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

Skip to comments.

Why evolution is a political question
Morse Code ^ | May 8,2007 | Chuck Morse

Posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:03 PM PDT by Chuckmorse

During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.

It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.

I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.

The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.

Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; cutnpasters; election; evolution; fsmdidit; humor; idjunkscience; jerklist; republican; youcantfixstupid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 next last

1 posted on 05/08/2007 9:24:07 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse

” The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. “

So is gravity.

The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.


2 posted on 05/08/2007 9:26:35 PM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Capitalism is the economic expression of individual liberty. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse

Evolution has become increasingly a dogma even though evidence continues to accumulate that suggests that the existing theory is not sufficient to explain what is being observed. I think that current evolutionary theory is one that purposely confuses microevolution minor adaptations and a normal range of genetic variations with macroevolution which is the total transformation of a creature in form and function. Modern Evolutionary theory does produce a lot of wonderful untestable stories and drawings of ancestors re-imagined from a handful of bones. I believe in adaptation but I do not believe natural selection is the primary driver of exceedingly complex genetic change nor do I believe there is any adequate explanation for the origin of life.

So much of what is accepted evolutionary science is really an illusion crafted to suggest things not supported by empirical data. I believe that current evolutionary theory is vastly oversimplified and would be considered ridiculous if the simple picture was not so appealing as was the classical model of Newtonian physics before it was found to be insufficient.


3 posted on 05/08/2007 9:48:20 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Great assertions require great empirical proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
http://www.morsescode.com/

Thursday, April 19, 2007
Here we go again – shooter at Virginia Tech
....
What has changed in our society to cause this epidemic of mass murder at schools?
....
2. Guns: The types of weapons now available were not around when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment into the Bill of Rights. While the right to keep and bear arms is and should remain a basic right, there is nevertheless no logical reason why anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy the types of weapons that the Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain.
....
What is to be done?
....
2. Guns. Heavy weaponry should be only available to those who have been trained to use them and not to the public at large.

Heavy Weaponry? Give us a break. One of them was a freaking .22 cal pistol!

And both .22 and 9mm cal high-cap. semiauto pistols have been available for more than 70 years.

You Gun Grabbers use any excuse to ban those "pocket rockets"

4 posted on 05/08/2007 9:49:47 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("Caesar - he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe are the laws of Nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Evolution doesn’t explain everything about how we became what we are. As a matter of fact, you’d think entropy would prevent it.
5 posted on 05/08/2007 10:14:15 PM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
As a matter of fact, you’d think entropy would prevent it.

Debunked.

Entropy and Life

To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it.

More in the link above...

6 posted on 05/08/2007 10:28:59 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
Folks -- If there is an Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Ping list -- I hope you will please add me to it.

Thank you.

7 posted on 05/08/2007 10:56:18 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Uh huh...

Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. Diverse fields of science such as geology support the basic concepts of evolution. Findings made long after the theory of natural selection was proposed are remarkable in that they support, rather than refute the theory.


8 posted on 05/08/2007 11:00:31 PM PDT by Air Force Brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Uh huh...

Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. Diverse fields of science such as geology support the basic concepts of evolution. Findings made long after the theory of natural selection was proposed are remarkable in that they support, rather than refute the theory.


9 posted on 05/08/2007 11:02:00 PM PDT by Air Force Brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
So 3 out of 10 (30%) of the Republican Presidential candidates don't believe in evolution. I wonder if that reflects a corresponding percentage of Republican voters?

I find it an interesting data point -- one to be placed alongside the data point that 35% of Democrats believe Bush had advanced knowledge of 9/11.

Each party apparently has its "eccentric" wing of base voters, attracting politicians who seek to identify with (or indeed accurately represent) those voters.

10 posted on 05/08/2007 11:05:06 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse; editor-surveyor; DaveLoneRanger
ping.

It's almost pointless to strike out most of the article. It could still be a stupid piece, but if it is going to be posted it should be easily legible.

11 posted on 05/08/2007 11:59:47 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
The BBC reporter on this basically opined the common refrain from some people: if people are Creationists they must be idiots not worth listening to (or in this case, being a viable candidate for president). Secularly, very little of human life depends on belief on the origins of the world and life, and yet these people act as though it is preeminent--because deep down they may recognize that it is a very big issue.

Non-secularly, the existence of God would have huge ramifications.

