Skip to comments.Churches urged to back evolution
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
click here to read article
How would you know?
It's not exactly like Haekel thought it was, in that the embryo does not go through all the evolutionary steps in its phylogeny.
But it's not complete nonsense either; Haekel noticed some real phenomena and generalized too far.
In fact, there is an uncanny resemblance between the evolution of reptiles into mammals and the embryological development of the jaw and ear
Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, Sept, 2003 by Robert Thayer Sataloff, Jesse C. Selber
In the embryology of present-day mammals, the developmental process in the bones and muscles of the first and second branchial arches involves a re-enactment of the evolutionary process than begot the mammalian middle ear. Meckel's cartilage grows back to meet a primary jaw joint and becomes enveloped by intramembranous bone. The posterior portion ossifies into the articular, while the posterior portion of the upper jaw ossifies into the quadrate. In mammals, the dentary expands to make up the entire mandible, while the condyle grows back to meet the squamosal component of the cranium, forming the second jaw joint. The articular, quadrate, and stapes separate from the other intramembranous bones of the jaw and become isolated as middle ear components--that is, the malleus, incus, and stapes.
How would you know?
how would I know what spitfire?
If the University Professors were in charge of the government, our rifles and pistols would do us zero good against their military. Think Waco Texas (not that I agree with Branch Davidians in any way). Proof that the Second Amendment only works in a nation where communities require personal responsibility and character. Science does not produce personal responsibility or character.
Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush]
There are many Theistic Evolutionary Catholics in that area of the Blue state.
The Gallup Organization has been polling the public on this issue since 1982, when 38 percent indicated a belief in the creationist explanation of life's origin, 33 percent believed in theistic (God-directed) evolution, and 9 percent chose the no God account. The trend has been steadily toward creationism, and by November 2004, 45 percent chose the creationist explanation, 38 percent the theistic evolutionist account, and 13 percent the no God explanation.
You are the first persom to EVER use the Declaration of Independence as science text. Please provide the cross-reference to or from other scientific works. What does the Declaration say about Evolution? About Physics? (standard CRIDer run/fallacy #2: Strawman and #4: Begging the question)
No one is attempting to deny God. This is a standard CIDer canard and strawman. Science is silent on God and attempts to explain how things work and why they work. Science depends on non-supernatural explanations.
Then you have no problem with alternate common sense explanations explaining life. Again your interpretation of the facts is the limited one. Science by definition should not be limited when such a large number of credible scientists wish to weigh in.
And planes are held up by angels. You can make unsupported statements all you want, but an assertion is not an "alternate common sense explanation." It is an ignorant shot in the dark. And please O please site specifically how many biologists have weighed in in support of Creationist mythology. Oh, and name them. (standard CRIDer run/fallacy #1: pure lies presented as "facts" or "arguments.")
Remember that next time you drive a car or fly. Or use the bathroom. Or plug in your computer.
I am sure you will acknowledge that none of these "discoveries" demonstrates a speck of superiority. Having a cell phone with iTunes on it doesn't add a whit to a person's character. In fact it is an easy case to make that a person who has indulged in higher education exhibits stunted character growth.
You must be taking lessons from RunningWolf or Havoc or Creationist in non sequituers and strawmen. No one, certainly not me, has brought up any issues of superiority, character or anything else that is philisophical or sociological. Mine was a strictly scientifi argument that says you can't pick and choose which parts of science you can decide to "believe" or not. (CRIDer run/fallacy #2 again among others)
Salvation through knowledge is beginning to fall on deaf ears as people begin to recognize the agenda of the materialists who, by definition, are forced to deny unalienable rights. The evidence of a superior intelligence contributing to the lives of His creatures is trumping the Naturalistic Only dogma!
Nice rant -- not argumentation of any kind, doesn't address the topic at hand -- just ranting. (Standard CRIDer run #8 -- yell "Praise the Lord" and fall on the floor).
I ask again -- can't you CRIDers take on arguments using facts and logic? Your entire post addresses issues that have nothing to do with TTOE or its scientific basis.
False dichotomy (Standard CRIDer Run/Fallacy #10).
Creationists lie to advance their agenda. We can prove it -- even in this very thread. In fact your childish attempt to create some sort of "trap" for me is also a form of a lie.
