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

Skip to comments.

Phony Theory, False Conflict
Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 11/17/2005 9:25:39 PM PST by raj bhatia

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last
To: GOPPachyderm

"the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish."

Do you know what a species IS?


151 posted on 11/18/2005 10:38:30 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Read about evolution before attacking it. You have no clue how it works. It occurs over millions of years; no one says a dog will come out of a cat.


152 posted on 11/18/2005 10:42:55 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm; Dimensio
Evolution is a fact. If you isolate two dogs on an island, after a period of time they won't resemble the original dogs. There will be adaption and modification; however, I don't think you should expect to find they evolved into a cat (obviously higher in the evolutionary ladder) or another species.

Sheesh! Haven't we been through this before?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512465/posts?page=236#236
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512465/posts?page=283#283

153 posted on 11/18/2005 10:46:57 AM PST by BMCDA (Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. -- L. Wittgenstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
Of course not, there are definitely times when the Bible is not meant to be interpreted literally, such as hyperbole and the instances you reference.

However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively. I see a problem with God saying that creation was good when in theory it was littered with the corpses of previous ancestors. I have a problem with Adam and Eve portrayed as brutish beings that have evolved to our high standards today - like Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry, for example. ;)
154 posted on 11/18/2005 10:46:58 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

"However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively."

The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?


155 posted on 11/18/2005 10:48:06 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack; Theo
I was initially looking at New American, but the other two -- the two most widely accepted versions -- clearly say he'll die that very day.

It looks like from Theo's original quote that he uses the English Standard Version. Here's Gen 2:17 from that one:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[a] of it you shall surely die."

Be aware that the [a] footnote in this version offers up 'when you eat' in place of 'in the day that you eat', apparently because someone took it upon themselves to edit God's word to remove the problem of a literal day reference.

156 posted on 11/18/2005 10:48:55 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: raj bhatia
Evolution'ism = Dialectic material scientific sub-Marxism..
ID'ism = Agnostic and Gnostic Creativism..
Creativism = Faith in God.. you know, the real one..
157 posted on 11/18/2005 10:49:01 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

You are implying, I am inferring that you don't think I do. I thought I did, but would appreciate your definition. Am I using an incorrect term?


158 posted on 11/18/2005 10:49:04 AM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

If you're talking about Gen 2:17, when God says Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree of good and evil, God couldn't possibly be referring to a literal death, because Adam doesn't literally die that moment. Indeed, later in the Bible people are referred to as descendants of Adam.

That point is a bit difficult to refute. I see that it hasn't been.

159 posted on 11/18/2005 10:54:35 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

No, they haven't (at least none that I have seen).

But it is a oft-repeated statement.


160 posted on 11/18/2005 11:24:57 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack; Antonello

We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die. I would argue that if he hadn't sinned, he would not have died.

But let me ask just a few questions, to help get us out of this loop:

1) Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?

2) How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that "the many died by the trespass of the one man" and that "by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man" and "sin reigned in death"?

3) And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?

4) In light of Romans 6:23, would you say that death is *not* the consequence of sin? Yes, "spiritual" death, but also "physical" death. Death.


161 posted on 11/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

You're saying the translators of the ESV are intentionally mistranslating here? They're "editing God's word"?


162 posted on 11/18/2005 11:27:02 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

Great examples of how "day" is not necessarily literal in Genesis.


163 posted on 11/18/2005 11:28:33 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Note that Black felt the need to add words to the verse. He wrote that "Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree...." The Bible doesn't include the words "the moment."


164 posted on 11/18/2005 11:29:26 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Laws and Theories are inextractably tied together. Your googled defintion, "generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature,": and the one from the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, "A regularity that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena," does lead to a connection with theory. But this is really hair splitting and I'm not underplaying the distictions. Violations of scientific Laws do happen, but my point to Mazeman was that violations of a Law are the same as violations of a theory. The question is do these violations invalidate the theory or law in question? Typically, the violations occur outside the scope of the theory or law. When building a theory to explain the violations, it must also explain the conditions where the older theory still works well. You have probably heard many times the classic example where Relativity is an extension of Newtonian laws of Motion. When Newton's laws are invalidated under the velocities and/or gravities, Relativity becomes the dominant theory. However, outside of those extreme circumstances, Newton's Laws work well and relativity can be simplified into Newton's Laws. In other words, Newton's laws are predicted from relativity and can be considered a subset of relativity.

The creationist types demand that either unproven theory not be taught or theories with bholes and gaps not be taught. But if they understood what they are thinking, they would realize that their arguements leads to a scientific dead end.

Aside from arguing the nuances of Law vs. Theory, the important point is that most people, especially the creationist types, just can't or won't get their heads around the basic concept of theory. And I can tell by many of your previous posts, that it drives you just as crazy as other people here on FR who know the important context of what is a scientific theory.

