Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Origin and Extinction of Species
The American Chronicle ^ | July 25, 2008 | Darrell Williams

Posted on 07/25/2008 2:26:42 PM PDT by Soliton

Understanding the origin and extinction of species is of paramount importance to our own existence and survival. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans understand neither. About 90% of humankind professes to adhere to a religious philosophy that has absolutely no interest or concern in understanding the most fundamental ecological relationships that exist in nature. Human failure to respect this relationship has resulted in human failure in our own stewardship of our own planet.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: chicxulub; creationism; crevo; environmentalism; envirornment; evolution; gaiaworship; worshippinggaia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Very long summary of evolution leading to consequenes of denying it.
1 posted on 07/25/2008 2:26:43 PM PDT by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Soliton

2 posted on 07/25/2008 2:28:08 PM PDT by The_Republican (Conservatives are in trouble because they hate Scarlett Johanson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

“About 90% of humankind professes to adhere to a religious philosophy that has absolutely no interest or concern in understanding the most fundamental ecological relationships that exist in nature.”

Total nonsense. This man is an ignoramus.


3 posted on 07/25/2008 2:37:32 PM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Save The Planet
4 posted on 07/25/2008 2:39:52 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scory
Total nonsense. This man is an ignoramus.

You don't spend much time on evolution threads on FR do you. There are many people here who believe that an invisible being spoke magic words and that created everything in existence. They completely deny the established science.

5 posted on 07/25/2008 2:40:26 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

And your theory..and yes it is still a theory...puts a whole new meaning to the term “scum of the earth”.


6 posted on 07/25/2008 2:45:45 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Okay this is a 7th grade textbook rendition of evolutionary science.... I realized the true nature of this article in the last few paragraphs (although the title should have clued me in).... your “very long summary” is summed up in the last few paragraphs..... trying to come at global warming from another angle since the current angle has been debunked. I love how the author tries to goad one into ignorance by claiming that very few people understand the basics of ecology/evolution and then tries to make a case for global warming by using the scare tactics of impending doom and death. That folks, is not science. Scientists cannot even come to a consensus on the shear number of species that have come and gone during Earth's history.... and to the author's assertion that the breakup of Pangea was the cause of vast evolution is an elementary argument at best.... Besides you would think that ecologists errrr... environmentalists would be having parties in the street if the human race was indeed going to die out due to global warming.... b/c afterall the human race is the most vile, unnatural thing on Earth.... and we should be all too happy to go extinct as a species..........
7 posted on 07/25/2008 2:52:53 PM PDT by zimfam007 (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Functioning together, these two characteristics control the rate of evolution of an animal species. When a species is facing a rapidly changing environment and there is great competition, the species must struggle harder to survive. This increases the metabolism and speeds up the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs if it is to survive. In a changing environment, a species needs more variation in their characteristics in order to adapt. (This literally increases the raw material for Natural Selection. This gives Nature more choices. Simply speaking, those who work harder are more likely to survive and those who are lazy are more likely to fail).

This describes the early ape-like critters that were forced to the edges, then out of the shrinking African forests some six million years ago (our ancestors).

When an animal species is existing in a slow changing environment and there is little competition, the species doesn´t have to struggle so hard to survive. If there is a lot of food available and life is easy, the species may literally become lazy. This slows down the metabolism and slows down the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs. It´s already adapted to the environment and doesn´t need to evolve, so it doesn´t need to change any characteristics.

This describes the early ape-like critters that remained in the forests some six million years ago.

It also answers the oft-asked question, "Why are there still apes?"

8 posted on 07/25/2008 2:53:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

“The fact that they are theories does not make them uncertain, even when various fine details are still under dispute. This is particularly true of the theory of evolution, which is under constant attack from people who are either ignorant of science or, worse, who allow their superstitions to overcome what knowledge they might have.”

