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

Skip to comments.

Watch for Flying Giraffes (and Convergent Evolutionists)
CEH ^ | January 9, 2009

Posted on 01/09/2009 7:19:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Jan 9, 2009 — Imagine giraffe-sized animals that could fly. They lived. National Geographic News has an illustration of an extinct pterosaur, tall as a giraffe, that was able to leap into the air and flap its wings for sustained powered flight...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; quetzalcoatlus

1 posted on 01/09/2009 7:19:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gondramB; editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; ...

ping!


2 posted on 01/09/2009 7:20:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

God did it. Case closed.


3 posted on 01/09/2009 7:29:19 PM PST by MyTwoCopperCoins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And you guys claim you're not anti-science.

You believe anything those lying creationist websites feed you, but you deny science, which produces evidence to back up what it claims.

What a joke.

4 posted on 01/09/2009 7:36:05 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Science always backs up what it PROVES, not what it claims.

Don’t pick on creationists, their science fits their model just as well as yours.


5 posted on 01/09/2009 7:38:31 PM PST by BillT (Socialism = Equal Poverty for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions.


6 posted on 01/09/2009 7:41:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BillT
Science always backs up what it PROVES, not what it claims.

Don’t pick on creationists, their science fits their model just as well as yours.

Science deals with evidence and theories. It allows you to examine two competing ideas and determine which, if either, is the more likely. It can falsify, but not prove, theories.

When compared with real science, creation "science" has done very poorly. It is essentially religious apologetics, whose aim is to support scripture and revelation no matter what the evidence might show. In this, it is the opposite of science, which must go where the data leads.

And just for your information, proof is not a part of science. Science deals with data and theories.

Here are a couple of definitions from my FR home page that might help explain this concept:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source


7 posted on 01/09/2009 7:57:52 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions.

But one side will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

The other side will distort, misrepresent, and ignore evidence as required to make everything come out supporting scripture and revelation--no matter what.

As an example, lets take the Creation Research Society. This is on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

See any opportunity for data-driven science there? Or is this an organization dedicated to supporting scripture and revelation--no matter what?

I think even you will have to admit its the latter. And that is the exact opposite of science.

So don't give us any "Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions" nonsense. One side is doing science and the other is doing religious apologetics.

8 posted on 01/09/2009 8:05:43 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==But one side will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Obviously not. Otherwise the Evos would be publishing Creation/ID challenges (not to mention rival evolutionary theories!) to neo-Darwinian evolution in their journals on a regular basis.


9 posted on 01/09/2009 8:11:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Obviously not. Otherwise the Evos would be publishing Creation/ID challenges (not to mention rival evolutionary theories!) to neo-Darwinian evolution in their journals on a regular basis.

Bring scientific evidence, not religious apologetics, and you'll do better. (If you have any.)

10 posted on 01/09/2009 8:15:19 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Coyoteman

Coyoteman is a lost cause. He beats his chest about evolution quite frequently here, but then goes into fits of apoplexy if you dare question the worthiness of American Indian coyote myths.

It is interesting to me how this supposed man of science can deride believers in a God created world, but claims to find great enlightenment in the silly myths of a defeated neolithic people.

Isn’t the consistent scientific mind impressive?

R-I-G-H-T.


11 posted on 01/09/2009 8:17:49 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; DevNet

Like I told the others. I have a paper written by a creation scientist that I believe makes an air-tight case rendering materialist evolution completely impossible. I’d be glad to post it. Are you guys up for the challenge?


12 posted on 01/09/2009 8:20:26 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Coyoteman

==Coyoteman is a lost cause. He beats his chest about evolution quite frequently here, but then goes into fits of apoplexy if you dare question the worthiness of American Indian coyote myths.

LOL! No, seriously...LOL!


13 posted on 01/09/2009 8:22:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Coyoteman is a lost cause. He beats his chest about evolution quite frequently here, but then goes into fits of apoplexy if you dare question the worthiness of American Indian coyote myths.

It is interesting to me how this supposed man of science can deride believers in a God created world, but claims to find great enlightenment in the silly myths of a defeated neolithic people.

Isn’t the consistent scientific mind impressive?

You clearly have misunderstood the reason I used to post the Native American creation stories.

Perhaps if you went back and checked the context of those posts you would acquire a better understanding of the reasons behind my posts.

And "beating my chest" is not a very accurate description of my posts. I realize you may disagree with what I say, but if you wish to practice science your role is to provide evidence to the contrary. (Empty rhetoric does not substitute for evidence.)

