Re: A few questions from an Anthro student


oriel36 wrote:
NashtOn wrote:
Janie wrote:
As an anthropology student I get very annoyed at people picking at me
beliefs, I certainly don't go around telling other people there what
they should or shouldn't believe.

Poor fellow!

I got sucked into this debate
thing some time ago because of flame mail by some psycho that told me I
was going to go to hell for believing in science.

You mean to say, evolution. You see, evolution is not science, just a
historical account according to naturalists, of how living things morph
and adapt through time.


My only fear is that by taking away evolution from high school
education we may be stifling our own economy and may fall behind the
rest of the world in terms of technological development.

Aw yes, so much in our society hinges on the theory of evolution. Our
whole industrial-military complex, the transmission of power, medicine
and anything imaginable is derived from Darwin.
In fact, without Darwin, we would never have had the technology to
travel to the moon.

And so I want
to point to an article that I thought some of you might find
interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/opinion/12Thorpe.html?ex=1148529600&en=a69700c711d39161&ei=5070

I don't find it interesting.

On a side note I do have a question (or many) about how creationists
think (best way I can put it). If the Australopithecines weren't
bipeds how did they get around?

You're correct. Very few animals use all fours for locomotion.
It's an outrage!

I've tried doing that knuckle walking
stance and even if my arms were longer, its still uncomfortable to
crane your neck in order to be looking forward. Surely someone has
explained this to them?

Somebody should explain this to most of the primates. They should be
engineered genetically to walk on their hind legs since they can't look
forward.

And what about things like the Australian
rabbits and myxoma. If it wasn't evolution in action then how do they
explain it? What about sickle cell anemia and malaria. If evolution
isn't the answer then how else do they explain such phenomena?

You will find that most people don't have a hard time with adaptations,
but don't agree with macroevolutive changes.


All I know is that the world is laughing at us.

Those crazy Europeans are drunk most of the time so, who cares?

I came to London (UCL)
to study physical anthro here and so many British kids ask me how an
American can study evolution, since we all don't believe in it. I'm so
amazed at how a minority is capable of embarrassing an entire nation.

Anthropology the science of the study of its own assumptions. Why not
study locally, in NA? Couldn't get accepted in an American University?




--
Nicolas

"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin

It is taught that the Earth orbits the Sun as a fact without any
indication of how Copernicus arrived at that reasoning.When the actual
reasoning is acknowleded and verified it can be seen that the 'fact'
was arrived at through another means by the empiricists who never
bothered to take the original reasoning into account.


So what aspects of Copernicus' reasoning, exactly, do you think that
"empiricists" unfairly ignore? Was it the limited elongations from the
sun in the orbits of Mercury and Venus? The way the outer planets
always appeared closest to the earth when they in opposition with the
sun, and farthest away when in alignment? The fact that all the
planets' motions included an annual anomaly, and that the size of that
anomaly just happened to vary with the planet's distance from the
earth? These all sound empirical to me.



Newton broke several astronomical principles to arrive at his
'empirical ' conclusions for heliocentrcity and so it is in his
followers.


Which ones did he break, specifically?
".

The bogus structures and premises generate abnormal physical
characteristics most notably the inability to give the correct value
for the rotation of the Earth on its axis.


What do you mean by this, exactly? What is the "correct value" for the
rotation of the earth on its axis, how did you determine this, and how
does it differ from values arrived at by Newton and his marauding band
of empiricists?



Newtonian empiricism is a testament to Kepler's warning about arriving
at conclusions through forcing facts to suit the ends,that Newton
eventually shades off into fraudulent misuse of Keplerian reasoning
makes his agenda even more irrelevent.


Forcing facts to suit a priori principles appears to be exactly what
*you* are arguing for, and is *anti*-empirical almost by definition.

<snip rest>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... between axial rotation and celestial sphere geometry - ... Equation of Time and then into heliocentric reasoning. ... hours,likewise emboldened empiricists applied the same imaginative ... evolution and evolution itself. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... Earth moved around the Sun. ... Intelligent design vs Darwin's twist on evolution is actually a dumbed ... empiricists became more aggressive in an anti-faith agenda,even though ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... You mean to say, evolution. ... was arrived at through another means by the empiricists who never ... bothered to take the original reasoning into account. ... the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origin of Pre-historic Fossils
    ... powers of revelation to overturn the Theory of Evolution? ... Not their power, but God's power working through them. ... from an older earth. ... saith the Lord, by a mighty convulsion, hence the FOSSILS in the ground, ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Origin of Pre-historic Fossils
    ... powers of revelation to overturn the Theory of Evolution? ... Sir Arthur Keith, that "This discovery has destroyed the finer points we ... Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, ... from an older earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading