https://x.com/michael951413/status/1923307255941746940?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Damn, racism is a convenient excuse.
https://x.com/gunthereagleman/status/1923457781505331308?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Again, justice gets thrown under the bus of a Narrative.
https://x.com/wanjirunjoya/status/1923020345482551654?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/wanjirunjoya/status/1923019775057281177?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The ignorance of history on the left is stunning. Either that or they just don't give a shit and impose their narratives over reality.
https://x.com/nancyrpearcey/status/1923385979924066305?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Of course it is.
https://x.com/imtiazmadmood/status/1923313372604301800?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
That the ROP is pushing atheists towards Christianity is not something I thought would happen.
https://t.co/rddJ2JbBHC
Who would have thought.
10 comments:
First link doesn't go where it's supposed to go.
As for Boers, etc, Most people couldn't care less about studying history, which is why we keep repeating the same problems.
What does ROP mean?
My bad, I get rid of it.
You are correct. Although it's less that people don't study history as much as they actively try to avoid it because to study it exposes their narratives to being proven wrong. For example, Dan often says something like "From what I've seen...", which is probably True. Yet, he's been really clear that he limits what he "sees" and what he gives credence to. So that fact that he hasn't "seen" something seems more like an issue of failing to look than of the information being readily available.
Religion of Peace.
The real trouble is that there are way too many ignorant "Dans" out there!
Outing Political Racism --- I still think the Central Park Five were guilty of beating the crap out of that woman, and at least two of the punks made comments to cops indicting themselves. Other than that, the speaker is correct in defending Trump against nonsensical charges of racism. Democrats lie.
Fairfax, Virginia -- Clearly, Santo-Santos is practicing his self-determination.
Wanjiro Njoya -- This is worse than the apartheid era. Is this also the "voice of the unheard"? Vengeance?
"Darwinism is broken" -- It was never functional.
ImtiazMadmood -- Another reason to deny their entry into our country. There is no parallel to this among other religions to my knowledge. Dawkins chokes here by not challenging this guy on the truth claims of his "religion".
Harvard business professor -- Wow. Lying about lying.
Yes, that is a problem. To use Dan as an example, his ignorance of the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict since 1948 is monumental, as is his unwillingness to apply the same standards to both sides.
Yeah the "Trump racism: narrative is not at all supported by the reality.
Of course he is, "self determination" trumps everything.
It might not be worse yet, but it's definitely headed that way. The success rate of societies that were built on hating or killing off people based on race, isn't good. See Haiti...
Darwinism was functional to some degree before science demonstrated that humans were infinitely more complex than Darwin ever imagined. To some degree Darwinism was functional in giving birth to the eugenics movement and undermining Hitler's philosophy (evil, but functional). The problem now is that we know so much more and we know that much of the "evidence" for Darwinism was either outright fraud (Haekels embryos, finch beaks) or simply assumed (lack of transitional forms, Cambrian explosion). Darwin himself said that his theory could be falsified if they didn't find direct evidence. Yet those committed to the narrative refuse to give up their beliefs regardless of what the science tells them.
I find it interesting that Dawkins has been clear that living in a country formed by Christian values is infinitely preferable to one based in Islam.
The ASPL obsession with credentialism is out of control. The notion that a Harvard education is somehow magically better than any of 50-100 other schools is absurd. That schools like Harvard have sacrificed academic respectability on the alter of DEI and are fighting to continue to discriminate based on race, is simply disgusting.
As to Darwinism, it led to the "old universe" position, because in order for his theories to have any legitimacy, it required time. Prior to that, few opposed the idea of the Biblical age of the earth, or something close to it. And as far as that goes, until recently, when disparaged over being open to the Genesis version of the origin of all things, I had challenged those who worship science to explain how they know that things worked the same in the beginning as they do now. That is, they would say something along the lines of "we know that it takes X amount of time for Y to happen". I would say, "Yeah...it does now. But did it always work that way?" But in the last few years, I've seen a lot of dissertation regarding things like the formation of the Grand Canyon and such with explanations for how the formations took likely days at the most, if not hours, to form as they did...how the placement of fossils aligns with that...and other things. None of the explanations suggest a lunatic, but rather reasoned scientific study and understandings. There's a series of documentaries which I believe are called, "Is Genesis real?" which I highly recommend. I don't know how many there are, but the first included interviews with about a half dozen scientists from a different field of study, and I believe each subsequent "episode" gives the entire time to each of them. I only saw the first two, and they're very compelling.
(Rambling is over now).
Yes Darwinism does require randomly adding billions of years to the time available for the unguided, random, mutations, to accumulate into positive evolutionary changes. Further, Darwin was pretty clear that one of his goals was to offer an alternative to Christianity. Yet, per his followers, it was as much about removing social/moral strictures as anything.
Ultimately we're seeing scientific discoveries that continue to undercut the Darwinian/Materialist/Naturalist position that are harder and harder to dismiss. WK covers these topics much better than I do, I'd recommend browsing his resources.
My problem is that the age of the earth isn't a deal breaker for me. I am confident that a God who has the ability to create everything in multiple universes from nothing, can do so however He wishes. He could have simply snapped His fingers and brought everything into existence that way. He could have chosen to create the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. He could have chosen to create the earth in 6 day-ages. None of those options undermines my faith in the least. Creation ex-nihlo is all I need. The rest is just details.
I strenuously object to the Darwinian notion that evolution is unguided and the Naturalist/Naturalist notion that excludes anything not material from being considered.
If find the notion of "Theistic evolution" to be nonsensical. That YHWH could create is such a pointless, wasteful manner seems contrary to His nature. It's a worst of both worlds option, and the hardcore Darwinian will never buy it as an option anyway.
Much like the abortion debate, the science is increasingly supportive of creation by an intelligent being.
This is another topic that I dug deeply into years ago, and still follow casually. FWIW, if I was going to have a conversation with a Darwinian, I'd spend my time getting the scientific arguments nailed down rather than to try to "prove" that Genesis is 100% accurate. I am convinced that mastering the various, most current, scientific evidence is much more productive. Secondarily, I'd focus on the failures, contradictions, and holes in Darwinian/Materialist/Naturalist explanations.
I don't worry much about the age of the universe, either. But I do appreciate science objectively observed which supports the Genesis narrative. Indeed, I appreciate every discovery in any field which supports the truth of Scripture as the Truth it is.
Scientific arguments must include those which support the Genesis narrative, and those are what's provided in the documentary series to which I referred. I believe the more serious and objective scientists discover, the more we'll find Genesis is indeed accurate, though I find it hard to believe it will be proven 100%. The thing is, it doesn't have to be and nothing has been proven 100% in this particular arena. Few things in other areas are. But compare what was believed about the reliability of Scripture 100-200 years ago versus today given just the archeological finds. We're not closer to 100% than we ever have been, but only death will get us to 100% if Scripture is true at all.
So, to take this knowledge and add it to that which can be shown to have been false about Darwinian theory without it is sound practice.
I do agree that when Science supports aspects of the Genesis narrative that it is helpful. I also agree that nothing will ever be proven to a 100% certainty. So we're left with looking at the evidence we do have and drawing conclusions from there. Right now, the best science tells us that at least some of the Genesis narrative is comparable with the science. Certainly in the area of creation ex nihlo, and fine tuning for life on earth. The age thing, seemingly less so, although the age things is secondary or tertiary IMO.
The thing with Darwinism, is that an honest look at it and what claims it makes, are all that is needed to cast doubt on it an an explanatory narrative. Likewise, any explanatory narrative that excludes possibilities before even considering them, seems to be less than satisfactory.
Post a Comment