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

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3916&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage ^

Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-392 next last
To: voltaires_zit

"Finding that the current rate of change of the human genome is too small to account for the magnitude of the differences between humans and chimps since the time of the proposed common ancestor."

What do you think of this then:

“Humans evolved their cognitive abilities not due to a few accidental mutations, but rather from an enormous number of mutations...To accomplish so much in so little evolutionary time—a few tens of millions of years—requires a selective process that is perhaps categorically different from the typical processes of acquiring new biological traits."

"...there may have been thousands of mutations in thousands of genes that contributed to the evolution of the human brain. This “staggering” number of mutations suggests the human lineage was driven by intense selection process."

from: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050106/lahn.shtml


151 posted on 03/14/2007 11:33:20 AM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
First, historical sciences aren't about falsification. Competing theories may survive for hundreds of years before significant evidence disproves them or a "smoking gun" proves them.

You're contradicting yourself. Granting sometimes significant evidence is hard to come by (which is why they look so hard for it). Theories are never proven by 'smoking guns' only supported.

It's always about falsification. You can make predictions about things you haven't seen yet (because you haven't dug their yet in the case of fossils, or because you haven't developed the instrument/method to see the data in the case of cosmology and DNA). When you see those things (e.g. new fossils, DNA sequences or variations in the background radiations) you test your theory, just like any experimental science.

You and I agree YEC has been falsified. What would it take to convince a YECist that it was false? (a boot to the head?)

152 posted on 03/14/2007 11:34:44 AM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

The 'begging the question' fallacy came in when you said, "There's the observed fact of evolution...".

That begs the question of whether observed facts support evolution.


153 posted on 03/14/2007 11:50:35 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Well, certainly you already know what I'm going to say . . ."

No, because you didn't say it and missed the point entirely.

But, surely you already know that too.

154 posted on 03/14/2007 11:55:51 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Intelligent Design is a far cry from Creationism but does give credit where credit is due.


155 posted on 03/14/2007 11:56:50 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
No, because you didn't say it and missed the point entirely.

I'm sorry, then I am confused . . . what was the point? I thought I addressed you directly, on topic. I must have missed something?

156 posted on 03/14/2007 12:06:47 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
It's always about falsification.

Nice idea, but no. How would a geologist, paleontologist, or archaeologist falsify their hypotheses? They can only find supporting or contrasting evidence. Even then, there could be many hypotheses that fit the available data.

I have posted this several times before, but I think people interested in the evolution debate need to read and understand this article from the Nov 2001 peer-reviewed journal Geology:
Gee (1999) was correct about there being fundamental differences in the methodology used by historical and experimental scientists. Experimental scientists focus on a single (sometimes complex) hypothesis, and the main research activity consists in repeatedly bringing about the test conditions specified by the hypothesis, and controlling for extraneous factors that might produce false positives and false negatives. Historical scientists, in contrast, usually concentrate on formulating multiple competing hypotheses about particular past events. Their main research efforts are directed at searching for a smoking gun, a trace that sets apart one hypothesis as providing a better causal explanation (for the observed traces) than do the others.

157 posted on 03/14/2007 12:14:49 PM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

You were responding to a post about Galileo and Copernicus being attacked by the church for talking about 'observed facts'.

Now Galileo and Copernicus advocated heliocentrism and I asked you what 'observed fact' you were talking about and what is the observation that proves it?

If it's a fact, it must have been proved. If it hasn't been proved, it isn't a fact, but a belief.


158 posted on 03/14/2007 12:29:03 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

We may be opposites re: evolution, but that line did make coffee come out my nose.


159 posted on 03/14/2007 12:34:51 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Now Galileo and Copernicus advocated heliocentrism and I asked you what 'observed fact' you were talking about and what is the observation that proves it?

Wait, you're arguing with -- heliocentrism?

Nah, not really, right?

160 posted on 03/14/2007 12:41:34 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Now Galileo and Copernicus advocated heliocentrism and I asked you what 'observed fact' you were talking about and what is the observation that proves it?"

Wait, you're arguing with -- heliocentrism?

Nah, not really, right?

See how easily you move from 'observed fact' into belief? So easy even a cave man could do it.

The truth is that there is no 'observed fact' uniquely supporting heliocentrism and you are totally unaware of that fact. Ever understand what coordinate systems (CS) in Einsteinian relativity actually means?

What else do you accept as 'fact' when there is no factual basis thereof?

161 posted on 03/14/2007 12:52:13 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The truth is that there is no 'observed fact' uniquely supporting heliocentrism and you are totally unaware of that fact.

Or -- it's so rare to find someone who isn't aware of the facts supporting the heliocentric dynamic that I'm rather surprised!

Gosh, if we're going to debate this, I have to know more about what you believe, what you disbelieve, and what you know/don't know.

Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is.

Do you dispute that fact? Should we debate that?

162 posted on 03/14/2007 1:08:35 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Dan, your penchant for semantic argument amazes me. While it is strictly true that the Sun is not the exact center of either the Universe, Galaxy, or Solar System, and that Einstein's CS system means that (In the words of Hoyle):

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view."

There is a very simple 'observed fact' which supports Heliocentrism, namely, watching the movements of planets in relation to the sun and the sky.

Heliocentrism is the view that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, regardless of where the true center of mass for the system lies, or what fancy physics equations can do when you reverse the order.

Semantics are for wimps.
163 posted on 03/14/2007 1:25:35 PM PDT by 49th (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You obviously do not know the difference between a scientist and a clergyman.

I suppose you're already done, since you've resorted to insults. Well, that's fine. Thanks for playing. =)

164 posted on 03/14/2007 1:51:20 PM PDT by EarthBound (Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Duncan Hunter in 2008! http://www.gohunter08.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr

You might ask him about the phases of Venus...


165 posted on 03/14/2007 1:53:26 PM PDT by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Or -- it's so rare to find someone who isn't aware of the facts supporting the heliocentric dynamic that I'm rather surprised!",

Your first mistake is assuming that I am not aware of the arguments and beliefs surrounding the heliocentric vs geocentric positions.

Your second mistake is in not being able to provide an 'observed fact' that uniquely supports heliocentrism. But that's pretty standard for you guys. You can't distinguish between observed fact and belief.

"Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is."

You move very easily from observed facts to beliefs without recognizing the difference, which is what I pointed out earlier. The observed fact that the planets orbit the sun does not mean that the earth orbiting the sun is also an 'observed fact'. Are you able to understand that?

If heliocentrism is a 'fact', Why did Einstein and Infield say in 'The Evolution of Physics, "(Einstein and Infeld, 1938, p. 212):

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."

166 posted on 03/14/2007 2:00:50 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: 49th
"There is a very simple 'observed fact' which supports Heliocentrism, namely, watching the movements of planets in relation to the sun and the sky."

Sorry bud. All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun. Nothing more.

"Semantics are for wimps"

So is insistence on belief over observed facts. The least you could do is admit that there are no such 'observed facts' rather than trying to pretend the argument is over semantics.

Einstein was bright enough to realize that and so am I. What's up w/ you?

167 posted on 03/14/2007 2:06:15 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"You might ask him about the phases of Venus..."

Junior, Junior, Junior...

The observed phases of Venus only mean that Venus and the sun exhibit relative motion. They certainly don't prove heliocentricity.

168 posted on 03/14/2007 2:09:49 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

"All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun."

You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?


169 posted on 03/14/2007 2:13:25 PM PDT by 49th (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!
"I've seen this program. Very compelling evidence. Worth the time."

About The Conferences

Join journalist and New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists at Discovery Institute's Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explore the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution and explain the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.

Conference attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and experts whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thihnking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics, and our culture.
http://www.darwinvsdesign.com/

And the usual suspects:
- Lee Strobel
- Dr. Stephen Meyer
- Dr. Michael Behe
- Dr. Jay Richards

I hope Mr. Behe is able to put something better on the table than he did at the Dover case.

But what kind of "conferences" is it? A news conference, an academic conference or a business conference or what? The second paragraph leads me to an academic conference. But will I ever get proceedings of that conference?

I doubt it is a academic conference. I never read a more meaningless invitation to an academic conference. And for a real academic conference the fee is very cheap.

To pay 55$ for that conference is like paying a fee for a Tupperware party. OK, 55$ for some good comedians is fair.
170 posted on 03/14/2007 2:16:21 PM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: 49th
"While it is strictly true that the Sun is not the exact center of either the Universe, Galaxy, or Solar System, and that Einstein's CS system means that (In the words of Hoyle):

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view."

First of all, you misrepresent me if you suggest that I claim that the sun was the exact center of the Universe, Galaxy or Solar System.

Then, you acknowledge that both Einstein and Hoyle recognize that there are no 'observed facts' that uniquely support heliocentism... but you choose to believe it anyway.

That's fine. You're certainly free to do that. Just don't criticize me if I choose an equal and opposite coordinate transformation than the one you have chosen.

Comprehender?

171 posted on 03/14/2007 2:18:15 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: 49th
"All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun."

You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?

Actually, I misspoke. It doesn't even prove that, as both Einstein and Hoyle explain.

172 posted on 03/14/2007 2:21:06 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; Dominic Harr; 49th
If heliocentrism is a 'fact', Why did Einstein and Infield say in 'The Evolution of Physics, "(Einstein and Infeld, 1938, p. 212):

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."


Did you ever heard about fictitious or pseudo forces? They appear if you use a non-inertial reference frame. You really can use every CS you want but one is special the one CS with an inertial reference frame.

The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system).

You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?
173 posted on 03/14/2007 2:45:47 PM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub; Dominic Harr; 49th
"Did you ever heard about fictitious or pseudo forces? They appear if you use a non-inertial reference frame. You really can use every CS you want but one is special the one CS with an inertial reference frame."

Of course. That's part of the beauty of the non-inertial reference frames.

"The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system)."

"You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?"

Hate to burst your bubble, but there isn't just *one* (i.e., heliocentric) special, non-inertial reference frame. A geocentric non-inertial reference frame is perfectly acceptable as the 'special' reference frame.

Don't you know that?

174 posted on 03/14/2007 2:54:11 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."

:-D

Um, do you know what that means?

It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you

Let's start with the simplest level:

When you look into a telescope, and watch the moon, say. You watch it go from horizon to horizon, "circling" the Earth. You see this happens every day, in a pattern. That is one bit of evidence supporting heliocentrism -- a larger body's gravity acting on the smaller body.

Then look at your telescope again, at Mars, say. You now observe the same behavior. This, then, supports the same dynamic gravity system. No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question.

Right?

175 posted on 03/14/2007 3:02:32 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
ID has a lot going for it to explain why creatures of all types suddenly appear at different times in the fossil record...

That sounds a lot like baraminology. There is an interesting blog on that silliness here.

176 posted on 03/14/2007 4:49:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
No physical anything about any creature can in any way disprove that we evolved from some monkey. There is no way to disprove it by any current differences. The theory can not be disproven.

The theory of evolution could be disproved if the evidence showed that we either did not evolve from other life forms (for example, instantaneous creation, say, last Thursday), or the evidence showed that we were dropped here fully formed by space aliens or some such. Either of these scenarios would disprove the current theory of evolution.

The problem is, there is no convincing evidence for these, or any of hundreds of alternate scenarios.

177 posted on 03/14/2007 4:58:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"D has a lot going for it to explain why creatures of all types suddenly appear at different times in the fossil record...

"That sounds a lot like baraminology. "

How do you get baraminology from "suddenly appear"? And thanks for pointing me to a one-sided blog. Maybe I can scrounge up a one-sided creationist blog for you to read up on.


178 posted on 03/14/2007 4:58:20 PM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The truth is that there is no 'observed fact' uniquely supporting heliocentrism

Wrong.

There are a number of observations that show we live in a heliocentric solar system. Why do you think "Siderial" is different than "Mean Solar"?

179 posted on 03/14/2007 5:01:07 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
So doesn't a large number of small, micro-changes equal a big change?

There are living examples of this. Just google "ring species" and you will see groups with increasing differences around a barrier, such as a mountain or other major landform, until the groups at the opposite ends cannot interbreed--the definition of a species. The interesting thing is, each adjacent group can interbreed, but the two endpoints cannot.

Ring species provide evidence for speciation (macro-evolution), and you can even see all of the intermediate steps!

180 posted on 03/14/2007 5:02:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
First of all, you misrepresent me if you suggest that I claim that the sun was the exact center of the Universe, Galaxy or Solar System.

It is the center of the universe however. Actually every point in the universe is at the center.

181 posted on 03/14/2007 5:04:15 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
Maybe I can scrounge up a one-sided creationist blog for you to read up on.

Is there any other kind?

182 posted on 03/14/2007 5:09:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

LOL!


183 posted on 03/14/2007 5:14:51 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The interesting thing is, each adjacent group can interbreed, but the two endpoints cannot.

Very fascinating, I didn't know that!

184 posted on 03/14/2007 5:21:56 PM PDT by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

> That begs the question of whether observed facts support evolution

Again, back to the gravity parallel. There are problems, some quite serious, with the theories (yes, there's more than one) of gravity that we have today. None of them explain all the observations. Then again, there are the FACTS of gravity. If you hold an apple up and let it go, it will fall.

If somebody wants to discuss legitimate objections and alternatives to various theories of gravity, that's a fun and serious undertaking. If somebody wants to claim gravity doesn't exist, the earth just sucks, well....

That's where the parallel with evolution and creationism is.

It's not "begging the question", it's clarifying the question.


185 posted on 03/14/2007 5:28:04 PM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Arguments: God of gaps vs. id. vs. naturalism/materialism

A gap argument: Stars are miracles so God is obviously responsible - the end.
A telic/id argument: A reduction by one part in a million million would have led to collapse before the temperatures could fall below ten thousand degrees. An early increase by one part in a million would have prevented the growth of galaxies, stars, and planets.
A response from naturalism/materialism: Your legs are exactly as long as they need to be to reach the ground - so what. (see the ‘gap argument’ above as it avoids any consideration due to an a priori belief)

A gap argument: We don't know what the cosmological constant should be but God did it therefore it is just right.
A telic/id argument: On general principles we know what the cosmological constants should be, roughly. It turns out to be 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected.
A response from naturalism/materialism: If you legs were 10% shorter, you'd hover above the ground as you walked. If they were 10% longer, you'd have to have someone dig holes for you to step into in order to walk. (again, see the ‘gap argument’ above as it avoids any consideration due to an a priori belief)

186 posted on 03/14/2007 6:13:06 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Um, do you know what that means?

"It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you..."

The question is do *you* understand what that means. I'm betting that you philosophically adopt a severely-restricted definition and ignore the greater.

"No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question."

Not quite.

Strictly speaking, it's not the 'gravitational pull' but the 'laws of gravity'. This might seem trivial but is an important difference.

In addition, gravity is not understood and the laws of gravity are observed to operate differently between the solar system and intergalactic space. That's what 'dark matter' is all about.

'Dark matter' is an invisible entity that is invoked to explain anomalous behavior of galactic objects.

187 posted on 03/14/2007 6:41:07 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
"There are a number of observations that show we live in a heliocentric solar system. Why do you think "Siderial" [sic] is different than "Mean Solar"?"

Please explain why you think the the difference between 'sidereal' and 'mean solar' uniquely supports heliocentrism?

188 posted on 03/14/2007 6:45:08 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
"It is the center of the universe however. Actually every point in the universe is at the center."

Can you tell the difference between a fact and a claim, boys and girls?

Someone please help RA with this.

189 posted on 03/14/2007 6:46:55 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
"It's not "begging the question", it's clarifying the question."

No, when you say, "There's the observed fact of evolution..." you are clearly begging the question.

That you refuse to admit it is... understandable.

190 posted on 03/14/2007 6:49:26 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

Although we know something about nature, we cannot state that God created nature as being a miracle - it could come out that there is indeed a scientific explanation that God meant for us to figure out. The Holy Spirit is a miracle and so is my son not being hurt at all when he flipped his car over at a high rate of speed and said that "something" which he believes an angel held him back from hitting the roof (already preached to him - but he was not wearing a seatbelt). Freaked the ER right out - not even a scratch or sore muscle. Life changing experience - he is firmly convinced that God has more for him to do.


191 posted on 03/14/2007 6:52:02 PM PDT by Right in Wisconsin (Have a Happy Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound
Amused by maniacal Darwinists bump.
192 posted on 03/14/2007 6:54:36 PM PDT by DanielLongo (Don't tread on me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I don't see this as contradictory at all - I believe He created one man in His image, etc., but what does God look like? There are two theories - we were created in His image spiritually (love, respect, etc.) or we look like Him. Either way, or both, there is nothing that contradicts that over time we changed, or adapted to our environment. I do not believe in any form of evolutionary belief that says otherwise - and perhaps he chose to have us evolve by our own free will. I don't have all the answers but I will always keep an open mind because Lord knows that as humans, we err.


193 posted on 03/14/2007 7:02:51 PM PDT by Right in Wisconsin (Have a Happy Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
'Dark matter' is an invisible entity that is invoked to explain anomalous behavior of galactic objects.

Ah yes, “dark matter”… does this actually exist? Higgs (or the force exchange particle) should have shown up when the atom-smashing energy levels reached ~.8 TeV. We are beyond that now… It’s turtles all the way down when you start invoking a heavier mass in smaller particles, quark-gluon plasma, mini-black holes from heavy ion collisions, etc…

194 posted on 03/14/2007 7:15:29 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

BTW, everyone must have been tricked into a religious and biblical creationist view due to the fact that the Big Bang is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. No one fought the Big Bang theory because of the obvious telic implications. / sarc…


195 posted on 03/14/2007 7:45:20 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

BTW, did you take a look at the peer reviewed article I posted in 157?


196 posted on 03/14/2007 7:48:16 PM PDT by dan1123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: dan1123
BTW, did you take a look at the peer reviewed article I posted in 157?

I read the article several days ago when you posted it.

I was particularly struck by the findings, one part of which was summarized in the abstract as follows:

As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.

197 posted on 03/14/2007 8:03:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The observed fact that the planets orbit the sun does not mean that the earth orbiting the sun is also an 'observed fact'. Are you able to understand that?

No, your logic is false. Your premise, observed fact = planets orbit the sun, cannot be true if you also claim that it is not an observed fact that the planet earth orbits the sun. If a=b then a=b.

Also what exactly is your point about Einsteins point that there are no absolute reference points? How does that invalidate heliocentrism?

198 posted on 03/14/2007 10:57:08 PM PDT by LeGrande (Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God of Abraham.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The observed phases of Venus only mean that Venus and the sun exhibit relative motion. They certainly don't prove heliocentricity.

Beep. Circle takes the square. The phases of Venus only make sense if Venus is orbiting the Sun closer in than the Earth. Planets orbiting the Sun farther out than the orbit of the Earth will not exhibit phases, as we can only ever see the face pointed toward the Sun.

I must admit it is strange having to explain this to you. It's almost like talking to someone from the Middle Ages.

199 posted on 03/15/2007 3:50:01 AM PDT by Junior (Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The theory of evolution could be disproved if the evidence showed that we either did not evolve from other life forms (for example, instantaneous creation, say, last Thursday), or the evidence showed that we were dropped here fully formed by space aliens or some such. Either of these scenarios would disprove the current theory of evolution.

Yes, the only way to disprove it is if God shows up and says He made us or an alien says he put us here. That's what makes the theory of evolution a religion.

200 posted on 03/15/2007 4:59:39 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-392 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