On pseudo science

[Paul of Eugene]

I found a good article about pseudo science in general . . . might be fun reading.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
I found a good article about pseudo science in general . . . might be fun reading.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

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.

 

[fossilman]

jc,

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.

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
I found a good article about pseudo science in general . . . might be fun reading.

I'm truly amazed at how well YECism fits into those categories. I had never considered YECism as pseudoscience until now.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Johnv:
I'm truly amazed at how well YECism fits into those categories. I had never considered YECism as pseudoscience until now. [/QB]

That's odd. YEC's have been calling neo-Darwinism pseudoscience for 40 years now.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by fossilman:
jc,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
That's odd. YEC's have been calling neo-Darwinism pseudoscience for 40 years now.

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.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Johnv:
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. [/QB]

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
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.

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.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Johnv:
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. [/QB]

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
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.

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.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Johnv:
This is not a matter of personal opinion, but it is a matter of objectivity.

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?

When a person looks at the list in the OP link, it's clear that YECism fits into the categories of the OP.

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

That should be of concern to us Christians, whether one favors YEC or opposes it.

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

It works out just as I thought it would. Everybody says the other side fits the pseudo science catagory.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
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 are in error. Look at my posts in this thread. I have not addressed the topic of Darwinism in regards to the topic.

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

My personal view is irrelevant to the fact that I was looking at the OP objectively.

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.

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.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
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.

And which part of the article do you think describes the science behind the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by jcrawford:
That's odd. YEC's have been calling neo-Darwinism pseudoscience for 40 years now.

That's about all they've been able to do. They certainly don't back it up with real science.

 

[jcrawford]

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

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.'

My personal view is irrelevant to the fact that I was looking at the OP objectively.

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

Again, I wasn't addressing darwinism. I was addressing YECism based strictly on its own merits.

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.

Whether one should be concerned about darwinism does not change the fact that, in accordanace with te OP, YECism fits the categories of pseudoscience.

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."

Christians should be concerned about that in and of itself.

Why?

The fact that you are completely disregarding that issue is of greater concern, because I doubt that you are alone in doing so.

Oooh, another neo-Darwinist "fact."

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It works out just as I thought it would. Everybody says the other side fits the pseudo science catagory.

Of course. Everything I agree with is science and everything I disagree with is pseudoscience.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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.