Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)

WorldnetDaily.Com ^ | 03/07/2006

[narby]

When you accuse creationists of using liberal tactics, you reap what you sow.

I accuse the Discovery Institute of using liberal tactics, and they are.

The whole premise of DI is to use PR and lawsuits to cram something into the field of science that doesn't belong there. And while they're at it, use the associated publicity to bring in donations to a non-profit organization in order to make a living while "making the world a better place". It's a nice scam.

That's exactly what Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and innumerable other lefty organizations do for a living.

[AndrewC]

You're objecting to scientists modifying their theory to conform to the evidence??

They didn't modify anything. Look at the table. No matter what the results of the experiment they would have come up with the same tree. In actuality the universe of possibilities for this test(3 classes sharing something) is exactly two. All the same or odd man out. All the same results in the preconceived tree and the odd man out is easily handled to give the same tree. That I call Darwininan logic.

[RHINO369]

If I want to talk evolution I will walk across the quad to the Political Science/Psychology/Philosophy building. They use it a lot more than the Biology Dept does. Not in most US liberal arts colleges. They restrict those buildings to reeducation for those students who are foolish enough to think America is a good country.

[ml1954]

I'm not an ID proponent. I agree with you. Are you confusing me with another poster?

[metmom]

What if the universe (in one form or another) has always existed?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity already addressed the issue. It has a beginning.

[RHINO369]

Yea probably, for some reason I cannot get the simple concept of replying to the correct person. This is the second time today I've done that. Sorry for the confusion

[Elsie]

 

Whether you want to admit it or not, many Christians accept evolution and all the rest of science.

 

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is your GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

[RightWhale]

Well, it has been a while. I have taken some adult re-education classes recently, the most amusing being anthropology where we got to go into the basement storeroom and look at plaster copies of evolutionary skulls and teeth. It would be difficult to put them in proper evolutionary sequence.

[Amelia]

When you repost the exact same post that has been previously rebutted, you are recycling the same old stuff.

And it's been rebutted much more thoroughly than I have time or patience to attempt tonight.

[Elsie]

 

I have taken some adult re-education classes recently, the most amusing being anthropology where we got to go into the basement storeroom and look at plaster copies of evolutionary skulls and teeth. It would be difficult to put them in proper evolutionary sequence.

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

[narby]

I did that a while ago. See post #91.

No. In post #91 you presented a couple of arguments against evolution, one of which I presented evidence to refute (virus insertions) and you have merely presented hopeful guesses that this must be because of identical insertions in multiple species, which has been dealt with here before and I'm convinced thoroughly debunked.

Nevertheless, your original statement was that evolutionists violate all the rules of logic when coming to their conclusions

This is in the context of other posts of yours that, if I remember correctly, insisted on strict logic. Therefore, you have a whole lot of work to do to support that *all* the rules of logic are broken by science when coming to *all* their conclusions. Post #91 doesn't cut it.

[ml1954]

LOL. No problem. I hope you get that response to the right poster.

[metmom]

Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.

There's a geat little book out called "How to Lie with Statstics" It's still in print as far as I know. It was required reading for one of my college meteorology courses and after reading it you will believe NO *study*, *survey*, or anything. Statistics can be manipulated to *prove* anything, even in science.

[Coyoteman]

This is a ridiculous statement.

No it is not. Nobody, not one person on this planet knows the answer... This much is certain.

Science is a process. A method. We share our information with each other and with non-scientists through peer-reviewed publications, book, articles, and the like. Even through web forums such as this. And there is no requirement that any one person knows all the answers. It would be silly to expect that. The best we can do is provide a good method, and the scientific method has been far more successful than anything else.

A lot of points of view have been discarded from science long ago--they simply did not meet the standards.

You cannot set standards if you don't have answers.

There is no more evidence that humans are evolved from common ancestors to apes than there is that humans were marooned here by extraterrestrials (or the product of some extra-dimensional engineering intelligence).

First, the scientific method is a way to arrive at answers. It is not perfect, but its the best we have. There is a lot more scientific evidence for common ancestors of apes and humans than there is for aliens starting life on earth.

I could tell you tales of grad school...

Grad school? Save the hubris for someone who is impressed by it... logic is my only concern and the evolutionists are coming up short on their metrology...

Hubris? How about humor? That was an attempt at humor in response to your comment about dancing around the totems. Are you so zealous in your cause that you have no humor left? If so, that's pretty sad.

[editor-surveyor]

No, changes do not occur. That is not science, but myth. Every species that exists today has existed since creation, and there is no evidence to the contrary, only intense desire and belief in anything that would negate God's plan.

[RightWhale]

Einstein's Theory of Relativity already addressed the issue.

Got one of his books right here beside the terminal. It is the one that uses actual math, so those who don't like algebra wouldn't be interested. He says, "From the measured value of h (Hubble constant) we get for the time of existence of the world up to now 1.5 x 10⁹ years. This is about the same as that which one has obtained from the disintegration of uranium for the firm crust of the earth. This is a paradoxical result, which for more than one reason has aroused doubts as to the validity of the theory."

14 x 10⁹ years would be closer to the modern estimated age, or for earth alone 4.5 x 10⁹ years.

[Dustbunny]

About time !!!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Every species that exists today has existed since creation,"

Define species.

[Coyoteman]

(And nowadays dancing around totems is usually restricted to Friday nights. Not like the good old days! Why, I could tell you tales of grad school... )

Ah, lucky to have a totem pole to dance around. We have to settle for a glass waste box. ;-)

Now there is a freeper who appreciates a little humor.

(Perhaps very little, but its late and I haven't shaved.)