f you have a problem with Darwin personally then what about
Alfred Wallace who independently discovered the same thing and whose paper was presented at the Linnaean Society on the same day as Darwin’s?
rossum
You are failing to grasp the central imperative which is-
An essay based on racial supremacy cannot,I repeat, cannot provide a ‘cause’ for biological evolution as it does not represent genuine science and is totally out of context with its foundations within geological evolution.
The problem is that many Christians try to work within the ‘scientific method’ framework which is actually causing the problem and that requires recognition that Darwin’s distorted ‘cause’ is not the problem itself but only the symptom of the problem.
Science is science, no matter what the failings of the person who does the work. Newton was a heretic who denied the trinity, does that invalidate gravity?
rossum
Newton was an Arian who thinks like an Arian and his work reflects his beliefs.He sets himself up as God’s scientific spokesman leaving Jesus as some sort of moral authority as Arians are want to do.Newton’s grand sounding effort of reducing planetary motions to the level of terrestrial ballistics may impress everyone else and his followers have been effective is protecting his effort but it looks like bolts of lightening are appropriate from the title of his work - ’ The Universal Law Of gravitation’ - give me a break !.
His followers are now just following his Arian mindset to its logical conclusion by trying to frame Christianity as a vessel of moral issues framed as superstition and setting up empirical knowledge as the light of humanity.
As for his gravity,all he did was distort the original astronomical insights of Copernicus and attempted to fit planetary motions with Flamsteed’s newly created Equatorial coordinate System, considering that it is impossible to fit a round peg into a square hole,Newton’s version is trying to fit a system based on equable 365/366 days into an orbital structure of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.
The Ra/Dec system is an observational convenience that pastes planetary motions against the stellar background like ornaments of a rotating christmas tree,it is great for ‘predicting’ celestial position of bodies in relation to each other such as predicting eclipses and so on but it absolutely useless for structural astronomy at the level of Copernicus and Kepler.In case people doubt that the problematic system emerged with Flamsteed there are any amount of articles confirming this -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
The point is that I am not grandstanding,just demonstrating that I understand why science went from a magnificent facet within Christian tradition to where it is now.
Hitler appears in this discussion because you introduced him.
Your arguments are not relevant to science.
rossum
The problem is that religious people of any genuine belief do not meet this horror imposed on genuine science and creation head on.My arguments are relevant to genuine science because basically genuine science barely survives within the empirical agenda.
Those who pursue the ‘scientific method’ or the one-size-fits-all approach to celestial/terrestrial phenomena have been effective in promoting the idea that their method is the one that has always existed and they railroaded the wider population into believing the trajectory of advancement such as Copernicus - Galileo- Newton ect.The truth is that Newton botched the work of Copernicus and empiricists have been using Galileo ever since as a shill to support false conclusions in every sphere of existence and especially the rich Christian tradition.
A scientist who existed before the rise of empiricism was the great and very religious Pascal who noted what happens when you approach a topic like a mathematical idiot -
“The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it”
oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html#SECTION%20I
In short,empiricists treat creation like a cistern while genuine scientist love creation like a fountain,perhaps some day the latter will return
