Dr. Scott attempted to hide who he is?
Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
You seem unaware of the "You can't call me a creationist" creationists who swear they aren't all that religious but don't like evolution because:
Blame that on Hitler. He took the false doctrine, and said, "We'll survive and Jews won't."
There are no great medicines resulting from evolutionary theory. Every time there is a great discover, I always see the words, "Scientists were surprised to find...".
Whether or not you admit that you just made that up, you really should consider how ignorant you're making yourself appear in a conservative public discussion forum.
shuck: "I believe what the author is saying is that medical or agricultural science would still be in the dark ages if not for the theory of evolution. That of course is the truth."
This must be the same line of reasoning that got us to the doctrine of evolution in the first place.
Scientific method was founded long, long before the theory of evolution came to be widely accepted. The same is true of biological science. To say that biological sciences hinge on the concept of macro-evolution is perposterous.
I don't know. I forget; was BTK a biology teacher or a scout leader and regular churchgoer? Ideas do have consequences.
Actually Hitler proclaimed to be Christian and and his form of Nazism was from his Christian beliefs. He just believed Jesus a Gentile and not a Jew.
Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists
The essay at the above link has a great description of the transition between reptiles and mammals.
If nonstandard geology or biology were true, one could them to find more oil than the deluded followers of uniformatism and Darwinism can.
Hint: I'm not investing in a creationist oil prospecting company. Neither is Shell, Exxon, BP, etc.
Glenn Morton is a famous example of a YECer who saw the light.
This is really silly and tiresome. Does anyone seriously believe that we creationists don't understand and appreciate genetics and adaptability of organisms? The fact that organisms are adaptable does not prove evolutionary descent.
Indeed, it was my rigorous education in organic chemistry and biological science that made me realize that life simply cannot organize itself. It's just foolish to imagine that something as complex and vulnerable as a DNA spiral can self organize, protect itself from the elements without any reason for doing so, and then reproduce itself. Experiments to replicate this, even under the most optimistic conditions, all failed and were largely abandoned in the 1990's.
Evolutionists seem so desperate to deny creationists and ID'ers a forum and to debate the science. It is a dead giveaway about whose "science" is really the house of cards.
Exactly what proof would convince you? Those who refuse to believe in God aren't going to be convinced by me. Of course you aren't going to convince me humans descended from ape-like creatures either.
There are three kinds of escalating lies: Ordinary lies; damn lies; and, statistics. This is the latter.
To trot out such a lame statistic serves only to discredit the author.
How many companies were hiring scientists prior to the state of Kansas making their minor change in curriculum?
Sorry - it's already in the classrooms. And you know what - people still believe in God as the creator. Too bad you don't.
Easy! Everyone knows the answer to that question! It was the guy who started the protestant religion.
There is no empirical data that suggests the Christian version of the afterlife, or indeed any particular version of the afterlife (or even the existence of an afterlife) is true. Therefore, your off-the-cuff "you'll see" really has absolutely no more effect than breaking wind in a hurricane.
See #70. One of evolution science's brightest stars has called out the knuckeheaded Darwinists on their faith claims and religious fervor. He serves it up better than I could, so feast up.
See #70. One of evolution science's brightest stars has called out the knuckeheaded Darwinists on their faith claims and religious fervor. He serves it up better than I could, so feast up.
Self-professed? What other kind of atheist is there? Or Christian for that matter.
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.