165 posted on 11/18/2005 11:42:52 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: spinestein; TheCrusader
[Devout Christians cannot be Darwinists, and vice versa.]

Simon Conway Morris is both. See for example about 1/4 the way down

excerpt

In an essay entitled, “Agreeing Only to Disagree on God’s Place in Science,” George Johnson reports from a Templeton Foundation seminar on science and religion in Cambridge. There, Dawkins, a featured speaker, had a heated exchange with Simon Conway Morris, a Christian paleontologist.

Seems the two scientists started off pleasantly enough. They agreed, Johnson writes, that the “richness of the biosphere, humanity included, could be explained through natural selection.” They also agreed that “evolution is not a crapshoot”—that if the earth’s history could be redone the result might differ slightly, but “certain physical constraints would favor the eventual appearance of warm-blooded creatures something like us, with eyes, ears, noses and brains.”

But that’s where they “forked in orthogonal directions.” For Conway Morris, nature’s ability to produce moral creatures, humans, indicates that God must have orchestrated evolution. Dawkins doesn’t buy it, and he asked Conway Morris why, if they could agree on everything else, he has to add God to the picture. From a scientific perspective, Dawkins said, Conway Morris’s God was “gratuitous.”

Ouch. Dawkins’ remark apparently left Conway Morris “momentarily flummoxed,” as he “muttered to himself.” Dawkins, Johnson writes, “had scored a crucial point.”

End excerpt

Conway Morris is one of the world's experts on the Burgess Shale.

Another essay on the same topic

166 posted on 11/18/2005 11:47:37 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan; balrog666
1. The anti-science crowd are actually Democrats pretending to be Republicans to make us look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from the Republican Party. (It's working.)

A couple of weeks ago I bypothesized that the anti-evos were really agents of the D*m*cr*t* party, or George Soros, or suchlike, salting FR with juicy quotes to be mined later.

*Dhimmicrat may be a better euphemism.

167 posted on 11/18/2005 11:53:39 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Theo
I generally only hash out scriptural interpretations as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to share that here. I have recently done this on a previous thread for Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which can be found here, but I'll take a pass on the others you've asked for.

For what it's worth, I tend to reference the King James Version when making scriptural analysis, since that is the version I used during my formal studies. I find it helpful to share that info so whomever I am talking to doesn't have to guess. Hopefully I was correct in attributing your quote to the English Standard Version.

168 posted on 11/18/2005 11:55:14 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

"Evening and morning" placemark


169 posted on 11/18/2005 11:55:22 AM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You're saying the translators of the ESV are intentionally mistranslating here? They're "editing God's word"?

The presence of the footnote indicates a revised interpretation by someone involved with that version. While I cannot speak with authority as to their motive, it is self evident that someone did indeed 'edit God's Word', and this was acceptable enough to the recipients of this particular version that the footnote still stands. I do acknowledge that my inference that it was done to alleviate confusion regarding the literalness of a biblical 'day' is merely my own opinion.

170 posted on 11/18/2005 12:03:39 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Theo; SuzyQue; BackInBlack
Note that Black felt the need to add words to the verse. He wrote that "Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree...." The Bible doesn't include the words "the moment."

Note that BackInBlack clarified in his post #149 that he got that word usage from the New American Version. Considering that Theo hadn't bothered to cite the version he was working with, one can hardly fault BackInBlack for relying on the version of his choice.

171 posted on 11/18/2005 12:08:44 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
"However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively."

Most Christians do exactly this. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting you change your faith based on what other Christians think, but you should realize that it is not only possible, but that it is also usual.
172 posted on 11/18/2005 12:30:59 PM PST by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

I am saying what others have said: fish is not a single species; therefore, your point didn't make much sense.


173 posted on 11/18/2005 12:39:07 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Theo; BackInBlack; Antonello
An interpretation which I prefer is that when Adam (which literally translated means "people" or "men") ate from the tree, he was representing humanity becoming homo sapiens (man, the wise) from his less intelligent ancestors by eating the fruit of knowledge.

Before man evolved the capacity for the sophisticated reasoning that we possess today, we were not able to distinguish right from wrong or good deeds from bad. After acquiring this we also acquire the capacity to sin, the consequences of such sin and also the knowledge of our own mortality. I think the metaphor here is obvious and appropriate.
174 posted on 11/18/2005 12:46:42 PM PST by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).


175 posted on 11/18/2005 12:47:23 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Theo

"We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die."

The only reason we're going around and around is that you have no faith in God's word. You lionize your own instincts instead of trusting what God plainly says. That is hubris, not Christianity. The verse does not say God will doom him to death on that day; it says Adam will die on that day. You are simply wrong, and on some level you know that, because anyone who can read knows what that verse says.

"Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?"

They would have died physically, of course, but would not have suffered the spiritual death of separation from God.

"How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that 'the many died by the trespass of the one man' and that 'by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man' and 'sin reigned in death'?"

It means because of Adam's separation from God, his descendants, too, are separated from God (though they have the ability to get closer and closer through Christ). When it says "sin reigned in death," it again could not be talking about literal death, because simply dying is not a sin. Sins are things we do when we're alive. So for sin to reign in "death," we must be literally living, but spiritually separated from God.

"And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?"

Same as above.


176 posted on 11/18/2005 12:48:58 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Did you not see my translations? The New American version specifically DID have the word moment. Why do you hate God's Word?


177 posted on 11/18/2005 12:51:02 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
And as I said in my last post, it seems that depending what evolutionist you talk to, or depending how the argument is going, they either push the punctuated equilibrium position or the 'gradual changes over long periods of time' position.

Evolutionists are not all on the same page when discussing evolutionary theory.

178 posted on 11/18/2005 12:52:16 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

I was quoting someone else there. I agree with you.


179 posted on 11/18/2005 12:54:10 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Based on the impressions you have formed about me over the course of our discussions, would you be shocked to hear that I am in the Punctuated Equilibrium camp?


180 posted on 11/18/2005 12:55:05 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

That's an excellent interpretation I hadn't heard before. Thank you!


181 posted on 11/18/2005 12:58:05 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

Thanks for clarification but I'm still confused. The point I was trying to make was that blue gills in different lakes in Wisconsin [or even Minnesota where I live] are still in the same kingdom phylum, genus, class, order, genus, species are they not? Where did I go wrong? Okay, okay, I'll go back and read the full article.

I understand some have defined speciation as members of the same classification that cannot interbreed, such as a chihuahua and a great dane. Is this your definition as well?


182 posted on 11/18/2005 1:06:14 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
When you say,

"In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found)."


To clarify your previous statement,

"I've had evolutionists paint me a picture telling me to imagine the first 'bird' hatching from a dinosaur egg. This is how these people think it could have occurred."

That's a lie. NOT ONE biologist says that a dinosaur gave birth to a bird, or that they could. That is most certainly NOT what PE says. PE still has speciation occurring in tens of thousands of years, it is not an instantaneous event. You have built a strawman that has no relationship to what ANY biologist has said.
183 posted on 11/18/2005 1:09:24 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

Yes, ability to interbreed is my, and the, definition.


184 posted on 11/18/2005 1:10:03 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).

What does punctuated equilibrium consider to be a 'very short period of time'? And why is it then that the wealth of transitional fossils from the Montana site seem to be created during a period of punctuated equilibrium during the late Cretaceous if punctuated equilibrium is being used as a reason as to why they don't exist?

185 posted on 11/18/2005 1:15:59 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
What you are describing is simple variation within a species, not inter-species evolution. The final analysis is that you still have a dog. By your definition then, every breeder who forces a new breed of dog to occur is causing what you call 'evolution' to occur.

You guys are the ones who have the theory that says life arose from non-life on its own; that all life comes from a common ancestor, and that higher order species evolved from lower order forms of life. I've never seen any of that occur. What is observable is that animals are able to adapt to their environments, but they still are the same animals. Dogs in cold weather have different body and hair than dogs in warm climates, but they still are dogs, they don't 'evolve' or bring forth offspring that aren't dogs.

So what you're really telling me is that over time you may get (and actually you would need TWO dogs on each island, male and female for your example) dogs that do not resemble the original dogs. You also assume they aren't purebreds, and you also assume they are not already adapted to their current environment. Given all of this, let's say they do adapt nad variations occur over time, and certain features become more prominent and certain things become less prominent. You still haven't added any NEW information. More fur, a smaller muzzle, longer legs is not evidence of evolution, but variation. Where is the new genetic information? It's just a modification of genetic information that was already present. Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.

186 posted on 11/18/2005 1:16:06 PM PST by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

"The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?"

Only if majority opinion determines truth, but I think you would agree that historically that hasn't always been the case. There are some fascinating books and articles that challenge the assumption that evolution is capable of explaining the variety of life we find on this plant.


187 posted on 11/18/2005 1:22:52 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"For Conway Morris, nature’s ability to produce moral creatures, humans, indicates that God must have orchestrated evolution."

Mr. Morris is presumptious in two areas, I believe. One, his personal notion that he is a Christian who can believe in evolution; two, that evolution is factual, hence God created it.

Mr. Morris seems to believe that God did not create us, but rather that He created an apparatus called evolution that would only later create us as we are today. It is beliefs like this that dilute the Christian faith. Since truth cannot be diluted and still remain truth, these people are no more Christians than a drop of water placed into the ocean remains a drop of water. Darwinism is a faith-stealer which amounts to the parable of the birds "that devoured the seeds" of (Christian) faith before they had a chance to take root and grow. (Mathew 13:4).

(If Morris' God is the God of Christianity), then he should be reminded that Christians believe in the holy Scriptures, aka "the Bible". To reconcile his personal views on darwinsim/evolution, he has to either re-write the Bible or reinterpret it to suit his personal/prideful needs. The true Chrisitan faith still, and always will, teach that Adam was made immediately, from the slime of the earth; and that Adam was the first man, was one man, and that all men are his descendents.

188 posted on 11/18/2005 1:23:08 PM PST by TheCrusader (Evolutionist know everything about the missing link, except the fact that it's missing~GK Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Secret Agent Man, it saddens me that I had imagined you were sincerely open to learning what evolutionists were really claiming vs. what your preconceived notions were. I devoted several posts to clarifying the points you still want to use, and since you aren't refuting my earlier clarifications, I can only assume you are ignoring them.

It's too bad, really. I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece.

189 posted on 11/18/2005 1:26:15 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I love that line! LOL!

Got about the same reaction, too...

190 posted on 11/18/2005 1:27:34 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Theories and laws are two different kinds of statements in science. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories.

The poster in question has a dictionary on a shelf gathering a thick layer of dust because of the highly-evolved trait of clairvoyance. No need for references in this individual's case...just gaze into a crystal ball for the answers.

191 posted on 11/18/2005 1:34:01 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

Not majority opinion -- consensus opinion. There are always a few stragglers who pretend to be scientists and disagree -- just like there are still flat earth people out there. But when the consensus is so overwhelming, those folks don't count.

(By the way, if the Bible is really to be taken literally, we would have to conclude that the world is flat. See this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)


192 posted on 11/18/2005 1:35:49 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

"I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece."

Beautifully put. You are a good writer!


193 posted on 11/18/2005 1:37:21 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Good explanation. Thanks!


194 posted on 11/18/2005 1:38:02 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Creationists who cite Einstein need to learn more about this very interesting fellow everything.
195 posted on 11/18/2005 1:42:27 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

No Problem :)


196 posted on 11/18/2005 1:56:44 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).

Punctuated equilibrium happens over hundreds of thousands of years. Quick compared to geological time, but not as fast as a single generation.

197 posted on 11/18/2005 3:01:28 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown.

And it may destroy the current majority conservative coalition. The religious fanatics may well put the DIMs back in power.

IMO, nothing will turn voters, even religious voters, to the DIMs like the thought that religious theocratic fanatics might significantly influence Republican policies. IMHO, the majority of religious voters in the US are of the 'you worship your way and I'll worship mine and we should leave each other alone' variety.

198 posted on 11/18/2005 3:40:00 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
IMHO, the majority of religious voters in the US are of the 'you worship your way and I'll worship mine and we should leave each other alone' variety.

Loosely translated:

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


199 posted on 11/18/2005 3:53:14 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
[Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.]


In the past few tens of thousands of years, evolution has created what are now dogs from wolf ancestor. There is not very much difference between a wolf and a dog, but the difference is just enough to justify calling them different species.

The same thing can be said for most species alive today. For example, I'm looking at a book right now called "Birds of North America" [GOLDEN] and I can look at nearly any page and see different species of birds which are not very different from each other but which are distinct species.

From page 174-180, for example, There are listed and pictured these owls (family Tytonidae and Strigidae):

EASTERN SCREECH OWL
WESTERN SCREECH OWL
GREAT HORNED OWL
LONG EARED OWL
SHORT EARED OWL
BARN OWL
SNOWY OWL
BARRED OWL
SPOTTED OWL
GREAT GREY OWL
NORTHERN HAWK OWL
BURROWING OWL
BOREAL OWL
NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL
WHISKERED SCREECH OWL
FLAMMULATED OWL
NORTHERN PYGMY OWL
ELF OWL
FERRUGINOUS PYGMY OWL

These are all considered distinct species and a good question to ask is "Did these owls evolve from a common ancestor according to what we expect from natural selection, or did God decide that all these species needed to be purposely and separately created?"

This argument can be applied equally to the rest of the bird families in this book such as waterfowl (family Anatidae) which includes all the species of ducks, swans and geese, or the accipiter family (Accipitridae) which include all the species of kites, hawks, eagles and ospreys.

Pick up a book on insects, trees, flowering plants, reptiles and amphibians or any of a number of other organisms and see the same thing; many, many, discrete species which are not much different from any of its most closely related species, and this is just what we expect from the evolutionary process.
200 posted on 11/18/2005 4:01:03 PM PST by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Follow the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 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