activity.

 

There is more to religion than moral and spiritual truths since religion may be defined as the sum and total of one's beliefs about both the natural and supernatural world.

That's only a biological myth.

Since there is no evidence of human evolution, it is accepted as scientific doctrine and dogma, religiously.

Religiously.

Since most neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is science and scientists can't define race or religion, scientists can't prove that neo-Darwinism isn't a religion. Obviously, it is part of neo-Darwinist religion to scientifically deny that it is a religous belief, something scientists can't possibly prove true or false.

 

That's only a biological myth.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, the way people study biology is really based on evolution, and their study from an evolution point of view is not a myth.

Oh - were you saying evolution itself is a myth?
Sorry, no mythical storyteller merely made up the fossil record, the vestiges found in men and animals and plants . . .

Intermediate fossils and vestiges and genetic similarities are thought to be evidence of human evolution, what makes you say these are not evidence of human evolution? They certainly exist!

Science will continue to ignore such misconceptions. Science consists of the systematic analysis of all that exists naturally outside of the supernatural realm. Science is characterized by dependence on evidence and building on what has gone before.

The study of evolution and the further development of the theories about how evolution occurred are perfectly normal scientific activities and will continue with or without your permission, understanding and participation.

 

Only neo-Darwinists study and teach biology from an evolutionist POV. Most medical and dental practitioners have no use for neo-Darwinism when treating their human patients.

Rather.

Human fossils certainly do exist and form the basis of conclusive testmony and evidence against human evolution from ape-men by creationists such as Marvin Lubenow and myself.

Now you changing the topic from evolutionist religious beliefs about human origins to normal science.

That definition surely precludes evolutionist ideas and beliefs about human origins which were first postulated by Darwin before there was any fossil evidence of human 'species.' It seems neo-Darwinist race theorists also see only that which they choose to believe in.

Bully, bully. Creationists shall continue to point out the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa until all neo-Darwinist racial theories concerning human origins are banned in public schools.

 

Indeed - it is simply the case of Creationists debunking "Stories easy enough to tell"

Looking for a recent example of the pseudoscience of evolutionism employing “Stories easy enough to make up” that are “not science” when it comes to lizard-to-bird stories? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
In the link above the question is asked

The pseudoscience authored by the “father of lies” has built into the core of its being “lies and deceit” masked as sincere atheist speculation to service their need for a non-god solution to origins!

The clear lesson of history is that the myths and fables of evolutionism only survive in the gray fog of uncertainty and speculation where science is not yet able to validate, certify, confirm, test, reproduce, measure facts and separate them from the bogus fiction of that “bad religion” we know as evolutionism.

But once the data is actually collected and the “full light of day is shining” the result is to erode more and more of the vast territory of speculation staked out by evolutionism’s priesthood.


In time, fact replace evolutionism’s fiction:

From these quotes we discover that EVEN among evolutionism’s faithful the certainty of grandiose claims for change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.


David Raup, Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, ,formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:

Notice in the above quote - that what Colin Patterson calls “Stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” is euphemistically called “thought experiments” by Gould and Eldredge!

[/quote]

#1. You CAN’t claim to know where the order came from. (The Origin is speculative) – ie. “Stories” and “thought experiments” about “origin” can be expected to “Abound” in place of hard science!!

#2. You CAN’t claim to know where the order is going (because that says something about where the NEXT order originated!
.
#3. This means that “stories” frequently told to that effect – are highly “speculative and much disputed”.

Q: Was a continuous sequence PRESENTED as fact in the horse series? Answer: YES!

Q: Was that simply a “story easy enough to make up … but not science”? Answer: YES!

Don’t miss this. The note above states that not ONLY is “actual examples of Change hard to find” but when you “think” you do have “change” it is hard to show that natural selection with “descendants better adapted than predecessors” occured in those cases.

So the RULE is no change and the RUILE is even In change – there is no natural selection result of “improvement in descendants”!

More than that – it is apparent that “The stories” have been claiming that they DO find transitions and smooth change from A-to-B-to-C but “What is ACTUALLY found” is “highly uneven” with Species “APPEARING – Suddenly – VERY Suddenly”

Notice the presentation was “all wrong”. HOW could an “ALL wrong” presentation be concocted WITHOUT the evidence for it?? Answer: With LESS data and fewer example there is room for “more story telling”!!. Their “Story” was better with less data!! (And so it is with “all stories”!!)

 

Uh! Now you are equivocating.

IF you can show the same degree of lying, faking, deceiving being practiced in Geology and Biology as was DOCUMENTED in the case of the faith-and-practice of evolutionism then show it.

That was what that link was all about!

That is the "unnanswered question" that stil remains.

If REAL sciences like geology and biology can be shown to contrive "Stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science" (As even ATHEIST Evolutionists admit within evolutionism) -- then show it and justify your attempt to equivocate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Looking for a recent example of the pseudoscience of evolutionism employing “Stories easy enough to make up” that are “not science” when it comes to lizard-to-bird stories? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
In the link above the question is asked

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what other area of science do we encounter such embarrassing forgeries as Haeckel’s “human gill slits,” England’s Piltdown Man, or China’s Archaeoraptor? It seems that all too often someone is prepared to make an outlandish claim—and back it up with what turns out to be “faked” evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pseudoscience authored by the “father of lies” has built into the core of its being “lies and deceit” masked as sincere atheist speculation to service their need for a non-god solution to origins!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. The fact is - it is axiomatic that the CREATOR has the most to say - and the most to gain in his OWN statement on what HE DID in creation - on the subject of origins.

&lt;snip&gt;

The ID proposal is simply making the obvious point that the painter leaves a "mark of intelligence" in the painting.

&lt;snip&gt;

THEY must claim that that "painter's painting does not indicate that the painter has any brains at all". Their compromised position in denying ID is much more extreme than is the Atheist's!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the "Details" of the post -- I said no such thing.

Here again you are turning a blind eye to the "inconvenient facts" that disprove evolutionism and cling to "myth" inspite of reason, data and facts to the contrary.

Why do that?

Today we have many "sciences" that involve the discovery of what has been done. Forensic medicine being a prime example.

The fact science can SEE that something was DONE vs "Something fell off a rock blown by the wind" is NOT RELIGION!

Get it??

The difference is NOT religion it is in ACTUAL historic FACT. EVIDENCE -- DATA pointing to a young earth, or to a complex design is not a matter of faith - but of honest observation.

The atheists try to hide behind the apron strings of religion claiming that any data that conflicts with their own doctrines on origins - "must be religion".

That is another example of the "bad religion" that constitutes evolutionism.

Because there is no logic to that statement "At all". Christ BEGINs in John 1 and in Genesis 1 (so that is BOTH the Gospels AND the WORD of God itself) saying that THE REAL WORLD was historically - and IN FACT - CREATED by Christ the Creator!

That means it is (as PAul says in Romans 1) the result of HIS direct handiwork and can be SEEN to be so.

It is as much a discernable FACT as the fact that when a PAINTER creates a PAINTING it does not taket rocket-science to admit to that simple historic fact. As much you may want to "pretend" that science could only detect variations in light wavelength coming from each color - the TRUTH is science can ALSO see that IT IS A PAINTING vs a rock that fell in some mud!

Why atheist evolutionists have to "pretend" not to get that obvious point is "obvious" for all to see. "They" have no other choice.

But why Christians have to jump in that same pit with the atheist evolutionists is confusing EVEN to the atheists!!

Richard Dawkings points to that problem in an interview posted here many times.

In Christ,

Bob