Res Ipsae Loquuntur
LOL!!!! Funniest rejoinder of the thread! :)
People have found that they can sometimes control the minds of others by using an issue such as this.That's all this really is. And, it is only a problem here in the USA.
Thanks for a great post. It's nice to see some mental hygiene at this web site for a change.
From the article:
But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design will deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.
"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
Can someone please tell me what actual technology will suffer regardless of the outcome of this debate? Examples please, with how either ID or evolution is needed to develop the technology.
"That's a false statement, and you know it.
The worst thing is, you will never stop saying it, and when called a liar, you'll run weeping to the mods. How pitiful."
No there is NO evidence whatsoever and YOU know that too. Evolution is a religion. You want to believe in it even though NOTHING supports it and especially not logic.
Initially I conversed with this Dim person - whatever his name is. Then he became obnoxious and I started ignoring him. Mind you he's been harassing me for OVER six months. Today, I simply had enough! He's way out of line! Unlike others, I announce that I've had enough and what I will do about it. Let that be a warning to you too. I see no reason to put up with childish harassment and personal attacks - part of the rules here.
What I regret is that I did not report his abuse MONTHS ago.
Neither does math. Did you have a point?
There are many Theistic Evolutionary Catholics in that area of the Blue state.
Who appear motivated to vote, at least on the local level, against ID in science class.
If you went to my link you also saw Gov. Taft, Gov. Bush, and especially Sen. Santorum all distancing themselves from ID being taught in science class.
Or happen twice.
However, relegating our God given intelligence and curiosity to random chance spits in the eye of our Creator.
If we measured the percentage of our reality that we understand, it would be less than 1 percent, being that we are trapped on a minuscule planet with primitive instruments. Guessing about reality is entertaining, but it doesn't stop people from flying planes into buildings.
Minus the transforming power of Jesus Christ, there never would have been a country like the United States. Freedom has always been based on people of character. There are obvious supernatural forces at work in our reality. Israel is back in the land after having been scattered for thousands of years and that little strip of land has the entire world in illogical turmoil.
Allowing conventional science to dictate reality leads to a society enslaved to elite scientists forcing prescriptions to tranquilize boys into submission; a generation of people cutting tasty fat foods from their diets needlessly; aborting human beings because they are legally defined only in materialistic terms...
My comments cut to the heart of the debate!
You refuse to accept an hypothesis that is grounded in science, meaning that it will have to follow existing science findings, but will accept something as tenuous as supposed Bible prophecy simply because it agrees with your belief system. Hmmm.
You really are averse to science and the scientific method aren't you?
sort of "trap" for me
Get at least ONE thing right tonight, you trapped yourself with YOUR OWN WORDS! Your the childish one with your backpeddling. It's no wonder you can't grasp basic truth.
What known physical laws would explain abiogenesis? And who said that creationists base their philosophy for living on magic? I presume you can support that second statement with some references.
Intelligent Design is not an "assault on science." It asserts that science was created by intelligence, and we have been discovering that intelligence for centuries.
Ridiculous. Would you care to back that nonsense up with a link to something respectable?
Knowing about antibiotic resistance is not dependent on accepting the ToE; it came about the hard way, by observing it. If it was, then doctors and scientists should have predicted that it would happen instead of handing out antibiotics like candy until, oops... now we have antibiotic resistant bacteria. Obviously, knowing about and accepting the ToE did nothing to prevent the health crisis we face now. Shouldn't the ToE been able to predict that?
And not accepting the ToE is not the same as rejecting science off hand. There are many branches of science that can be successfully practiced without evolution ever entering into them. Good science depends on the scientific method not adherence to a theory. Too many theories in the past have changed and continue to change by the day. So why should people be condemned because of being skeptical of one?
Yeah Dimensio! Quit posting facts and exposing Creationist' lies and logical fallacies by throwing their words in their face.
Here - read above what someone posted. Exposing Creationist's lies???? Where do we get THE TRUTH that the poster calls lies. From God's Word! So that's calling God a liar. WE don't make things up, we go to HIS Word.
Here's a courtesy ping to let you (RunningWolf, Havoc, Creationist)know that you are being discussed and give you a chance to defend yourself, which someone apparently forgot.