Now, more back on topic, science seems more and more trying to supplant religion (from the Creationist/Christian point of view). No longer is it very common to see reports from scientists stating that things were observed to be or appear this or that way. There is an air of finality and unquestionability that science isn't supposed to have. Religion and science are two subjects, just as mathematics and history are two subjects. And as is the case with all those subjects, they can at times merge, but are two distinct subjects. Similarly, all those subjects in their abstract form are perfect. However, in their unabstract (concrete?) form, you see that subjects can have flaws in them, given the imperfection of human creatures. Astronomers once believed that space was filled with ether, until Newton came up with his theory of gravitation. Common history once held that the existence of Sumer and Troy were myths. Now, those places and civilizations are believed to have indeed existed.

Christianity has an "opt-out." Because Christians believe that God (Who is perfect) gave mankind the Bible, the Bible can be considered perfect. It is taken by faith.

Science doesn't have that option. Indeed, almost by definition, science is supposed to be debated and tested over and over again until things become reliably clear. And yet, today, there are those who refuse to let science (in its concrete, non-abstract form) be questioned, and who all but reject experiments and observations which call into question what are today basic tenets (such as supposedly 65 million year+ organic material from dinosaurs being found in warm [non-icy year round] regions). That is detrimental to the advancement of science, much more so than letting Creationism be accepted as a rival alternative to and along with Macroevolution.

12 posted on 05/09/2007 12:19:59 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

On the bright side. Only 14% of Republicans believe Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.


13 posted on 05/09/2007 12:28:27 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Keep your mythology out of science, and we will keep science out of your mythology.

And remember:

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side!"

14 posted on 05/09/2007 12:32:29 AM PDT by Clemenza (NO to Rudy in 2008! New York's Values are NOT America's Values! RUN FRED RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

“The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.”

This is typical of the naturalist position: Squash all debate, assume a naturalistic view of the world and the universe, and attack the character of the person with the opposing view rather than discuss the evidence presented. The posted article is a prime example of this - the “striking-out” of every word the Intelligent Design position given in the article instead of dealing with the points discussed. Talk about censorship and dogmatism!

The problem with naturalistic evolutionists is that they assume that because there are demonstrable variations, or evolution, within a specie (micro-evolution) that this somehow proves that there is evolution between kinds (macro-evolution).

Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.

Naturalistic evolutionists philosophically assume a naturalist view of the universe - not because they can scientifically prove macro-evolution occurs or that matter always existed and had no beginning, but because they want to rule out the possiblity of a Creator/Designer. They claim that since the idea of the universe being created by some Being is untestable scientifically, it is therefore outside the realm of science to allow for that possibility. But the problem is, they do the very same thing in regard to naturalistic explanations of the universe - their explanations (theories) are also untestable scientifically. Yet, somehow their philosophical assumptions are “scientific”.

Believe what you want, but don’t avoid the debate.


15 posted on 05/09/2007 1:50:19 AM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse

IMO the controversy over origins is a conflict within Revolutionism between Protestants and Secularists. When I look at the landscape of beliefs through a wide-angle lens where Revolutionism itself is open to question, the origins debate appears to be a preoccupation of Revolutionists. As a Catholic, I’m not especially concerned about the physical mechanisms through which God created the universe. I just know he’s for real and I’m at peace with my inability to understand in totality the one written artifact of the Faith we call the Bible.


16 posted on 05/09/2007 4:58:35 AM PDT by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick; Fido969
Not debunked.

If life were subject to the kind of random change that evolution would require (and it is clearly not), it would have destroyed itself long ago. An accidental increase in useful information is denied by the second law, and all those loony dissertations that attempt to 'debunk' this fact are illogical nonsequiters that endlessly play with words to the point of destroying language as effectively as evolution would destroy life.

17 posted on 05/09/2007 7:27:39 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; AnalogReigns; banalblues; ...
" If there is an Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Ping list..."

Actually, it's more of a commonsense vs. evolunacy ping list.

18 posted on 05/09/2007 7:33:06 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
"even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution..."

But it isn't evolution, that's the problem; it's only flexibility in the obvious design of the creature. The flexibility is also part of the design, because the designer saw the end from the beginning.

19 posted on 05/09/2007 7:38:51 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
I don’t buy it. The plain fact is we are taking random clumps of particles and turning them into very intricate, complex systems.
20 posted on 05/09/2007 7:41:13 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Thanks for the ping!


21 posted on 05/09/2007 7:43:43 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

Is is interesting that Evolution and Creation have a place on a political forum. It’s not as if an Act of Congress can have anything to do with a scientific matter, so what does it matter to politicians?


22 posted on 05/09/2007 7:47:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat; Maelstorm
"Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. Diverse fields of science such as geology support the basic concepts of evolution. Findings made long after the theory of natural selection was proposed are remarkable in that they support, rather than refute the theory.

Evolution is a political comic book.

No branch of science has found a shred of support for it's far-fetched dreams. Had any evidence ever been found, you can be sure that it's viewing would be mandatory in order to get a food buying license.

Keep on forcing that bad air out of your brat.

23 posted on 05/09/2007 7:49:03 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan; Stultis
The problem with naturalistic evolutionists is that they assume that because there are demonstrable variations, or evolution, within a specie (micro-evolution) that this somehow proves that there is evolution between kinds (macro-evolution).

Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.

Actually many creationists "believe" in macro-evolution.

Here is an example:

John Woodmorappe, in his article The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’--on evolutionists’ terms agrees that a variety of fossil species, including:

Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

This is a species-level change (macro-evolution). But for it to happen as Woodmorappe suggests, the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all (what they call macro-evolution).

But now we see a creationist has not only proposed macro-evolution, but sees it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!

Another example?

You mention "kinds" in your post. (By the way, "kinds" is a religious, not a scientific term.) Stultis did a good post on this yesterday:

By definition "macroevolution" means evolution above the species level; "microevolution" then being evolution below the species level. Therefore any evolution that breaks the species barrier -- i.e. that results in a new species emerging somehow -- is macroevolution by definition.

The problem here is that virtually ALL modern antievolutionary creationists reject the 19th Century position of "fixed" species. They concede, even eagerly, that in all probability whole Families often represent a single "created kind," within which species diversified by some essentially natural processes. The paradigmatic example is the "horse" kind. By this they mean to include the entire Family of Equidae. That's horses, asses, burros, zebras, the whole kit and kaboodle. That's dozens of species, most with some major genetic distinctions, e.g. differing chromosome numbers and arrangements in most cases.

IOW creationists say they don't accept "macroevolution," but in fact they do. Their rejection of fixed species entails that they do.


So, it looks like many creationists not only "believe" in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit. And in one case, in the opposite direction!

24 posted on 05/09/2007 8:05:31 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat

I didn’t say evolution didn’t happen. I said that the theory as defined isn’t sufficient and there is purposeful efforts to ignore the divide between the theory and the evidence. A good example is the changes that occurred to produce modern man.

Evolution like climate change sometimes occurs very quickly if you accept the bursts of diversification detailed in the fossil record. A good example is the development of the brain in modern man. Evidence for accelerated “purposeful” evolution is still denied or just entirely ignored.

http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html

I also am troubled by the continued false assertion that humans and apes are so genetically similar. Not only do humans have 46 chromosomes to the apes 48 the gene transcription factors which control how genes are expressed are considerably different.

I believe that there is a concerted effort as there is with other politically sensitive sciences to misled the public about the evidence concerning evolution.

I would recommend you take time to visit your library and read

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Revisited-Evolution-Appearance/dp/0840768818

I also want to point out I’m not a biblical creationist who believes in a young earth and other equally silly ideas. I just believe that far too much of evolutionary theory is based upon stories and assumptions that aren’t supported by the empirical evidence.


25 posted on 05/09/2007 8:06:13 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Great assertions require great empirical proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Gravity can be repeatedly proven through experimentation.

Evolution?

Nope, nothing but raw faith and hoaxes since Darwin.


26 posted on 05/09/2007 8:06:45 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat

Sorry, most of those “geological findings” were deemed hoaxes.

And where are the “failures” if evolution is happening by chance?


27 posted on 05/09/2007 8:08:22 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Excellent points. One of the reasons that evolution is political is that it is taught in public schools as fact. (Or at least it was when I ws in school.) Our tax dollars go to funding this whether we like it or not.


28 posted on 05/09/2007 8:12:44 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Sorry, most of those “geological findings” were deemed hoaxes.

Can you name five "hoaxes" pertaining to the theory of evolution or its underlying fields in, say, the last 100 years? If there were so many, it should be easy.

And I'll even start you out with a freebie, Piltdown Man.

Now, can you come up with four more "hoaxes" for us.

29 posted on 05/09/2007 8:13:15 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“...endlessly play with words to the point of destroying language”

I would have to agree.


30 posted on 05/09/2007 8:13:49 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Great assertions require great empirical proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Coulter’s got ‘em. Read for yourself.

I can remember two more - the “embryo” drawings and the tree moths.

Now, name ONE case that isn’t a hoax, showing one species “evolving” into another,

and then, name one EXPERIMENT that proves the theory.


31 posted on 05/09/2007 8:17:30 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

Taught in school as fact.

And when one teacher, citing the USSC’s ruling that secular humanism is a religion, and that teaching evolution is “establishing” that religion through the schools,

was ruled by, none other, the 9th Circus Court, that it WASN’T a religion when subject to the restrictions of the establishment clause.


32 posted on 05/09/2007 8:19:29 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Coulter’s got ‘em. Read for yourself.

Coulter made a fool of herself with the evolution chapters in her book. She should have stuck with politics.


I can remember two more - the “embryo” drawings and the tree moths.

Sorry, no hoaxes there. Try again?


Now, name ONE case that isn’t a hoax, showing one species “evolving” into another,

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.


and then, name one EXPERIMENT that proves the theory.

No theory in science can be proved. Everybody knows that!

But, there are is a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution. A lot of it is here: PatrickHenry's Un-Missing Links: A Guide to Online Resources.

Any more "hoaxes" for us? If there are so many you should be able to find a few.

33 posted on 05/09/2007 8:34:39 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
No theory in science can be proved. Everybody knows that!

sorry, this excludes you from the argument. Any theory can be proved (or disproved) through repeatable experimentation.

34 posted on 05/09/2007 8:36:50 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB
No theory in science can be proved. Everybody knows that!

sorry, this excludes you from the argument. Any theory can be proved (or disproved) through repeatable experimentation.

A theory can be disproved, but not proved.

See the list of definitions on my homepage.

35 posted on 05/09/2007 8:45:04 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat
Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories.

Yup; it sure is!

36 posted on 05/09/2007 9:42:26 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Hokie alert!
 
 
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side!"

As you believe; so shall you receive.


NIV Exodus 14:5-28
 5.  When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!"
 6.  So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him.
 7.  He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them. 
 8.  The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly.
 9.  The Egyptians--all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops--pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon.
 10.  As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the LORD.
 11.  They said to Moses, "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt?
 12.  Didn't we say to you in Egypt, `Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians'? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!"
 13.  Moses answered the people, "Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 
 14.  The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still."
 15.  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on.
 16.  Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.
 17.  I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen.
 18.  The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen."
 19.  Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel's army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them,
 20.  coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long.
 21.  Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided,
 22.  and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.
 23.  The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea.
 24.  During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion.
 25.  He made the wheels of their chariots come off  so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, "Let's get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt."
 26.  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen."
 27.  Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward  it, and the LORD swept them into the sea.
 28.  The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen--the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived.
 
 
NIV Exodus 15:1-4
 1.  Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD: "I will sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea.
 2.  The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him.
 3.  The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.
 4.  Pharaoh's chariots and his army he has hurled into the sea. The best of Pharaoh's officers are drowned in the Red Sea.
 
 
NIV Deuteronomy 11:2-7
 2.  Remember today that your children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline of the LORD your God: his majesty, his mighty hand, his outstretched arm;
 3.  the signs he performed and the things he did in the heart of Egypt, both to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his whole country;
 4.  what he did to the Egyptian army, to its horses and chariots, how he overwhelmed them with the waters of the Red Sea  as they were pursuing you, and how the LORD brought lasting ruin on them.
 5.  It was not your children who saw what he did for you in the desert until you arrived at this place,
 6.  and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth right in the middle of all Israel and swallowed them up with their households, their tents and every living thing that belonged to them.
 7.  But it was your own eyes that saw all these great things the LORD has done.
 


 
NIV Deuteronomy 20:1
  When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.
 
NIV Psalms 20:7
   Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
 
NIV Isaiah 31:1
  Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the LORD.

37 posted on 05/09/2007 9:53:38 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mmmike
I just know he’s for real and I’m at peace with my inability to understand in totality the one written artifact of the Faith we call the Bible.

Believe??

38 posted on 05/09/2007 9:54:51 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And in one case, in the opposite direction!

I thought there was NO 'direction'!?


I've always wondered:
 
The critter that was chimp's and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grampa - did he have thumbs on his feet or not?
 
If not, then chimps ARE more 'evolved' than us, for they got these OTHER two tool holders on the ends of their legs.
If so, then WE have managed to LOSE those two wonderful tool holders!
 
Go figger...

39 posted on 05/09/2007 9:58:22 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Now, can you come up with four more "hoaxes" for us.

Well.... there's that China bird/dino that National Geographic was pushing for a while...

40 posted on 05/09/2007 9:59:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
I don’t buy it. The plain fact is we are taking random clumps of particles and turning them into very intricate, complex systems.

Over a span of BILLIONS of years. Time is not of the same sense at such a scale.

41 posted on 05/09/2007 10:00:50 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“So, it looks like many creationists not only “believe” in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit.”

First, I must admit that I was not familiar with the macroevolution definition you gave: “evolutionary changes at the level of species and above”. Further, you would be correct in saying that we have observed speciation occurring and speciation is macroevolution according to your definition. It is also true that most Creationists would accept that part of the definition.

However, there is a second part of the definition of macroevolution that claims “major structural changes in species”. This is the part of the definition that most Creationists would object to.

I think it is a bit of a scam for some naturalist evolutionists to imply that since we have observed minor species differentiation in the present that this type of speciation accounts for “major structual changes” required for inorganic to organic, lizard to bird, etc.

It seems illegitimate, at least to me, for evolutionists to point to the speciation of fruit flies or mosquitoes as macroevolution as though it accounts for the major evolutionary changes that would have to occur for inorganic matter to become a living cell, or for a lizard to become a bird.

So, while I do agree that on the one level “macroevolution” would be acceptable to creationist, it would not follow that this type of macroevolution accounts for producing the huge structural changes that would be required to fulfill the claims of naturalistic evolution. This type of macroevolution has not been observed.


42 posted on 05/09/2007 10:09:29 AM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"Well.... there's that China bird/dino that National Geographic was pushing for a while..."

That was a hoax perpetrated by a Chinese farmer and was discovered by scientists almost immediately. Someone (Sloan, the NG art editor) jumped the gun and published the find in National Geographic before it passed peer review. Both 'Nature' and 'Science' rejected the paper.

This fraud, perpetrated not by a scientist but by a poor farmer shows what can happen when peer review is bypassed.

BTW, the two fossils (Microraptor zhaoianus and Yanornis martini) which made up Archaeoraptor were important finds in themselves.

43 posted on 05/09/2007 10:15:55 AM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Over billions of years random actions should have reduced us to gamma rays flying around in 3 Celsius degree space, or maybe some clumps of atoms stuck together by gravitational forces.
44 posted on 05/09/2007 10:18:15 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
So, while I do agree that on the one level “macroevolution” would be acceptable to creationist, it would not follow that this type of macroevolution accounts for producing the huge structural changes that would be required to fulfill the claims of naturalistic evolution. This type of macroevolution has not been observed.

See below:

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (in the upper center).

(This chart is a "best guess" approximation of the macroevolution of hominids over the past 3-4 million years.)

Creationists have had trouble classifying this specimen to either man or ape, with some major figures favoring man and some favoring ape.

Scientists also have disagreed as to its exact taxonomic place. The difficulty in deciding just where to place this specimen (as it shares traits of both earlier and later specimens) is one line of support for its transitional status.



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33


Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

45 posted on 05/09/2007 10:19:24 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

The chances were surely random. But they weren’t purely random. Each possibility didn’t have the same opportunity to occur as the other. Every outcome had an influence over the other. Not pure chance. That is the key difference. Over those billion years, they can do amazing things.


46 posted on 05/09/2007 10:33:10 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan; Coyoteman
However, there is a second part of the definition of macroevolution that claims “major structural changes in species”. This is the part of the definition that most Creationists would object to.

Evolutionists object to the that notion also, that "major structural" changes happen within the evolution of a single species, or even consequent with a single speciation event.

We envision -- and more importantly have concrete examples thereto in the fossil record -- "major structural changes" arising over a whole series of species and speciation events. For instance there are fossils showing the migration of the ear ossicles starting out as large bones in the reptilian jaw, one actually functional in the jaw joint, and ending up as tiny bones in the mammalian ear. This is certainly a "major structural change," but it occurred by tiny steps distributed across many different species.

47 posted on 05/09/2007 10:42:07 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Yes, best supported. Evolution, at its core, is championed by people who want to escape the eventuality of final accountability for their deeds in this life. Most supporters simply go along for the ride.

However, interpreting evidence with a view toward reinforcing a preconceived theory such as GTOE is very different from allowing the evidence to guide the theory. The same applies to Creation, BTW: at the core, both the Evolutionist and the Creationist hold their views by faith, since our remotest origins are not subject to true observation-, measureability-, and repeatability-based science.

The operative term to remember for evolution is reinforcement syndrome.

48 posted on 05/09/2007 10:54:20 AM PDT by Lexinom (DH08/FT08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
Over billions of year we should be reduced to the lowest kinetic state. A billion years will let a rock roll down a hill, but it will not let it roll up - especially a fraction of an inch at a time.
49 posted on 05/09/2007 11:02:53 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

A rock can come down. But that’s an isolated stored-energy release phenomenon. On the other hand, life systems thrive on energy poured out on them. On earth, the source is the sun, directly or indirectly. Now that can make things go up or down.

But look at the sun itself. It is certainly bound to lose energy over time, and with it, the systems that rely on it will cease activity too. The “rock” will at last, start to settle.


50 posted on 05/09/2007 11:12:40 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 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