Fact, Fable, and Darwin (If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)

American Enterprise Magazine ^ | 8/04 | Rodney Stark

[RobRoy]

This is getting good. Unfortunately, I have to go over to Queen Ann hill and set up my son's computer. HAVE FUN!!!

[Havoc]

That's cool. Have fun bud. Pat the kid on the head, tell him you love him and never to believe an evolutionist - they lie lol.

[longshadow]

Festival of Rampant Cranks placemarker

[betty boop]

I don't see where you addressed anything I said. But thanks for writing, BB.

You're welcome, dear VR.

[whattajoke]

Gliding would be an advantage for humans, being able to breathe under water would be as well. Being able to withstand pressure without concern for the benze would also be a plus.

May I be so bold as to ask you where you received your "science education" as you mentioned early on in this thread? May I also ask you why you think gliding would be selected for in humans? (um, that is, why would gliding be an advantage for humans? Why would breathing under water?")

And while Mercedes Benz's are perhaps sexually selected for by a subset of women, I'm curious as to how in the world you pretend to be intelligent and yet you don't know how to spell "Bends." And that ain't no typo on your part, buddy.

[Blzbba]

"As God, He can do what He wants,"


Such as be or do anything that is completely beyond our capability of understanding, which would then require a simplification of the 'real' Genesis story?

[Dimensio]

If that is outside the theory of evolution, which I would agree is correct but still a necessary point to consider

It is an interesting field of study to be sure, but it's not at all part of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not, can not, occur until life forms exist. The process that ultimately caused life forms to exist had to involve, in at least one step, a point where there were no life forms (with the only possible exception being a hypothesis that the first life forms were seeded by time-travelling life forms from the future). If there's a step where there are no life forms, then it means that evolution cannot be applied.

then a lot of people for a lot of years have misused the theory as 'proof' that life came into existence in a manner that can be explained as a fairly linear process from the prebiotic soup to the present.

You're right. A lot of people, people without a proper understanding of the scope of the theory of evolution, have misused it in such a way.

[stanz]

Thank you. My sentiments exactly.

[balrog666]

A process that had not been described and nobody believed in or knew of until an atheist hypothesized it.

Wow! That may even be a record for being wrong in so many ways!

Thanks for displaying your ignorance in such an obvious manner. Now we, the True-Right-Wing-Evolutionist-Conspiracy, can dismiss your posts out of hand as the codswallop they are!

[balrog666]

Why would a loving God keep his creation in the dark about their origin till thousands of years after Genesis was written?

Loving? Loving? Correct me if I am wrong, but which god was it that supposedly slaughtered the first born of every Egyptian family, that had infants put to the sword many times over, and that had young virgins collected as chattel and brood mares for young Israelites?

You need to look in a dictionary!

[Havoc]

Ah, I wondered how long it would take you to decide you couldn't overcome me in debate and would have to go after me personally. ROFL. This is the part where I say "get stuffed" and "stick to the argument". If you can't overcome me on argument, my credentials aren't gonna matter a whit except to make you look like morons.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all so much for the pings!

Great catch indeed on the capital "E" evolution, unspun!

This is the reason why fair-minded adults would want to weigh in on the question of motive, which can only be established on the basis of facts, fairly considered. It appears they have to resolve the controversy by means of (1) evidence; and (2) their analysis of the evidence. Lots of people these days seem not to have the time for this sort of thing.

And that seems to be the reason why "totalizing-minded secularists" (a/k/a ideologizing sectarians) are getting such a free rein (and thus free reign) these days. So go figure!

Sigh... sad, but true!

[furball4paws]

These threads always amuse me. I can convert Escherichia into Salmonella in the lab using only techniques that are known to occur naturally in a couple of weeks. Am I "forcing evolution"? Note that this isn't converting one species into another, but converting one genus into another. This is 50 year old stuff. Maybe it is so easy because our definitions of genera and species are not exact. But if one genus can be converted into another in a matter of days, one finch species into another species in thousands of years is easy to see.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Someone will soon claim that these are of the same "kind" without defining "kind" of course.

[Oztrich Boy]

Nor would I base my conclusions on single instances with regard to the fossil record. By and large, the sorting of fossils is far more indicative of bouyancy sorting. The sorting of the strata can also be accounted for in this manner along with the difference in the strata world wide.

Utter twaddle. There is a 100 year old principle called Cope's Law (only a Law, which scientifically means it isn't as firmly established as a Theory - but is nevertheless a good statement on how the real world works) that states that over evolutionary time related animals tend to increase in size.

In evolutionary terms this makes sense: bigger anumals usually have an advantage in survival and breeding and so have a reproductive advantage.

But "bouyancy sorting" says that fossils of the same shape, structure, density should sort out with the largest on the bottom of the fossil record, if it was constructed in one "Flood Event" - which thus falsified.

[razoroccam]

I'm confused now. So did the word "Bible" come from Greek "biblio"? Would make sense, though I don't know if that is indeed the case.

[gobucks]

Let's cut to the chase: absolute truth is something 'true' conservatives don't argue much about ... we agree it exists (except true blue libertarian atheists).

A scientist believes the pathway to absolute truth (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics) comes from a group of folks demostrating reproducible results in a lab/journal environment.

A Christian (one who actually walks in that narrow road) also believes in 'absolute' truth, and in general they agree traditional science is a subset of it. Untestable theories are rejected as traditional science, or absolute truth, by your typical fundamentalist. A Christian would also argue that its the scientists who pirate from us the idea that you can arrive at absolute truth.

In short, we have more in common than we don't. The arguement hinges on the source of absolute truth. And there is a definite winner in the reality that we don't agree and are divided on this point ... and it's neither of us. Among the biggest losers are those who suffer in rotten marriages, or 'experience' divorce and the kids who become casualities within both.

I've noticed something ... your typical high visibility scientist has a typical high dysfunctional family life. But, no, publishing a study on that correlation is strictly verboten.