Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
Where are alll the anti-evolutionists jumping out to support editor-surveyor? How many of them read that thread the way he does?
How many support his scholarly work on ascorbic acid?
Can you get anything correct? Perhaps you thought that everyone was too lazy to check?
None of the above is accurate, infact it is completely false.
Post 186: Good Job. This poll was quite informative wasn't it you two? I'm glad we got to know a little bit more about each other.
Post 189: I'm not humiliated, I pity the dumb who don't know a root from the branches---hung(upside-down) like a chirping monkey!
Looks like the typical evo deception to me.
Can you get anything correct? Perhaps you thought that everyone was too lazy to check?
None of the above is accurate, infact it is completely false.
Post 186: Good Job. This poll was quite informative wasn't it you two? I'm glad we got to know a little bit more about each other.
Post 189: I'm not humiliated, I pity the dumb who don't know a root from the branches---hung(upside-down) like a chirping monkey!
Looks like the typical evo deception to me.
So every time we add a transitional between two species we end up with two holes instead of one? If this is what you require then you will never be satisfied, as there will never be enough transitionals to fill all the holes. Fossils do not form readily and the probability that a given fossil will not only form but be found by a human before it is destroyed by the elements is as small as the probabilities Creationists throw around for the likelihood of abiogenesis. If you don't consider this difficulty in your expectation for transitional fossils and demand hundreds of transitionals, In my opinion, you are being disingenuous.
Transitionals should exhibit features from the source species, the destination species and all three should share other features. There are morphological features that in extant species are diagnostic, they are used to identify a taxonomic group because they occur in only that group. These diagnostic features are considered when determining if a fossil is a transitional. This is what we find when we examine the Achaopteryx. Archy has features diagnostic to reptiles and features diagnostic to birds as well as features that are shared by theropod dinosaurs, Archy and modern birds and *by no other groups*.
"One day there was a dinosaur, then hundreds of thousands of years (or millions) later this dinosaur became a Archaeopteryx. Where are the transitional formations which logically should be found between these two events?
There are a number of other proto-bird fossils that have been uncovered but they appear to be on different branches than Archy. This is common with fossils because there are far more branches that stay branches than become part of a 'trunk' in the phylogenetic tree. This does not diminish their status as transitional fossils because they too contain diagnostic features of reptiles (dinos) and birds.
"Did the caveman hide them? Did Captain Kirk beam them off the planet?
I thought you were up for a serious rational discussion? At least that is what you suggested in previous posts. I hope that this isn't the best you can do.
If you don't believe that fossils are rare for a reason, I suggest you investigate taphonomy and do your own calculations. Just make sure you include in those calculations not only the necessary initial conditions for fossils to form but the conditions necessary for fossils to survive the movement of earth, erosion and exposure to the elements and the length of time those fossil have had to become exposed to the elements compared to the length of time humans have been looking for them.
"Your evidence is based, yet again, on conjecture and supposition (guess work). Someone came up with this little theory, and then went about trying to prove it in ways that provide no proof. DNA, geneology, strata, etc.
The relationship between fossils and the great age of the Earth was known long before Darwin. When Darwin started his travels aboard the Beagle he was firmly intrenched in beliefs one would consider to be ID today - he believed whole heartedly in Paley's designer and complexity argument.
Scientists aren't trying to fit the evidence to a theory, in fact the majority of tests are designed to falsify the theory. You apparently do not understand the adversarial nature of modern science. All of the data, statistical analysis, and the conclusions one scientist produces from a physical object such as a fossil are available to all other scientists in that, and related fields. In many cases the actual fossil is also available - although it is more common to supply replicas for study although the original is always available for comparison to the replica. Scientists do not spend time trying to find ways of agreeing with others in their field, they spend time picking holes in the conclusions of others. There is no way that a conspiracy to fit data to a theory is possible in today's scientific environment.
"Of course DNA exists in common - they all lived on the same planet in which the same genetic codes were used to create all life, but placed in different configurations. If one were to "create" life, why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the same substance already once used, but configure it differently for a different animal structure? Really, this is not rocket science.
Its funny that you should claim ID as being so self evident when there is a much simpler and more logical way of producing a variety of species and reusing bits of code when your code is self replicating.
As a designer you produce an initial species and give it the ability to modify the DNA it passes on to its descendants. You then create an environment that will guide the DNA in a specific direction. In this way you are not only reusing chunks of code(DNA) but avoiding the need to hand insert those snippets into each new species you create.
As an old programmer who has reused many, many snippets of code to build applications, I would much prefer to just set the fitness parameters for the end product and let my code rewrite itself. A lot less work for me - far less than hand inserting snippets into my code for each new app.
Now *that* makes sense.
BTW, I noticed you didn't have any evidence to back up the assertions in your post. What gives? I thought you wanted a rational discussion?
What do you consider ignorance? Is someone ignorant if they don't agree with evolution? Or are they ignorant if they don't agree with you?
No matter how often you tell a lie, no EVERYONE is going to believe it. Some of us actually use our God given brain. We don't need godless people fabricating "evidence) (LOL) to fit their agenda. We are easily sway to believe the absurd.
He's flailing, desperately.
I think it's rather funny, but I find humor in creationists grabbing for a lifeline that isn't there.
Oh, there was so much in that post, no, I won't do it, it wouldn't be prudent.
Editor-surveyor, thank you for letting your true colors fly.
Folks, it seems this debate is about more than science class. It is about "purifying" FreeRepublic. It is about expunging "undesirables" from the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular.
FR is a pretty popular site. How many people are going to read crap like this, and wonder? How many will leave with the impression that Republicans are anti-science? How many lurkers from Democratic Underground are thanking you for making their job a whole lot easier?
Your post is exactly what this whole thread is about.
Please don't hold back. Tell us again who does and doesn't belong on this website.
Unless we are to remand the totality of the dabate to the domain of philosophy, none of the THEORIES ought be promulgated as anything other than that, but they ought all be treated with eqanimity.
Pushing evo, alone, as "the only boat floating" is no more a demonstration of "scientific method" than creation proponents are accused of implementing.
FWIW, most of what I've read from creationist researchers says no more than "here's how the data collected would fit within the creation framework established in the Bible". But, in fact, it seems that simply making THAT statement is more infuriating to evo's than anything else that could be said to them. The merest suggestion that a set of numbers or data points could stand as evidence of ANYTHING other than "The Only True And Great Theory Of Origins Embraced By Sentient Beings™" is put forth as empirical evidence that whoever made the suggestion is not a REAL "Scientist®".
This is neither more nor less than the origins equivalent of islamofascism. "Anyone who doesn't see it OUR way is a science INFIDEL and must submit to professional dhimmitude or death." So evo goes out to wage jihad aginst all comers, shrieking "Great is the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) and great is his Holy Theory!!"
We can only hope they stop short of scientific terrorism.
Does that include Catholics?
Yes (put creationism in science class) 948 votesPercentage voting "No" is 35.6%
No (keep creationism out of science class) 524 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,472
Outstanding. Please beat the darwin-idolatry and terror-science drum louder.
That'll bring in the votes.
They should make a movie of this thread and call it "Invasion of the Retards".
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.