14 posted on 01/09/2009 8:24:58 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


15 posted on 01/09/2009 8:33:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You wrote:

“You clearly have misunderstood the reason I used to post the Native American creation stories.”

Nope. I just think you’ll change your story now to fit what works best.

“Perhaps if you went back and checked the context of those posts you would acquire a better understanding of the reasons behind my posts.”

Perhaps if you didn’t rely on neolithic myths about rangy undomesticated near-dogs for enlightenment you might not spout knee-jerk responses to posts about creation.

“And “beating my chest” is not a very accurate description of my posts.”

Oh, no? Let’s see:

“Bring scientific evidence, not religious apologetics, and you’ll do better. (If you have any.)”

What’s that I hear? Thump, thump, thump goes your fist against your breast?

How about...

“So don’t give us any ... nonsense. One side is doing science and the other is doing religious apologetics.”

Thump, thump, thump...

“You believe anything those lying creationist websites feed you, but you deny science, which produces evidence to back up what it claims. What a joke.”

Thump, thump, thump...

“I realize you may disagree with what I say, but if you wish to practice science your role is to provide evidence to the contrary.”

I am here merely to listen to you thump your chest while you fantasize...er...meditate on coyotes and their oh so important teachings to defeated third-world style peoples.

“(Empty rhetoric does not substitute for evidence.)”

And reliance on Indian myths is no substitute for common sense and the Western canon.


16 posted on 01/09/2009 8:37:51 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BillT
Don’t pick on creationists, their science fits their model just as well as yours.

Umm, what science?

17 posted on 01/09/2009 8:56:12 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Both sides are staffed with scientists who must grapple with the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions.

One side has 100,000s of thosands of highly educated scientists working in specialities associated with evaluation of evolution.

The other side has a handful of people, those few with real, actual legitimate advanced degrees (as opposed to ones fake diploma factories) tend to be from fields not directly associated with biology, paleontology, etc.

18 posted on 01/09/2009 8:58:34 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

==The other side has a handful of people, those few with real, actual legitimate advanced degrees (as opposed to ones fake diploma factories) tend to be from fields not directly associated with biology, paleontology, etc.

That’s not true at all. Indeed, I am reading a creationist book on genetic entropy by the inventor of the “Gene Gun” right now.


19 posted on 01/09/2009 9:04:57 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Materialist /Naturalist Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. Matter, energy, space and time are all that exists or has ever existed. They originated from nothing and for no reason. The universe consists only of that which is perceived by our five sensory organs, and nothing else exists or can exist.

2. All living things, including man, originated accidentally from non-living matter by means of natural processes. The first living cell came to be through random chance, and evolved by sheer effing luck over billions of years into da Vinci, Bach, and Mozart.

3. The pre-time, pre-matter event described in modern cosmology texts, commonly referred to as the Big Bang, was a prehistoric event that happened everywhere at once.

4. We are an organization of men and women of science who accept nothing except what can be poked with a stick as real. Human beings are animals — mobile automatons made from electrified meat — and are the result of the random action of wind and sunlight on dirty water billion of years ago. Neither the universe nor human beings have any special status, purpose, or destiny. Souls do not exist. Mind is an illusion. The order and structure we see in nature are illusions. Free will is an illusion. Right and wrong are matters of opinion; good and evil do not exist. Our only hope is that the human race continues long enough to build super-intelligent computers, which will then assimilate the data in our brains and allow us to “live” forever as virtual gods.


20 posted on 01/09/2009 9:20:51 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Actually your attempt at parody falls apart as many, if not most, scientists--including evolutionary scientists--are religious.

But it was a nice try. Better than many of the posts that folks send my way.

21 posted on 01/09/2009 9:27:32 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Do you believe that pterosaur’s existed? Do you believe that they flew?

Do you believe that they were living at the same time Adam and Eve were living?


22 posted on 01/09/2009 9:41:21 PM PST by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Yes. Perhaps. Yes.


23 posted on 01/09/2009 9:49:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists...

Coyote, how can you say you are right when Creationists have "trained scientists," "scientific proof," Dr. Dino, and Jack Chick?

24 posted on 01/09/2009 10:46:21 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; GodGunsGuts; Coyoteman
God and Jesus are our spiritual salvation; They gave us Coyoteman and men like him to be our worldy salvation, you arrogant, prideful fools! Scientists to venture where YOU are afraid to go because your faith in God is too weak to handle His ways that insult your pride -- those scientists are creatures of and gifts from God, and if they are self-declared atheists, then that is their own cross to bear and all we can do is pray that they see the light before they die; other than that, it's none of our business because as long as they don't engage in murder or false witness or cruelty or theft, it's between God and them.

THE FRUITS they bear and share with humankind, fruits that have saved, extended, and enriched lives for the better of all -- out of pride and self-deceit, you take for granted the many mighty accomplishments of science, accomplished by men willing to undertake its disciplines, which you clearly have never done, but you certainly reap the rewards (as do we all) of their work -- and don't expect to fool ME with silliness of thinking that just because some scientists choose to interpret and act on what they learn as "proof" that God doesn't exist, somehow indicts all of science, including paleontology and Darwinian theory, as worthless.

You spit in God's face when you reject the Coyotemen of the world merely because they offend your personal interpretation of the Bible.

You and heaven knows how many of your loved ones are are probably alive today ONLY because of scientists who used evolutionary theory to design vaccines and figured out how to defeat diseases that would have killed you otherwise, or who came up with ways to save your mother who may have died in childbirth while YOU died a preemie. Men of science, evolution studies or not, atheists or not, who live the Judeo-Christian ethic (unlike the scientists who did experiments on Jews in the Third Reich), do us much good. You should be praising God and thanking Him for them; instead you indulge in pride and reject them in God's name!!!! You are BAD dogs.

YOU and GodGunsGuts are the ones behaving like lost causes -- but YOU SHOULD KNOW that the ONLY determiner of a Lost Cause is God Himself.

Evolution doesn't challenge God -- it challenges human pride.

25 posted on 01/10/2009 12:03:18 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Finny; Coyoteman

You wrote:

“God and Jesus are our spiritual salvation; They gave us Coyoteman and men like him to be our worldy salvation,...”

We need no worldly salvation, nor do men like Coyoteman provide it. Scientists are men like all other men - there are good ones and bad ones.

“... you arrogant, prideful fools!”

I have said and done exactly nothing that is prideful nor foolish. You can’t make that claim since you think scientists will save us.

“Scientists to venture where YOU are afraid to go because your faith in God is too weak to handle His ways that insult your pride — those scientists are creatures of and gifts from God, and if they are self-declared atheists, then that is their own cross to bear and all we can do is pray that they see the light before they die; other than that, it’s none of our business because as long as they don’t engage in murder or false witness or cruelty or theft, it’s between God and them.”

Nonsense. Evolution doesn’t insult my pride. Many things about it, however, insult our intelligence. Also, evolution has nothing to do with my pride. I am humbled by the creative power of God.

“THE FRUITS they bear and share with humankind, fruits that have saved, extended, and enriched lives for the better of all — out of pride and self-deceit, you take for granted the many mighty accomplishments of science,..”

No. I take nothing for granted. I just don’t confuse human ingenuity with “salvation”. I also keep in mind that some scientists have been enemies of their own species using their God-given talents merely to develop new ways to torture, kill, maim, harm and terrorize men, women and children.

“...accomplished by men willing to undertake its disciplines, which you clearly have never done, but you certainly reap the rewards (as do we all) of their work — and don’t expect to fool ME with silliness of thinking that just because some scientists choose to interpret and act on what they learn as “proof” that God doesn’t exist, somehow indicts all of science, including paleontology and Darwinian theory, as worthless.”

And don’t try to fool us by falsely waxing eloquently - expending verbal gas really - that scientists are our saviors that that means we are all evil and scientists are all wonderful. That’s just nonsense.

“You spit in God’s face when you reject the Coyotemen of the world merely because they offend your personal interpretation of the Bible.”

I never brought up the Bible. I also never mentioned my personal interpretation of it. I in fact have no personal interpretation of it in this regard. I reject Coyoteman - if that is in fact what I am doing - because of his silly adulation of neolithic coyote myths over the great Western canon. Got a problem with that? I really don’t care.

“You and heaven knows how many of your loved ones are are probably alive today ONLY because of scientists who used evolutionary theory to design vaccines and figured out how to defeat diseases that would have killed you otherwise,...”

No. 1) I am alive because of God. No scientist could keep me alive if God wanted me to expire. Case closed. 2) Scientists rely on the real evolution of actual viruses much more than they ever will on any theory of man coming from apes.

“...or who came up with ways to save your mother who may have died in childbirth while YOU died a preemie.”

Neither situation had anything to do with Darwin or evolution.

“Men of science, evolution studies or not, atheists or not, who live the Judeo-Christian ethic (unlike the scientists who did experiments on Jews in the Third Reich),...”