-Dr. Isaac Asimov, PhD. Professor of Biochemistry, Johns Hopkins University


9 posted on 07/25/2008 2:58:38 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
It also answers the oft-asked question, "Why are there still apes?"

Because they taste like sh**

10 posted on 07/25/2008 3:04:06 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
I think that the grandeur of the vast scale and very long timeline and the complexity of life and how life evolved from simple one celled organisms to the complex life forms we see today including humans and their ability to think and reason, invent and question, and the power and influence of volcanism and plate tectonics and solar cycles and the influence that other celestial bodies have had on our planet over billions of years, gives greater credence to the idea of a God in charge of it all than does the idea of some white bearded robed guy in the sky who woke up on day and on a whim, decided to make all of creation in a six day work week with a day off for good measure some 6,000 years ago.

In my opinion, the Creationists don’t give their God the credit He should deserve for His efforts and inventiveness.

The God of the Creationists is lazy and sloppy and pressed for time and fallible, while the God who created the mechanisms of evolution and celestial mechanics and physics is brilliant.
11 posted on 07/25/2008 3:06:31 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

“By the late Pleistocene, the modern large one-toed horse had evolved. It can´t be proven that the later large horse was descended from the earlier smaller horse, but except for size they are very similar animals and descent with variation is the most probable natural explanation. (This oversimplified summary was not intended to include all of the several dozen species of horse ancestors that have been discovered. For a more complete history of horses go to www.talkorgins.org).”
Like global warming/climate change explains anything and everything so the evolution notion does too even when it has no evidence. And now the two are pressed into an amalgam in this article that attempts to elevate Darwin to demigod status. Believe or perish!


12 posted on 07/25/2008 3:07:38 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
There are many people here who believe that an invisible being spoke magic words and that created everything in existence.

As opposed to those, including yourself, who believe they're related to their houseplant. Yup, that makes more sense.....

13 posted on 07/25/2008 3:08:00 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal
In my opinion, the Creationists don’t give their God the credit He should deserve for His efforts and inventiveness. The God of the Creationists is lazy and sloppy and pressed for time and fallible, while the God who created the mechanisms of evolution and celestial mechanics and physics is brilliant.

Fairy tails are easy. Science is hard.

14 posted on 07/25/2008 3:11:12 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: csense
As opposed to those, including yourself, who believe they're related to their houseplant. Yup, that makes more sense.....

We have the same DNA structure as houseplants. God doesn't need biology. He could have filled us with marshmallow creme and we would stll work

15 posted on 07/25/2008 3:19:20 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Why even reply. You aren’t interested in understanding science. You are only interested in protecting your superstitions. There is a religious forum where no one is allowed to disagree with your delusions. Go in peace.


16 posted on 07/25/2008 3:22:15 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
He could have filled us with marshmallow creme and we would stll work

Some of us are full of something alright, but marshmallow isn't quite what I have in mind....

17 posted on 07/25/2008 3:33:18 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Amazing how quickly the anti God spiders come out from under their rocks when ever someone spins a web about evolution.
The sheer sophistry and sophomoric logic of Mr. Williams demonstrates his lack of ability to handle complex issues. His understanding of science has more to do with HS chemistry than the metaphysics underpinning serious science.
Too long by double and too dumb by half.


18 posted on 07/25/2008 3:35:56 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell (here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Fairy tails are easy. Science is hard.

I agree with you completely.

I don’t believe in fairy tales in general or in alien conspiracy theories, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, fairies or in benevolent angels, unicorns or in any other vast number of other fantastical beings.

As for God, I’m somewhere between being an agnostic and an atheist.

But if I am inclined to believe in a God, I find more proof of God in the beauty and vast complexity of science than I do in the literal and often biased and uniformed personal interpretation of scripture. Religious scriptures, the great moral teachings found in common among the many of the major religions, in my opinion, hold many great and common truths about how to live our lives in a moral context and not necessarily the mechanics of how life and the world around us works.