Basically, if you are calling creationists liars for telling you what God has said in His word, yes you are calling God a liar. If creationism is a lie, than God lied when He said He did it.
Ultimately, one will believe the view that fits with his lifestyle and desires - for God, or for life without morals or consequences.
Tory...your article surely has generated a lot of thought, a lot of emotional outbursts, and a lot discussion...
What I wonder about is this...if one wishes to have something taught, which questions evolution as it is now taught, just what do they want taught..I mean, there is strict creationism, which as I understand it, asserts that all living things were created by God, in an instant, in the form we see today...and created in just six days...and that the earth is around 6 thousand years old...and then there is intelligent design, which is very different in that it seems to grant that some 'supernatural being'(ID, to my knowledge, never really asserts this being as God),was the initial creator of some life form, which then went on to evolve...and ID also seems to grant that the earth is millions, or billions of years old...
I guess, what confuses me, is that creationism/Intelligent Design seem to have very little in common with each other, except that they both grant the initial creation to be done by a 'being'...creationism grants the creation to God, whereas ID grants the creation to any 'powerful being', whether God, or some other being, or I suppose even aliens from outer space...so I see very little in common between Creationism and Intelligent Design...
So, if opponents to Evolution want alternatives taught, just what alternative do they want taught?...ID? Creationism?...I mean, one must admit that there is great difference between these two...they disagree on many points, and thus we see that even the opponents to evolution cannot agree on alternate competing ideas...and then, there are widely varying and differing ideas about which 'religion', supports which alternate ideas, and would adopting that religions ideas about this, then lead to trying to slip the teaching of a specific religion into public school?...
There are those that would try to claim that this would never happen...I call that, burying ones head in the sand...if one wants to present an alternate idea to evolution, based on ones own particular religions stand on this issue, then naturally, we come to teaching the religious views associated with that religion, and thus are teaching a particular religion...
There are many religions that I would never want taught to my children, and I believe that many also feel that same way...by adopting one religions views on evolution, and how they feel their views challenge evolution, it would seem to me, to necesarily be teaching a specific religion in public school...is that really what some here are advocating?
I really would appreciate the thoughts of others on this...
Since I came to this thread rather late, I have posted late, and now must leave the thread...but I am hopeful, that tomorrow, someone can answer some of my questions...
Can you tell me, in your own words, how one measures the quantity of information present in a genome?
Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.
You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars
What have I lied about? What have I misrepresented? I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something? If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.
From where/Who/what do you get your beliefs? You got a more truthful book than the Bible and a better teacher than God?
you haven't thought this through very clearly
Wrong. Your choice of ignoring the evidence -- not even bothering to refute it scientifically--doesn't make it go away. Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALA"
They only check the sign up date when they suspect a troll.
Like they think we are. :-)
God is bigger than science. Science shouldn't try to deal in the spiritual or supernatural.
Basically once she tells you something is so, anytime after that you say anything different, now you are a liar.
Well that is just once piece of the demented 10,000 fragment liar kaleidoscope. It is almost impossible to not be a liar in the demented world unless you worship at the altar of darwinistic evolutionism, its main deity the flying spaghetti monster.
I always thought it was our immortal soul that was created in God's image, not our bodies.
Let him howl. That's what he does best.
or is it SSSS?
(same s#!+, same thread)
See the post above hers. (tee hee)
You know what, with all you babbling, you say nothing.
It stands. You are calling God a liar. God created the world and every living thing in it. If you do not accept His Word, The Bible, you have no capacity for truth.
Yet you hang onto what Kent says. A mere man who depends on God for his every breath. Why do you look up to man? How lowly do you think of yourself? Animals do that - oh I forgot - you belief humans are animals. But then again, I guess Kent's (monkey brain) is an animal too.
Remember, at one time, 'man" said the world was flat. However, those who seek truth knew better - the bible explains it - and doesn't explain it as flat.
So, keep believing man - they are always finding something new and denouncing what they said yesterday.
But God always was, always will be, and will always remain the same. TRUTH DOESN'T CHANGE. On that note - no more chit-chat. I'm not into talking to animals but I do wish you all the best and may you have enough pee-pee pads for all you needs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.