What do you do about the fact that there are scientists who actually claim that those Nazi butcher scientists did some worthwhile scientific work? I guess you now give them a pass in a sense and dismiss them? It took you this long in your rant to admit that are scientists who indulged in evil?

“... do us much good. You should be praising God and thanking Him for them; instead you indulge in pride and reject them in God’s name!!!! You are BAD dogs.”

You are just not very bright. I never indulged in any pride. That’s clearly you. Look at your rant here. It is completely out of touch with the reality of what I have written and why. That hasn’t stopped you, however.

“YOU and GodGunsGuts are the ones behaving like lost causes — but YOU SHOULD KNOW that the ONLY determiner of a Lost Cause is God Himself.”

True enough - except that Coyoteman exults coyote myths from neolithic people while dismissing the importance of the Western canon and then derides anyone who dares to believe in a creative God.

“Evolution doesn’t challenge God — it challenges human pride.”

No, evolution creates pride. As it clearly has with you.


26 posted on 01/10/2009 3:36:45 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Do you believe that pterosaur’s existed? Do you believe that they flew?
Do you believe that they were living at the same time Adam and Eve were living?

Yes. Perhaps. Yes.

So my next question is when do you believe Adam and Eve lived?

27 posted on 01/10/2009 6:21:03 AM PST by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

It’s puzzling to me how pterosaurs actually flew, or even, did they? Could they actually achieve flight from level ground? Could they really sustain flight, or did they have a very limited flight distance? Did they perhaps just glide from higher to lower topography? Any experts care to summarize?


28 posted on 01/10/2009 6:40:08 AM PST by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

They had wings for a reason. Creationists and evolutionists can agree on that.


29 posted on 01/10/2009 7:11:01 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

LOL! Yes, one would think so, but they have no predecessor other than bats, do they? It’s easier to imagine small skin-wing animals flying, but those honking things?


30 posted on 01/10/2009 7:19:08 AM PST by ZX12R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
Looking at a B-52 or even a 747, I can't imagine how either of them fly, either.

The pterosaur did not have the mammilian bat as a predecessor. It was clearly a reptile.

We see wings on mammals, birds, and even on some fish. Wings apparently are handy things to have.

The only primates that had them were in the Land of Oz.


31 posted on 01/10/2009 7:39:50 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
More common examples of convergent evolution would be mammals and birds that have returned to water.

Or, since there were no cats on Madagascar, there are lemurs who evolved to a cat-like shape. Likewise, there were no cats in Australia, but a marsupial evolved to the shape of a cat, until the Europeans colonized there with their cats and dogs and the marsupial cats went extinct.

32 posted on 01/10/2009 8:05:18 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

Spreading liberal lies on a conservative website is just no way to go through life.


33 posted on 01/10/2009 9:45:25 AM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

That site lacks content. It’s a “sign a petition against Darwin” site, which might feel good, but he won’t read it.


34 posted on 01/10/2009 9:58:35 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Spreading liberal lies on a conservative website is just no way to go through life.

And spreading anti-science lies on a conservative website is no way to advance anything, let alone conservatism. Yet we see a lot of that here of late.

If you are trying to establish the dichotomy that liberals are scientific and rational, where would that leave conservatives? I don't think you really want to go there.

35 posted on 01/10/2009 10:35:12 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Being a liberal or a conservative has nothing to do with science. Science is what it is. Commies and Americans can jointly build a space station.

Many scientists are conservatives, and many accept evolution.

I can’t say for sure, but I suspect the only conservatives who don’t accept evolution do it out of an underlying religious fundamentalism.

They don’t do it out of science, although they attempt to try to argue the science. It’s not very persuasive.

They’d be better off ignoring the evidence than discussing it.


36 posted on 01/10/2009 10:53:48 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Coyoteman

I’ve been reading Coyoteman’s posts for a long time, and as far as I can tell, he’s always given everyone else’s creation myths just as much respect as he gives the Native American ones.


37 posted on 01/10/2009 2:18:32 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

"Like I told the others. I have a paper written by a creation scientist that I believe makes an air-tight case rendering materialist evolution completely impossible. I’d be glad to post it. Are you guys up for the challenge?"

Yes, please. I would very much like to read this paper. Additionally, since you claim that established science journals are capriciously rejecting creationist papers, could you append a list of journals to which the author has submitted his paper?

38 posted on 01/10/2009 4:23:16 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

You seem to have a problem separating your realities. Science in its pure form deals in facts. Scientists have a political reality to deal with, as well as a crushing cast system.

You proclaim all things you believe to be scientific fact, because you are a scientist, cool, that means you can never be wrong.

39 posted on 01/10/2009 4:38:29 PM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
You seem to have a problem separating your realities. Science in its pure form deals in facts. Scientists have a political reality to deal with, as well as a crushing cast system.

You have a severe misunderstanding of what science is.

This is the way Heinlein addressed this exact problem:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.

Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481

You proclaim all things you believe to be scientific fact, because you are a scientist, cool, that means you can never be wrong.

As far as "proclaim[ing] all things you believe to be scientific fact" -- I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards.

A fact can be defined as "an observation confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers." Because of this repeated confirmation, facts are accorded a great deal of confidence in science.

Hypotheses and theories then attempt to explain those facts.

Nowhere does "belief" enter into this process. And nowhere does science proclaim our data or theories to be "TRUTH" -- that is left for religion.

Rather, scientific theories are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Those theories must explain the facts, and must not be contradicted by any applicable facts. And over time, as new data arises, those theories are subject to modification or falsification.

That is why we don't claim that status of "truth" or "TRVTH" for our theories. And that is a significant way in which science differs from religions, which generally do claim "truth" or "TRVTH" for their beliefs.

40 posted on 01/10/2009 5:19:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy

Here are the papers. We will be discussing them in a new thread either Sunday or Monday. I’ll ping you when it’s up.

Part I

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_109-115.pdf

Part II

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_77-83.pdf


41 posted on 01/10/2009 7:09:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Thank you very much for posting these papers. To which journals has the author submitted these?
42 posted on 01/11/2009 9:26:35 AM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That is why we don't claim that status of "truth" or "TRVTH" for our theories. And that is a significant way in which science differs from religions, which generally do claim "truth" or "TRVTH" for their beliefs.

You are so full of yourself, and this is such B$.

Nowhere does "belief" enter into this process. And nowhere does science proclaim our data or theories to be "TRUTH" -- that is left for religion.

No you usually disguise that belief by declaring anything you disagree with to be untrue, but all the same, it makes your position true, by default, since nothing else is true.

So many Scientist, so little time

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
Russina Scientist say
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

I was sure Scientist declared we have man induced Global Warming, er Climate Change, which ones should I believe since Scientist always tell the truth.


43 posted on 01/11/2009 10:41:51 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy

To the Journal of Creation. Did you get around to reading them?


44 posted on 01/11/2009 12:26:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

And spreading anti-science lies on a conservative website is no way to advance anything, let alone conservatism. Yet we see a lot of that here of late.

If you are trying to establish the dichotomy that liberals are scientific and rational, where would that leave conservatives? I don’t think you really want to go there.


You’re among the very guiltiest that I see in regards to “spreading anti-science lies”...and I’m not trying to establish a thing, rather point out it’s you and your ilk that have established a very liberal cult of anti-science evolution on a conservative website.

Ignoring the evidence doesn’t make it go away either.


45 posted on 01/11/2009 8:22:09 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

That site lacks content. It’s a “sign a petition against Darwin” site, which might feel good, but he won’t read it.
-—————————————————————————————Of course not!

Because if he did read it, he would immediately learn everything you just said about it is complete propoganda! LOL


46 posted on 01/11/2009 8:24:12 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Yeah I read them. As far as I can see they're pretty much straight up regurgitated Behe with the mousetrap analogy swapped out for a vacuum cleaner. The author has a particularly atrocious grasp of basic probability theory. Do you want me to go into more detail here, or should I wait for your dedicated thread?

The reason I asked about journals is that earlier in this thread you said that creationist research was being suppressed by "Evos". So do you have any examples of creationist papers submitted to and then rejected by mainstream journals?

47 posted on 01/11/2009 11:45:54 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy

Wait for the thread. And yes, there are numerous examples of creationist papers being submitted and then rejected by evo science journals. When is the last time you have seen a Creation/ID paper in an Evo science journal? Most Creation/ID scientists have given up trying to get their papers through the Darwinian stranglehold on peer review. But every once and a while some still try. Here is a fairly recent example of a paper that was rejected for publication:

Question to the author:

Question: Have you submitted this document for publication in a peer reviewed journal?

Author: Yep, about 5 or 6 or so. All rejected.

Here is the paper in question:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Borger_SharedMutations_061506.pdf

But it is much worse than just having papers rejected. Scientists are being censored, persecuted and outright fired just for being skeptical of Darwinism. Take a look at some of the following cases:

http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/index.php?p=20case_studies


48 posted on 01/12/2009 12:17:53 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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