Do not accept any of my words on faith,
Believing them just because I said them.
Be like an analyst buying gold, who cuts, burns,
And critically examines his product for authenticity.
Only accept what passes the test
By proving useful and beneficial in your life.
- The Buddha

19 posted on 07/25/2008 3:59:22 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Soliton; scory
There are many people here who believe that an invisible being spoke magic words and that created everything in existence. They completely deny the established science.

Stranger yet is that there are many people here who believe that it happend by accident. They completely deny the established science.
20 posted on 07/25/2008 4:01:35 PM PDT by Sopater (A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal
But if I am inclined to believe in a God, I find more proof of God in the beauty and vast complexity of science than I do in the literal and often biased and uniformed personal interpretation of scripture.

Please humor me while I quote some scripture:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 1:20-25

21 posted on 07/25/2008 4:05:24 PM PDT by Sopater (A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. ~ Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
experiements (sic) that busted the myth.

Spontaneous generation is an old theory that predated Darwin. All Pasteur proved was that nothing grew in his flask. This does not prove or even support the idea that under the right conditions, the right compounds might form to be able to reproduce. The state of the art today is the RNA World hypothesis. Ribozymes and Riboswitches have been found in nature that are probative for an RNA World theory. The building blocks of RNA are pyrimidine and purine. They have been found embedded in the Murchison Meteorite.

22 posted on 07/25/2008 4:12:46 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
Please humor me while I quote some scripture:

Point well taken but humor me by also considering that your scriptural reference could also support my point of view.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

I could propose that it is you that fails to see His invisible attributes and that even though his divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, that you are without excuse. For even though you knew God, you did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations.

Perhaps the physical evidence for a really old Earth in the fossil record and evidence of evolutions is really a sign of His invisible attributes and His divine nature that has been “clearly” seen and being understood “through what has been made”, that you are the one who is futile and without excuse.
23 posted on 07/25/2008 4:57:18 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
The dogma of environmentalism has much in common with the dogma of evolution. The official pronouncements have been made and none dare question them except to support them.
From spontaneous generation to the moth fraud to embryonic recapitulation to acquired characteristics the search goes on. Like global warming everything is proof of the dogma.
If it floods, if there's drought, if there's cold, heat, in between and everything along the scale, it's all proof of global warming/climate change produced by bad stewards.
Evolutionary environmentalism or Environmental evolutionism, believe or suffer the consequences!
24 posted on 07/25/2008 5:27:27 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The dogma of environmentalism has much in common with the dogma of evolution. The official pronouncements have been made and none dare question them except to support them.

With regard to the theory of evolution, don't you think that those who question it should be required to present some evidence to support their questioning?

25 posted on 07/25/2008 5:33:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

You are wrong. AGWists are against science just like the IDer/ Creationists are. You are on the same side. You both support your agendas by corrupting real science.


26 posted on 07/25/2008 5:33:43 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

This is the title of one of the current posts. While just a headline it speaks volumes.
“M.I.T. Scientists: Warming Will Actually Reduce Number of Hurricanes
American Meteorological Society report contradicts claim tropical activity increases due to climate change.”.
Now who corrupted whom? Who has the agenda when some fraud like the peppered moth example is used to support evolution?
And trying to revive the defunct spontaneous generation idea by cooking up goo in a flask? I’d say science is quite capable of corrupting its self with out any outside help.


27 posted on 07/25/2008 6:27:16 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

“The fact that they are theories does not make them uncertain, even when various fine details are still under dispute. This is particularly true of the theory of evolution, which is under constant attack from people who are either ignorant of science or, worse, who allow their superstitions to overcome what knowledge they might have.”

-Dr. Isaac Asimov, PhD. Professor of Biochemistry, Johns Hopkins University


28 posted on 07/25/2008 6:36:10 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
A few million years ago, the only humans on Earth lived in east Africa. They essentially had black skin, black hair and brown eyes.

I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all.

For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes.

