Canadian fossil makes waves in Huckabee's presidential run

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | Friday, January 11, 2008 | Randy Boswell

[weegee]

Public opinion on taxes when the a large segment aren’t paying any is also ludicrous.

[DouglasKC]

I really don't understand this. Most evolutionists make a primary part of their case on similar DNA. Why wouldn't everything that God creates have similar DNA? After all we all start with the same raw materials and once God found a good design why would he give each component of every single animal a unique design? Use similar design where warranted and change enough to make each thing unique and adaptive to its role.

[Kevmo]

Two Freepers, Alamo-girl and Betty Boop, wrote a good book on evolution.

Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Science-Down-Timothy-Light-hearted/dp/1430304693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199676869&sr=8-1

If Huckabee fizzles, his followers will be looking for another prolife evangelical to fill the void. Hunter fits that bill, no one else in the race is evangelical.

The GOP doesn’t get it. They need to let this faction find a home. The amount of invective aimed at evangelicals is surprising, but then everyone wants their votes.

Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.

Prolife evangelicals will be very comfortable in Hunter’s camp, since he’s a prolife evangelical staunch conservative.

.

.

.

.

On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951282/posts

The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets The Liberty Papers ^ |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts

[dinoparty]

So what? My point was not to argue that ID is “science” (however you want to define it) but to argue that it is worth teaching IN CONJUNCTION WITH “science” as you define it.

[mbraynard]

You win the thread.

[dinasour]

"fishapod"

Would that be a fish with a built in MP3 player.

[marktwain]

“I bet that fish couldn’t run as fast as a Negro with a purse....Ron Paul”

A personal smear with no basis in fact.

[Squawk 8888]

Because ID is not science and should not be taught as such. It belongs in philosophy and/or theology classes.

[PAR35]

Tiktaalik roseae -- a 375-million-year-old fossilized "fishapod" discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 -- has been hailed as an "evolutionary icon" because it represents the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth's most primitive creatures.

That's what the worshipers of Darwin used to say about the 'extinct' Coelacanth before one of them got itself caught in the Indian Ocean.

At least the evolutionists are persistent. No matter how many times they are proven wrong, they keep inventing new proof.

[Squawk 8888]

Teaching non-scientific concepts in science class will only confuse students about the processes, nature, and limits of science.

Bullseye.

[oldsalt]

So let me get this straight. You want me to accept as fact that 375 million years ago this fish was in some stage of morphing into a land animal,shedding its' scales and gaining some other covering,and necessarily going from a cold-blooded to a warm-blooded creature, thereby leaving its' aquatic past.

If all this is so then why are there still fish in the oceans? Why wouldn't they all evolve into something else?

The Church of Darwin asks me to take almost everything on faith and forget using logic. Sorry, not for me.

[dinoparty]

Nothing better teaches “the limits” of science (as you define it) than the inclusion of alternatives to science (as you define it). Failure to do so actually makes students believe that science can explain everything adequately, or that science is the only thing “real”.

[dinoparty]

Who cares whether you call it “science” or not. The real issue is WHY people like you are so adament that it be tought completely separately, instead of in conjunction? Is it simply because we call the class “science class”? If so, then fine, let’s change the name to “science/creation class”. If there is some other reason, then what is it? Is it because you think ID “taints” science? If so, then see my original point.

[fanfan]

I’m glad you enjoyed it. :-)

[fanfan]

LOLOL!

[Alter Kaker]

If all this is so then why are there still fish in the oceans? Why wouldn't they all evolve into something else?

If America was originally settled by people from England, why are there still English?

[Alter Kaker]

The real issue is WHY people like you are so adament that it be tought completely separately, instead of in conjunction?

Because the most important aspect of science education is teaching the scientific method, the formal process by which scientists evaluate information and determine facts. ID is not compatible with the scientific method, and teaching it in science class will inevitably confuse students and hurt the teaching of science.

[betty boop]

Thanks for the mention, Kevmo!

[Rebel_Ace]

You posted the following argument:

"If all this is so then why are there still fish in the oceans? Why wouldn't they all evolve into something else?"

I see variations of this argument made over and over, such as: Why are there still monkeys? Why have they not turned into something else?

Every now and again, I reply when I see this logical error repeated, in an effort to help folks out. Here goes:

Organisms ideally suited for their environment, just like all organisms, will experience generation to generation genetic mutations. If the environment is STABLE, then such changes are GENERALLY NOT BENEFITIAL, and so they have LESS TENDENCY TO ACCUMULATE. In other words, a SHARK is just about darn PERFECT at what it does, for the environment it lives in, and that environment has been STABLE for millions of years. So changes in Sharks are generally selected AGAINST. (It gets increasingly harder to improve on near perfection)

Now the situation is greatly changed when the enviroment is UNSTABLE. Random changes in organisms now have a better chance at being BENEFICIAL, and so they will have a GREATER TENDENCY TO ACCUMULATE. In other words, organisms ideally suited to AQUATIC LIFE trapped in a region of diminishing water WON'T SURVIVE. It is only their offspring that are LESS SUITED to aquatic life that will live to bear new young.

"The Church of Darwin asks me to take almost everything on faith and forget using logic."

No, sorry.

[dinoparty]

I don’t buy that for a second. You’re telling me that you can’t teach “scientific method”, and also delve into some questions that are more theoretical and transcend scientific method?

I don’t see this as confusing at all.

Could you give me examples of how such “confusion” might play out?