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

Skip to comments.

Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology Speaks Out On Creation Museum
ScienceDaily ^ | July 30, 2007

Posted on 07/29/2007 2:13:08 PM PDT by EveningStar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: ok_now
“You don’t even know what evolution is.”

btw, stop with the “evolution” nonsense. We all believe in evolution, WHAT WE DON’T BELIEVE IS darwinism, or macroevolution (change from one species into another magically).

101 posted on 08/02/2007 1:39:19 PM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Ken Ham should put out a counter press-release/open letter charging the Church of Darwin with misrepresenting science for the last 150 years...and then challenge them to debate the evidence (the Church of Darwin will probably demure since they always lose).
102 posted on 08/02/2007 1:48:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: razzle
btw, stop with the “evolution” nonsense. We all believe in evolution, WHAT WE DON’T BELIEVE IS darwinism, or macroevolution (change from one species into another magically).

I don't believe species appear "magically" other, but rather by descent through modification over long, long, LONG periods of time. This is a theory backed by support from multiple lines of independently acquired evidence. Your great uncle wasn't a chimp. Your great, great, great, great, great...(add at least 50 miles of "greats") uncle was similar to the ancestors of chimps.

The only people who believe species appear "magically" are creationists.

103 posted on 08/02/2007 1:48:44 PM PDT by ok_now ((Huh?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But they also clearly feel that they cannot make a compelling case for their position.

Just like the Evo's!!!

104 posted on 08/02/2007 1:51:14 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Church of Darwin

There is no Church of Darwin. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith.

105 posted on 08/02/2007 1:55:37 PM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Just like the Evo's!!!

Try science books. Reading is good. Museums are good too - real ones like the Natural History Museum in the Smithsonian.

106 posted on 08/02/2007 1:56:44 PM PDT by ok_now ((Huh?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

And all Aspirins are alike.


107 posted on 08/02/2007 1:57:58 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

==There is no Church of Darwin. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith.

Yeah right:

“Muslims go to Mecca, Christians go to Jerusalem, Darwinians go to Downe.”

—James Moore, Darwin Scholar

http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070628a

“I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”

—Richard Dawkins

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Darwin Day” website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

“It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).”

Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], “In the eye of a storm”, New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.

“Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.”

Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, USA], “The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man,” [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.344.

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.


108 posted on 08/02/2007 3:14:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I don’t need any expensive museum. Seeing Victoria Vetri and Raquel Welch in bikinis evading dinosaurs was enough to convince me. I’ll protect you, honey!
109 posted on 08/02/2007 3:19:43 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwhole2th
Why isn’t faith enough?

Issac Newton, for example, was a beliving Christian who formulated a profound theory of gravitation suitable enough to steer spacecraft among the planets.

At the same time experiments in alchemy probably contributed to his death.

Einstein (also a beleiver or sorts) formulated a deeper theory of gravitation that conceived of the bending of space and time, that reduced to Newton's at lower energies. Yet he knew that his theory did not comport with quantum mechanics which had been formulated comtemporaneously, and he died frustrated that he had not succeeded in unifying the two despite his monumental efforts.

Now some supect that there may be a deeply unifying aspect in M-Theory (membranes), but the energies neccessary to test it are outside our current abilities to probe nature that deeply. But it remains such a beautiful theory that some physicists have dedicated their entire careers to this elusive goal.

Yet underneath it all, I believe, is God.

As for evolution...if we understood how changes in genes affect changes in species, I believe we'd understand that too.

But never at the level of God, who's yet constituted a vast and beautiful universe for us to explore.

110 posted on 08/02/2007 3:22:12 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ok_now
“long, long, LONG time “

Then there must be lots of transitional fossils to be found; even darwin himself said there should be lots and lots of them. How come we haven’t found any, just lots of phony fossils made up to fool our kids, that are later discovered to be just what they are, like piltdown man, Peking man and all the others.

111 posted on 08/02/2007 5:39:15 PM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: razzle
Then there must be lots of transitional fossils to be found; even darwin himself said there should be lots and lots of them.

There are. Thousands have been found. Do the research. What other conclusion can one reach from the fossil record? You don't see Precambrian era turtle fossils, or Mesozoic era elephants or Paleozoic dinosaurs.

How come we haven’t found any, just lots of phony fossils made up to fool our kids, that are later discovered to be just what they are, like piltdown man, Peking man and all the others.

Sounds like you've been getting information from creationist websites. That's a bad idea. They're inherently dishonest and don't do any real science. Piltdown man is the only ape-human transitional I'm aware of that was ever taken seriously by science, and it was debunked decades ago. Curiously enough, it became suspicious because it didn't fit in the proper biogeographical area with other 'transitionals', so was discovered. Not the proudest moment of science (that it took so long to smoke out), but it was done.

Why do you think we should have found every transitional fossil there is? Fossilization is rare are hard to depend on. There's other, much stronger lines of evidence that support evolution (like genetics), in spite of the large number of transitional fossils found.

112 posted on 08/02/2007 6:02:14 PM PDT by ok_now ((Huh?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: razzle
btw, I have 2 science masters degrees plus a BS in Chemistry

Interesting.

So what did you do when your professors told you that the half life of uranium 235 is 700 million years.

Did you call them agents of Satan for pushing old Earth science on mankind?

113 posted on 08/02/2007 8:22:02 PM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
The Bible is backed up by “Empirical”-(Real measurable) science, not fantasies, and not theories, but archeology and geology!

You must be part of a different creationist book club.

Most of the Bible literalists around here rake empiricists over the coals.