This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

29 posted on 07/25/2008 7:11:32 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
And evolutionists, Asimov included, are in the position of relying on unknown processes under unknown conditions to account for unknown life arising at an unknown time at an unknown place for an unknown reason/s they cannot demonstrate any part of. But those they deride as “creationists” are said to place faith in myth and superstition.
You're right, “Once upon a time in slime pool, far, far away” doesn't sound like a bit uncertain at all.
30 posted on 07/25/2008 7:14:29 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all.

For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes.

This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

If you study human races, you will find that black skin, black hair and brown eyes is the way to bet.

The intensity of the sun in central Africa would quickly eliminate pale skin through natural selection. (The other two traits appear to correlate highly with melanin levels--unless there is newer research since my grad school days.)

31 posted on 07/25/2008 7:18:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I agree this is the way I’d bet, but it’s a logical deduction, it’s not evidence. It’s certainly not something one should state as a fact, as the author did.


32 posted on 07/25/2008 7:26:14 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
They completely deny the established science.

And there are others who ignore or disparage theology.

(From atheists to some fundamentalists to 'modernist' denominations).

Cheers!

33 posted on 07/25/2008 9:47:36 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
When an animal species is existing in a slow changing environment and there is little competition, the species doesn´t have to struggle so hard to survive. If there is a lot of food available and life is easy, the species may literally become lazy. This slows down the metabolism and slows down the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs. It´s already adapted to the environment and doesn´t need to evolve, so it doesn´t need to change any characteristics.

Raises an interesting question -- what if you have a population introduced to an environment to which it is not native, so it is not "optimally adapted" (whatever that means). But the environment itself is stable or very slowly changing, so there is little immediate survival pressure.

How does the rate of change of the species differ from another situation where the environment *is* rapidly changing?

(Think of curve following on a hypersurface where you rush to the nearest *shallow* minimum, or seek out the deepest minimum.)

Cheers!

34 posted on 07/25/2008 9:51:19 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
WTF?? When was Asimov at Hopkins?

(I thought he got his PhD from Boston College and stayed further north than Maryland).

Cheers!

35 posted on 07/25/2008 9:52:41 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
He could have filled us with marshmallow creme and we would stll work

"I tell you, God is able to raise up from these stones children of Abraham."

Sounds consistent -- but if we were filled with marshmallow creme, then eating Moon Pies would be tantamount to cannibalism, and then what would the Southerners do?

...although they'd still have RC Cola.

Cheers!

36 posted on 07/25/2008 9:55:10 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
They have been found embedded in the Murchison Meteorite.

Do you accept this as evidence of panspermia, or that interstellar clouds happened to give a leg up to the precursors of ribonucleic acids?

...incidentally, are the amino acids from the Murchison Meteorite racemic mixtures, or do they prefer one enantiomer over another?

Cheers!

37 posted on 07/25/2008 9:57:32 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
With regard to the theory of evolution, don't you think that those who question it should be required to present some evidence to support their questioning?

What is interesting is that there are different levels of evidence considered acceptable in different areas of life. If you don't have a clean chain of evidence, even DNA isn't admissible in a court of law.

OTOH, mistaken eyewitness identifications are fallible too.

The scientific method cannot eliminate errors, but it does give a systematic way to minimize certain errors and provide confidence in the results obtained, within limits -- and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

Cheers!

38 posted on 07/25/2008 10:00:37 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
...and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

And religious belief relies on it not at all.

39 posted on 07/25/2008 10:12:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Sounds consistent -- but if we were filled with marshmallow creme, then eating Moon Pies would be tantamount to cannibalism, and then what would the Southerners do?

I had an uncle who owned a gas station/general store in rural Mississippi. Better than a RC Cola and a moon pie, was pouring peanuts into an ice cold Doctor Pepper on a hot Mississippi Summer day.

As an evolutionist, I of course believe eating any meat or vegetables is a form of canibalism.

