Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fact, Fable, and Darwin (If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)
American Enterprise Magazine ^ | 8/04 | Rodney Stark

Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 681-693 next last
To: Havoc

This is why you should read the books. Obviously, you haven't.

All three that you deny do have prophesies. Some of which have been fulfilled. In fact, the Muslims say that the coming of Mohammad was prophesized. READ THE KORAN FOR YOURSELF. But, the Koran has its own problems, and I am not going to defend it.

You obviously also NO idea of the Vedas. Vedas stated 1000 years BEFORE the Bible that there is only one God. The Vedas also describe the shape of the universe, the Big Bang, nuclear fusion, etc. What Hindus practice today IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS. Hinduism today is a gross mistake, a hedious misrepresentation of what the Vedas preach. READ FOR YOURSELF BEFORE MISTATING OR MISREPRESENTING, EITHER OUT OF IGNORANCE OR SOME OTHER MOTIVE.

Same with the Dharmapada, which was written 500 BC. It has amazing mathematical and atomic physics insights. Read the "Dancing Wu Li masters" and "The Tao of physics" if you can't stomach reading the actual book.


101 posted on 08/03/2004 8:14:38 AM PDT by razoroccam (read Germs of War to know the real Armageddon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: _Jim; Renfield
I guess that's a matter of the way you do science and the way real scientists do 'science' ...

Oh, I don't 'do' science, I only read other persons' comments. I can barely comprehend the concepts most scientists are working with.

I just read stuff like this and wonder about the implications of it and if there is any countervailing evidence:

We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code . . . [it] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.

(Leslie Orgel, New Scientist, 15 April 1982, 151)

The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning . . . Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of Earth were formed. Thus we have no clue, even from evidence which penetrates very far back in time, as to how the information standard of life was set up in the first place, and so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.

(Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, 8)

Thus there is a paradox. Both nucleic acids and proteins are required to function before selection can act at present, and yet the origin of this association is too improbable to have occurred without selection.

(T. Dobzhansky et al, Evolution, 1977, 359)

The gap between a rich organic environment with all the necessary precursors . . . and the simplest organized life, remains immense . . . It is difficult to visualize the steps by which they may have originated, because the various processes which occur in them are interdependent; none can function without the others.

(J. Butler, The Life Process, 1970, 185,188-189)

102 posted on 08/03/2004 8:22:19 AM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

---
What a diaper-load. Anybody that uses the term "Darwinist" is by definition a Creationist.
---

Thank you for proving the author's point that any dissent is immediately responded to with vicious personal attack intended to discredit, humiliate and silence.


103 posted on 08/03/2004 8:30:55 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
When Creationists say there is no evidence, it is because there is no evidence. None. Evolutionists have been scouring the planet for such evidence driving themselves batty to no avail; because transitional fossils don't exist.

No, it's what I said. The proof of "There is no evidence" is that no one can make a creationist see the evidence.

104 posted on 08/03/2004 8:31:44 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: narby

---
It's been done, many times.
---

Cool. Where's the cat/dog transitional form that came out of the laboratory?

What the laboratory has done is demonstrate the process of variation within a species and the methods by which it can occur (gene transfer, mutation, etc.)

The idea of the origin of species has never been experimentally verified.


105 posted on 08/03/2004 8:34:42 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sumocide

---
Excuse me, but a creationist started the ad hominems with this article.
---

Actually, the author said no such thing. The fact you reached that conclusion by reading the actual quotes and facts presented by author demonstrates the attack was not ad homeneim.


106 posted on 08/03/2004 8:41:08 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
The author fails to mention mutation, either from ignorance of malice. Either way, the author is not stating evolutionary theory correctly. I predict that no Creationist will criticize this author for such a failure.

But the boundaries between species are distinct and firm-...

The author neither defines "species" nor gives evidence for such a claim.

107 posted on 08/03/2004 8:41:35 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

---
Popper's final opinion, which is the only one that counts, was that it DID meet the test of being scientific.
---

Then everything Galileo ever said we must ignore, because his final opinion, issued as a recant of all his previous declarations, is the only one that counts.

Because we all know that persecution never ever forces a person to confess to something he doesn't actually believe.


108 posted on 08/03/2004 8:47:39 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: narby
They still have classes in "music theory" too. You going to propose that there is no such thing as "music".

Music is the work of the devil.

109 posted on 08/03/2004 8:48:49 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

---
Funny - at the most basic levels, there are more things that are in common than 'things' that are different.
---

You might want to actually talk to some real scientists first. The basics of chemistry he's talking about are the proteins and acids required to form self-replicating molecules. The chemical principles involved in their formation are extremely well understood (activation energies, stability of intermediates, etc.), and the odds of them just forming (selection can't work on non-replicating systems), is astronomically remote.

Evolutionists who actually know some Chemistry understand this. You can spot them by how quickly they shout that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life.


110 posted on 08/03/2004 8:56:23 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: razoroccam

Go back and read what I said. Then show me a prophesy in the Koran. Consider that a dropped gauntlet. My information is that it contains none. Jerusalem is not mentioned Once in the Koran, yet Muslims tell us how it is one of their most holy cities (because it's a thorn in the side of the Israelites). Oh, wait, you're not going to defend your point, you'll just drop names and run right..

Um, I have some Idea of Hindu religions; but, I don't generally study them in depth. On the other hand, I didn't state that the Hindus have no prophecies in their religious works. You'll search in vain for that statement in my last reply and find no trace of it. What I did say is that there is nothing of worth there. And I stand by that. You might stop and read before trying to correct someone for something they didn't say.

As for interesting math and physics insights. Math and physics evolved seperate from religion. That a religion should incorporate it into their works doesn't lend them credibility religiously. It just means they have a grip on math and physics.

The Bible predicted the day that Israel would become a nation again. It predicted the raising of Jerusalem after the death and ressurection of Jesus. It predicted Jesus' entrance to the city. The shear number of prophecies laid down and fullfilled by Christ is stunning in and of itself.
The books which prophesied the events predated Christ by a margin long enough that the events could not have been forged after the fact. What's more, Bible prophesy is still being fulfilled. Christianity has a living God. One that is more than a carved relief or a name on a page.

He destroyed the egyptian Army and an empire to free His chosen people. And to this day, Israel is despised because they are proof of God by their very existance and their scriptures bear up their claims right down to the curses God put upon them for their disobedience.

The God of the Bible is God. There is non other than him.
Substance speaks louder to me than religious philosophy that gives people something to do to keep themselves occupied.. Egyptian Chariot wheels and fragments don't lay at the bottom of the Red sea because of a myth. Nor is sianai exactly as described in scripture because of historic inaccuracy. Nor was Christ crucified in a form other than was prophesied in scripture - I would note that such a form of death didn't exist at the time of the prophecy. LOL.

Of course, you aren't going to defend your statements. I wouldn't want to either.


111 posted on 08/03/2004 8:58:38 AM PDT by Havoc (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Creationists have eyes. Creationists don't have any evidence to lay those eyes upon. Of course there are things you'd like people to believe are evidence. But even your own people belie that. Sorry. There are no transitional fossils. Never have been and never will be.
But you can keep looking if you want. Nobody's stopping you. On the other hand, I think it's high time we stop publicly funding this nonsense. The shell game has gone on quite long enough.


112 posted on 08/03/2004 9:03:46 AM PDT by Havoc (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

---
... 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
---

I've read it. The evidences are extremely weak considering the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record.

It's kind of like arguing for the existence of ether (a once-believed in medium to propagate light waves through space) by citing all the traits waves have in common, how other waves propagate and the general behavior of waves while completely ignoring the utter and complete lack of the actual detection of ether itself in any observation or experiment.


113 posted on 08/03/2004 9:05:48 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Havoc

But even your own people don't believe that. Amazing how that lag edit tool works..


114 posted on 08/03/2004 9:07:18 AM PDT by Havoc (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: frgoff

Stop it. Making sense is not allowed. This is a religious thing for them. It takes faith lol


115 posted on 08/03/2004 9:09:05 AM PDT by Havoc (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Creationists have eyes. Creationists don't have any evidence to lay those eyes upon.

This gets rather funny. Several people, myself twice, have provided links loaded with positive evidence that evolution has occurred. You and others simply chant the mantra that there is no evidence.

This is a science of not seeing. It can teach us nothing.

When creationists do attempt to address the existence of mountains of what they say does not exist, they simply pretend that any lawyerly objection, any paragraph filled with negative-sounding terms concerning an object or an experiment makes it go away.

Think of the difference between a thing not existing at all and someone having some mud to throw at it, justifiably or not. (In the case of creationist assaults on scientific data, the mud-slinging is more willful misinterpretation and ignorance on the part of the creationist.) It is asserted that something reasonably to be expected, even predicted by a theory has not been found. This is said in the obvious hope that the statement can slip by unchallenged.

But the fallback trench is already prepared. If someone points out that this stuff does exist in museums and collections all over the world, not to mention any roadside cut near my house, maybe even gives some specific instances of such, then some creationist or even (Gasp!) an evolutionist somewhere has written something bad about the thing cited or something like it. Doesn't matter if the seeming criticism is valid or not, if anyone anywhere has sounded what looks out of context like a sour note, then a thing doesn't exist after all.

This is creation science, what we need in our science classrooms now to vault into the 21st century. (NOT!)

116 posted on 08/03/2004 9:22:02 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
"a thoroughly ideological Darwinist like Richard Dawkins claims....."

You know Dawkins is in trouble when the best analogy he can think of is an intelligent designer (A watchmaker!) who has some limitations ( a blind watchmaker ).

117 posted on 08/03/2004 9:27:56 AM PDT by cookcounty ("NIXON sent me to Vietnam!!!" --JfK, lying about his 1968 arrival in-country UNDER PRESIDENT LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
I've read it. The evidences are extremely weak considering the lack of any transitional forms in the fossil record.

I believe your side typically claim that there is no evidence. Now you produce the funny second sentence above, the first part of which is the unsupported assertion that the evidences are "weak," the second part of which (intended in support of the first part?) is a simple repetition of the mantra that such things do not exist at all. That is to say, you don't even make sense here. The stuff exists. You have a very funny way of dealing with that.

Most of the 200 or more species cited in that link were discovered after Darwin published. That is, his theory predicted that such things should have existed and, notwithstanding "the imperfections of the geologic record," at least some of them ought to turn up. They have turned up in abundance. That this has happened is in fact a fulfillment of the predictions of the theory, but creationists are allowed to call evidence a lack of evidence, a fulfillment a failure. They are allowed to lie. This is not a good testimony to the effects of faith in things unseen.

118 posted on 08/03/2004 9:29:36 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Actually, I was thinking more of the "transitional vertebrate fossils" than the "29+ evidences" when I wrote this but it's the same problem.
119 posted on 08/03/2004 9:31:00 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

>>These so-called "crevo" threads serve as a perfect example of the extra-scientific nature of the "debate".<<

I believe that is part of the authors point...


120 posted on 08/03/2004 9:32:21 AM PDT by RobRoy (You only "know" what you experience. Everything else is mere belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 681-693 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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