Must be that whole problem about not being able to prove the divine with science.

114 posted on 08/02/2007 8:35:06 PM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith.

Nope; they have FAITH that their word pictures they paint happened just the way they BELIEVE.

When new data comes along; their BELIEFS change to match the data.

Translation:

Oooops!

I guess the way we 'believed' things worked before, really didn't.

115 posted on 08/03/2007 4:37:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ok_now
“Thousands have been found”

You have been fed a pile of you know what. Scientific American a few years ago had its cover story of finding the very FIRST wonderful transitional fossil in China (a reptile/bird thing) but low and behold it turned out to be another fake. Do more research.

116 posted on 08/03/2007 4:55:47 AM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
“Did you call them agents of Satan “

No, but I did notice that Mr Leakey, when trying to prove he found a very old monkey skull, had to do his carbon dating over 50 times before he received a very old date that he liked - ha ha ha.

117 posted on 08/03/2007 4:58:04 AM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
==There is no Church of Darwin. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a faith......Yeah right:

Thank you for posting those quotes. Evolution does appear to be a religion, doesn't it?

118 posted on 08/03/2007 5:05:44 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: razzle
No, but I did notice that Mr Leakey, when trying to prove he found a very old monkey skull, had to do his carbon dating over 50 times before he received a very old date that he liked - ha ha ha.

It couldn't have been very old if he was doing carbon dating.

119 posted on 08/03/2007 6:08:49 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: razzle
You have been fed a pile of you know what. Scientific American a few years ago had its cover story of finding the very FIRST wonderful transitional fossil in China (a reptile/bird thing) but low and behold it turned out to be another fake. Do more research.

Do more research. There are thousands of transitional fossils. You need to look outside of creationist websites in real science journals, museums, etc. and they're not all part of a huge conspiracy. I can't help it if you're drawing all your info from sources driven toward apologetic propaganda. There's actual science out there, and it's not found on Answers In Genesis.

120 posted on 08/03/2007 6:33:47 AM PDT by ok_now ((Huh?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: razzle
I did notice that Mr Leakey, when trying to prove he found a very old monkey skull, had to do his carbon dating over 50 times before he received a very old date that he liked - ha ha ha.

You have blown any scientific credibility to which you pretended with this post.

First, Leakey did not do his own radiometric dating. That type of dating is done by experienced geologists and nuclear physicists or chemists.

Second, everyone knows that you don't date million-year-old fossils with "carbon dating" -- radiocarbon dating is only useful back about 50,000 years, and does not work on volcanic rocks, which is what they date in Africa!

121 posted on 08/03/2007 7:30:32 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: razzle
Scientific American a few years ago had its cover story of finding the very FIRST wonderful transitional fossil in China (a reptile/bird thing) but low and behold it turned out to be another fake. Do more research.

This is a transitional. Did you forget this one? Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):



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

122 posted on 08/03/2007 7:35:57 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Oh, no coyote is joining the darwinists again!!! I’m afraid.


123 posted on 08/03/2007 7:46:47 AM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
But you DO know that Leakey had to do dozens of dating tests before he got the result he wanted. Typical lib response to deflect the issue by discussing some incorrect spelling or other minor aspect of the issue.
124 posted on 08/03/2007 7:49:13 AM PDT by razzle (Liberal Science: Experiments on unborn babies, man-made global warming, and darwinism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: razzle
But you DO know that Leakey had to do dozens of dating tests before he got the result he wanted. Typical lib response to deflect the issue by discussing some incorrect spelling or other minor aspect of the issue.

Did you get that piece of information from the same creationist website that said he was doing carbon dating?

By the way, on my last major excavation I obtained 31 radiocarbon dates. Does that make me as bad as Leakey in your mind? Was I fishing for the right date and only stopped when I got the one I wanted?

You clearly have no clue about how dating is done technically, nor about how samples are selected for dating. Do you think folks do only one date and trust that implicitly?

In the case of fossils, you can't date the fossils directly. You have to date the volcanic layers above and below them. And you would be a fool to rely on only one date. In fact, those layers are continually dated as new refinements are made in dating technology, and sometimes dates are corrected.

You claim to have degrees in science. Your posts do not reflect the care with which scientists normally present data. Better stay away from those creationist sites.

125 posted on 08/03/2007 7:57:06 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I think mr. razzle has several BS degrees. At least he’s earned them.


126 posted on 08/03/2007 12:16:35 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

What do a bunch of scientists know?


127 posted on 08/03/2007 12:17:19 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razzle
So you do acknowledge that many elements have half lives of millions of years, which makes a 6,000 year old Earth highly unlikely.

128 posted on 08/03/2007 2:43:19 PM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: dwhole2th

have you ever read the verse,

proverbs

2It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.


129 posted on 08/06/2007 1:24:12 PM PDT by flevit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dwhole2th

have you ever read the verse,

proverbs

2It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out.


130 posted on 08/06/2007 1:24:22 PM PDT by flevit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon
Whether or not one agrees with the premise of this museum, its founder has a right to advocate his position and present it to the public.

I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. If you have, please point it out.

131 posted on 08/06/2007 6:37:39 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Calling someone “extreme” and saying his enterprise is a “danger” are loaded terms, especially coming from academics. The exact quote you demand lies between the lines.


132 posted on 08/06/2007 6:53:28 PM PDT by brigadoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: brigadoon
Calling someone “extreme” and saying his enterprise is a “danger” are loaded terms

Perhaps, but they're accurate. Do you want to censor the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology?

133 posted on 08/06/2007 7:19:32 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 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