40 posted on 07/26/2008 1:49:21 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Sorry, I conflated a quote from a lecture at Hopkins with his professorship. You are correct, He returned to lecturing as a full professor at Boston in 1979.


41 posted on 07/26/2008 2:02:13 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all. For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes. This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

You are correct in that there is no DNA evidence that I am aware of showing that early hominids had dark skin. There is haowever reams of circumstantial evidence and logic advocating for it. Either way, you can not blame this author for claiming it. Do a google. He could have claimed a hundred sources from peer reviewed papers.

42 posted on 07/26/2008 2:14:49 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Most elements on earth were formed in stars or super novae. It is thought that most or all of our water came from comets. It doesn't take too much imagination to consider seriously that some complex organic molecules also arrived from extraterrestrial sources at a time when the environment was conducive to the synthesizing of RNA. It gives them several more billion years to have formed. Also, we have found organic chemicals in interstellar space (vinegar, for instance), and on other planets (methane, ammonia). Organic chemicals were separated from inorganic chemicals for study because it was once thought that only animals (or God) could produce organic chemicals. We now know that was a false assumption
43 posted on 07/26/2008 2:29:45 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Only older scientists believed organic chemicals could only be created in animals. Those who were not as intellectually dishonest understand how to accept the existence of Hod, live by what He provides and reveals, and as good stewards study the chaos and through faith in Him produce good works to place things in order.


44 posted on 07/26/2008 3:03:56 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Don't *DO* that. Much as I like Hopkins, don't saddle them with a smug jerk like Asimov.

Full Disclosure: I admire his science fiction, as he seemed to pioneer the sociological implications of technology earlier than others. And his short-stories and punning ability are superb.

Cheers!

45 posted on 07/26/2008 4:28:45 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
...and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

And religious belief relies on it not at all.

Exactly, but the sanctification is in the details.

Why do some intellectual disciplines rely on the scientific method less stringently than others?

What is each discipline or field trying to accomplish, and what do they have at hand to do so?

Why does religious belief eschew the scientific method, and in an attempt to do what?

Cheers!

46 posted on 07/26/2008 4:44:11 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Perhaps. I guess I’m just allergic to evolutionists making claims for which there is absolutely no proof other than their own assumptions.

For instance, early hominids are invariably shown with a shaggy pelt of hair. We have no data on how much hair they had.

Massive assumptions are made and presented as fact about the appearance of dinosaurs, despite the absence of evidence about their hide texture and color. For all we know they were bright blue. Some now even think some of the dinosaurs, perhaps most, had feathers. There is even an extended debate about whether all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Of course, feathers, primarily a temperature control mechanism, would be of little use to a cold-blooded critter.

Those of us who believe God used evolution as a tool of his Creation find the calm assertion of many evolutionists that they know much more about ancient creatures than they actually do irritating.


47 posted on 07/26/2008 5:39:38 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Those of us who believe God used evolution as a tool of his Creation find the calm assertion of many evolutionists that they know much more about ancient creatures than they actually do irritating.

It is always safer just to trust in magic. That way you can never be wrong.

48 posted on 07/26/2008 6:30:54 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Now, I like you, but if you are going to insult Asimov, we will part ways :). His non-fiction is far better than his fiction! He was a much better popularizer of science than Hawking or Dawkins or even Sagan.

I have his collection of essays “Atom” on my desk. My son is pursuing a science career based on it and another called “Beginnings”. No one should read the Bible or Shakespeare without his guides to help make sense of their language, allusions and historical settings.

As for his fiction, I enjoyed “The foundation Trilogy”, but never got into anything else.

49 posted on 07/26/2008 7:07:49 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Try reading his "Buy Jupiter and Other Stories".

Incidentally, for popularization of science, try Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces"
or
"QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)",
or Kip Thorne's " Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy"
or Lisa Randall (goddess!)'s "Warped Passages"

Cheers!

50 posted on 07/26/2008 7:16:42 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson