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

Skip to comments.

Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
Discovery Institute ^ | January 22, 2009

Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 next last
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Circuar NON-reasoning.


51 posted on 01/23/2009 3:02:38 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 23 | View Replies]

To: metmom

They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.


They need to break out of their cult with the help of a deprogrammer!


52 posted on 01/23/2009 3:12:28 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 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It’s been a while, but could you recite your scientific qualifications, training and experience that should lead any person to believe you actually know anything about the subjects on which you comment.

If I recall correctly, you have no background in biology, chemistry, microbiology, or biological chemistry; isn’t that correct?


53 posted on 01/23/2009 3:14:38 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; GodGunsGuts; metmom; YHAOS

But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation “science” does.


You’ve been debunked on this point a million times, so why do you continue lying like this?

Is there something science-hating or even religious in these observations?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry


54 posted on 01/23/2009 3:15:25 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 21 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

click on the scientists link to see your lies for exactly what they are.


55 posted on 01/23/2009 3:22:22 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 5 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
But I guess all that rote "learning" stuff is old hat these days.

I think they should come up with a catchy name for this new approach. Call it something like "Whole Science" or "New Science" or something like that.

56 posted on 01/23/2009 3:26:18 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Heck, I'll even give it a try! This series finishes at the top with the common Shetland Collie,...

I know you think you're being funny, but you're really embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what kind of work goes into figuring out how old a skull is, do you? Let me ask the thing I always wonder: do you have any expertise in anything? Has your study or work made you more knowledgeable about anything than your average Internet user? If so, wouldn't you think that someone who just dismissed everything you know was acting pretty foolishly?

57 posted on 01/23/2009 3:34:22 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Check out this list of scientists and compare your qualifications to theirs.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

At least your screen name is appropriate. All you seem to accomplish here is howling at the moon, which serves no real purpose.


58 posted on 01/23/2009 3:35:54 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
As you can see from the available literature, evolutionary biology overlaps many scientific fields, including organic chemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, cell biology, zoology, etc. The point being that there is a great deal of "evidence to weigh," and if high school students will eventually be expected to "weigh" that evidence and "decide for themselves," they will need a solid grounding in it.

I will go you one step further. Darwinian Evolution is the bedrock premise of the aforementioned sciences, and the current state of the science will be severely affected (biology) if not destroyed (paleontology) by the removal of the foundation.

Did I intentionally simplify the skulls, you betcha. However, reading of the articles you have posted, will not "disabuse" me of anything. Each time I read one, and carefully disect it, I realize it is built on a series of assumptions, postulations, assertions and conjectures, that might explain the state of the evidence examined. However, I don't buy it. There is so much guessing and back patting, it is silly. For example if you click the second "here" link, click the "evolution resources" link and then click the first link and then click the first article, you will find the following, of which I pulled the first 2 questions as an example:

Animals: Tracing Their Heritage
Nicole King
An ActionBioscience.org original interview

Do animals have a common origin?
King: Yes. All animals, from sponges to jellyfish to vertebrates [animals with a backbone], can be traced to a common ancestor. So far, molecular and fossil evidence indicate that animals evolved at least 600 million years ago. The fossil record does not reveal what the first animals looked like or how they lived. Therefore, my lab and other research groups around the world are investigating the nature of the first animals by studying diverse living organisms.

Wow. We know they evolved 600 million years ago, but we don't have any "proof" in the way of a fossil record, so we will "guess" what the looked like by looking at things that are alive 600 million tears later. Now THAT is science! It get better.

You study multicellularity. Is there a connection to animal origins?
King: Eukaryotes [organisms with membrane-bound nuclei] range from those with a single cell, such as the amoeba, to complex multicellular animals, including humans. The vast majority of life on Earth has been dominated by unicellular life. At some point in the lineage leading to animals, multicellularity evolved. Multicellular organisms are those that have many cells. Their cells depend on each other, functioning in concert to sustain the life of the organism. So, the common ancestor of animals was a single cell.

No proof, just more gobblygook cause and effect effect reasoning. "At some point...multicellularity evolved...So, the common ancestor of animals was a single cell." No proof, no data, never been replicated in a science lab, just belief in the magic of genetic mutation and natural selection.

Every so called journal article I have looked at, while scary and full of big words that hurt to read, are full of the same silliness.

59 posted on 01/23/2009 3:37:44 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

He's not a real scientist, he does not BELIEVE!

60 posted on 01/23/2009 3:48:56 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
If so, wouldn't you think that someone who just dismissed everything you know was acting pretty foolishly?

Have you ever looked into the assumptions, conjectures, postulations and guesses that surround the so-called fossil record? Finding bones in the dirt, arranging them to fit in with some sort of preconceived idea of the correct hierarchy, and then drawing lines to show the correct "lineage" complete with dates gained from various methods, is proof enough for you. However, not everyone agrees, to wit:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Believe what you want, but I would be concerned about a "science" that stifles debate. Ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis?

61 posted on 01/23/2009 3:58:28 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
It’s been a while, but could you recite your scientific qualifications, training and experience that should lead any person to believe you actually know anything about the subjects on which you comment.

If I recall correctly, you have no background in biology, chemistry, microbiology, or biological chemistry; isn’t that correct?

I studied evolution and related subjects as half of my Ph.D. work, six years of classes (physical or biological anthropology is the general subject area). In addition to evolution that included lots of bone courses, human races, primatology, and anatomy, as well as peripherals such as statistics. I did a lot of work with multivariate analyses of human skeletal remains, and I am still regularly called by local coroners when they have bones that need identification. I once testified as an expert witness in a murder case.

Undergrad work included a lot of various science courses, with five semesters of chemistry being the largest block. No biological chem, but some organic.

But on the internet none of this means anything. Here you are what you post, and everyone starts out equal.

If your posts are full of errors and you fail to correct them you will have little credibility. If you post nonsense in place of science you will have little credibility. If you quote mine or otherwise try to deceive you will have little credibility. Even posts loaded with grammatical and spelling errors detract from one's credibility (he said, hurrying to use the spell checker).

62 posted on 01/23/2009 3:58:46 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

That is exactly what I found reading the journals also. At the base of their evidence that is what you have, alot of nothing.


63 posted on 01/23/2009 4:09:02 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

Holy cow. No “proof” in an interview. No footnotes or lab work or field work or methodologies at all. Just a bunch of conclusory answers to the interviwer’s questions. How stupid do those so-called scientists think we is?

Nevertheless, I’m impressed. Given your apparently enormous font of knowledge and thorough grasp of the science, however, I have to wonder why you aren’t publishing devastating critiques of the pure “gobbleygook” being spouted by the medical researchers, geneticists, and biologists who authored those 109,000 articles you breezed through. You’d be doing modern medicine a great service (not to mention exposing the whole of the clearly fraudulent science community).

By the way, given your obvious expertise, what exact “weaknesses” of evolution would you teach high school kids?


64 posted on 01/23/2009 4:20:44 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Finding bones in the dirt, arranging them to fit in with some sort of preconceived idea of the correct hierarchy, and then drawing lines to show the correct "lineage" complete with dates gained from various methods,

You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea how the science is done.

However, not everyone agrees,

Not everyone agrees with what? What does "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" have to do with our ability to determine which bones are older than others?

Ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis?

Yeah. He's the guy who made a breakthrough in our understanding of how diseases are transmitted, and whose insight has been confirmed and extended by mountains of research since then. Kind of like Darwin. But maybe we should encourage students to "analyze and evaluate" germ theory, or even teach them its "strengths and weaknesses"?

65 posted on 01/23/2009 4:37:35 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; CottShop; Troll_House_Cookies

Except that the ToE is a theory supported with forensic and circumstantial evidence. It’s not at all in the same league as the really hard sciences like chemistry and physics, where things like acceleration, velocity, the chemical properties of the elements can be tested using the scientific method.

The ToE is not a fact.


66 posted on 01/23/2009 4:37:46 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

Notice how neatly they have the whole system sewed up?


67 posted on 01/23/2009 4:39:09 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; ExTxMarine
I fail to see how further undermining the teaching of basics in American high schools serves to correct this problem.

How is teaching kids to look critically at science "further undermining the teaching of basics in American high schools"?

Aren't scientists supposed to be objective? How do you expect to teach kids to look at something objectively if you demand that they just vomit back theory taught as fact?

68 posted on 01/23/2009 4:44:45 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Yep.


69 posted on 01/23/2009 4:56:47 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; jimmyray
Ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis?

Yeah. He's the guy who made a breakthrough in our understanding of how diseases are transmitted, and whose insight has been confirmed and extended by mountains of research since then.

Keep going. You forgot the part about his treatment at the hands of the established medical/scientific community. You know, how he was mocked, ridiculed, derided for merely asking them to wash their hands.

Peer review thought he was crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

He was dismissed from the hospital and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, which eventually forced him to move to Budapest.

Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind and he was in 1865 committed to an asylum (mental institution).

What a stunning endorsement of the scientific community.

70 posted on 01/23/2009 5:00:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
what exact “weaknesses” of evolution would you teach high school kids?

1. Plausibility of abiogenesis, which is a neccessary requisite to evolution.
2. Descent with modification has never been shown to create a new genus. Countless generation of e.coli and fruit flies, with all of the interferance man can muster, has still only produced bvariation on the theme of the same animals, e.coli and fruit flies.

That should be enough to give any thinking person enough to question the whole silly construct.

71 posted on 01/23/2009 5:01:56 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You forgot the part about his treatment at the hands of the established medical/scientific community.

So your conclusion is that contradicting established science proves the validity of an idea? And that any notion that's out of the mainstream should therefore be discussed in the classroom?

I'm not arguing that new ideas should always be rejected. But let's look at what Semmelweis did: he observed a difference in mortality rate between two clinics. He carefully winnowed down the possible factors until he isolated one he thought might be significant. He devised an experiment to address that one factor, and the experiment showed a dramatic result. From that he developed a theory about how disease spread. He was wrong in the details, since he didn't know about germs, but right in the concept.

So what's the creationist or ID experiment that will isolate the influence of God or the Designer? (I'm sorry, I don't know which anti-evolution camp you're in.) What test should we perform, and what result should we look for? That's how you overturn the ToE (and if you do, they'll be celebrating Jimmyray Day in another 150 years).

72 posted on 01/23/2009 5:45:07 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

Basic creationist claptrap. Color me surprised.


73 posted on 01/23/2009 5:48:30 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical; jimmyray
It certainly would have helped if you had actually addressed his comment instead of picking it apart and misrepresenting what he said.

In post 61, his point was about science that stifles debate.

Believe what you want, but I would be concerned about a "science" that stifles debate. Ever heard of Ignaz Semmelweis?

Yeah, we heard about Semmelweis, but you neglected to address the open-mindedness of the scientific community to his out of the box thinking.

74 posted on 01/23/2009 6:15:09 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
As you can see from the available literature, evolutionary biology overlaps many scientific fields, including organic chemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, cell biology, zoology, etc. The point being that there is a great deal of "evidence to weigh," and if high school students will eventually be expected to "weigh" that evidence and "decide for themselves," they will need a solid grounding in it.

Speaking from experience as an advanced-degree holding organic chemist, I can assure you that organic chemistry is entirely and completely unbeholden to evolution in any form.

75 posted on 01/23/2009 6:20:12 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: metmom; jimmyray
Yeah, we heard about Semmelweis, but you neglected to address the open-mindedness of the scientific community to his out of the box thinking.

I think the scientific and medical community should have been more open to Semmelweis's ideas. So what? That doesn't prove anything about the validity of other "out of the box thinking." Semmelweis brought experimental results that were ignored, and they shouldn't have been. But show me where creationism has brought similarly strong experimental results.

They all laughed at Edison
And also at Einstein
So why should I feel sorry
If they just couldn't understand the reasoning and the logic
That went on in my head
...
Oh they used to laugh at me
When I refused to ride on all those double decker buses
All because there was no driver on the top

76 posted on 01/23/2009 7:46:21 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I think the scientific and medical community should have been more open to Semmelweis's ideas. So what? That doesn't prove anything about the validity of other "out of the box thinking." Semmelweis brought experimental results that were ignored, and they shouldn't have been.

So what? So it proves that nothing has changed in the scientific community in many years. They sure are dogmatic about discouraging any out of the box thinking.

77 posted on 01/23/2009 8:15:19 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: metmom
They sure are dogmatic about discouraging any out of the box thinking.

So is it your opinion that any out-of-the-box thinking should be encouraged, to the point of being added to the curriculum? The experience with Semmelweis means that attempts at setting standards should be dropped altogether? We all know some good ideas weren't accepted at first--that doesn't mean that all ideas that aren't accepted are good.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for the dogmatic rejection of new ideas. Bring an idea, form a hypothesis, devise and conduct an experiment that can distinguish the hand of God from the actions of nature--knock yourself out. I don't see creationists doing that, though.

78 posted on 01/23/2009 8:32:45 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
But on the internet none of this means anything. Here you are what you post, and everyone starts out equal. If your posts are full of errors and you fail to correct them you will have little credibility.

That pretty much explains why you have such little credibility on FR.

Just what university has a PHD program where approximately 1/2 is devoted to evolution and related subjects; especially sine there can be no experimentation regarding macro-evolution?

79 posted on 01/23/2009 8:48:59 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
That pretty much explains why you have such little credibility on FR.

Just what university has a PHD program where approximately 1/2 is devoted to evolution and related subjects; especially sine there can be no experimentation regarding macro-evolution?

You asked a reasonable question and I gave you a serious answer. I should have known better.

If you have nothing more than ignorance to offer, post to someone else.

80 posted on 01/23/2009 9:01:45 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Holy cow. No “proof” in an interview. No footnotes or lab work or field work or methodologies at all. Just a bunch of conclusory answers to the interviwer’s questions.

You provided the link to resources that were supposed to disabuse me of my beliefs.

81 posted on 01/24/2009 7:52:09 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Basic creationist claptrap. Color me surprised.

Convincing counterargument, that. Typical of the arrogance and condescension of those who provide unconvincing evidence, couple it with Argument from Authority, Appeals to Popularity, and a little Guilt by Association, mix in some Ad Hominem and you have the makings for widespread belief in Global Warming evolution.

There is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis, excepting the fact that we are here.

There is never been observed creations of new Genus'. All that has been observed in the laboratory is variation within the Genus, as predicted by Genesis 1:21, et al. Whenever we find an extinct species in the dirt, we arrange it in the sequence ASSUMNG descent with modification, and then offer it as proof of the same. Oddly enough, when a "living fossil" is found that did not go extinct, the explanations for why it stagnated in its current for for 50 million years are lame. Genetic Research, we do the same.

In summary, the most convincing arguments (to me) for mud to man evolution are: 1. Ages of rocks based on radio carbon and isotope dating, and the fossils found in them.
2. The somewhat exclusive distribution of different fossil types into the same rock layers. (however, to assert a T-Rex is more complex that a Trilobite is a leap, it's just bigger, with fewer appendages, and can't breath water)

The counter-evolutionist will argue that if observations are made without a premise of mud to man evolution, there are other viable and likely explanations for what we observe.

What we shpuld really be arguing is the ressurection of Jesus. Falsify that, and you will win the day for science! Christianty is total and absolutely premised on this one event, and if it is not true, then Christianity is a lie!!! Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and all of his disciples died preaching this truth, 11 of them violently. The resurrection was offered by Jesus as proof of this claim. The only evidence we have for this is eyewitness testimony, and the changed lives of our contemporaries, and the validity of the Bible record.

I have investigated the claims of evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the resurrection of Jesus? I suggest reading the first 3 chapters of the biblical book of John, and see what the Christian claims about Jesus really are. It won't take more than 30 minutes.

82 posted on 01/24/2009 8:27:12 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
But show me where creationism has brought similarly strong experimental results.

Show me where the belief in descent with modification development of new Genus' has brought similarly strong experimental results.

You make the logical leap from speciation to gesus-iation, with absoilutely no evidence for the latter.

For all of our detailed and glorious lab experimentation, e.coli is still e.coli and fruit flies are still fruit flies. The lab evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST the develpment of a new gensus!!!

83 posted on 01/24/2009 8:38:55 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; Coyoteman
re: Coyoteman's primate skull cladogram:

There is no reason - none in the world - to think that the cladogram which you posted has any relevance to anything at all. It's just some palaeontologist arranging a variety of human and primate skulls, in various states of quality, into a structure that he or she thought looked like it fit together, assuming the unproven evolutionist paradigm. The actual dates given, as well as the actual arrangement of supposed evolutionary ancestors and descendants, have no actual, independent relevance. The whole structure is based on circular reasoning.

Bravo for your amazing ability to wave away a century of biology, geology, paleontology, physics and chemistry to name a few of the sciences involved in determining that progression of skulls.

How you can do that *poof* just like that is really incredible. Oh sure, you threw in your creationist "circular reasoning" talking point without any sort of nod to the facts behind the chart. Or, for that matter, any sort of explanation why those non H. sapiens skulls exist at all.

I figure you have a few options to answer that:

1. They're all fakes and scams
2. They're all failed "designs" of the Designer
3. They all still exist somewhere, we just haven't found them yet.
4. Satan placed them in the strata to deceive and confuse the less faithful
5. They are exactly what the chart says they are, but my particular brand of Christianity does not allow me to accept that.

I'm curious - which one?
84 posted on 01/24/2009 8:53:39 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[So what’s the creationist or ID experiment that will isolate the influence of God or the Designer?]]

You know- for osmeone who claims they are ‘curious’ about both sides- you show a stunning subjective agendist adherence to the silly petty arguments proposed by Macroevolutionists. As you have been otld many times here on FR- ID in NO way has to posit who or what hte intelligence is behind intelligent design- ALL they have to do is present enough evidence that hsows an intelligence is NEEDED for the IC and design that we witness in nature, and to hsow that natural causes are simply impossible and can NOT account for hte IC and design we know to exist.

It seems htough that the macroevolution proponents, who assure us how sound hteir hypothesis is, are so afraid of exposure, that they must resort to villifying their those hwo are simply trying to bring pure objective science BACK into the classroom, and who bring the evidnece necessary to establish a reasonable and alternative hypothesis based on the facts and evidence

It is NOT ID’s goal to posit anyhtign beyond the evidnece, and repeatedly stating that they are tryign to do so is not a valid counterargument tactic

[[What test should we perform, and what result should we look for?]]

You know very well how forensics works- and you also know, because I personally have given you the facts before myself, that ID is every bit as falsifiable, testable and predictable as any other branch of science, even htose the Popper induced ‘requirements;’ are not infact scientific requirements, and you know that science can and does reach conclusions abotu intelligence based o nthe evidneces without EVER havign to extablish who or what that intelligence is.

Again, you claim to be an objective observer, but your quesitons and demands, claims and accusations betray your claism about objectivity.


85 posted on 01/24/2009 9:24:44 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

[[Basic creationist claptrap. Color me surprised.]]

Basic childish insults- Colour me coutner surprised


86 posted on 01/24/2009 9:26:12 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

[[Like I said, I’m not arguing for the dogmatic rejection of new ideas.]]

Oh heck no- no dogma goign on here-

[[Bring an idea, form a hypothesis, devise and conduct an experiment that can distinguish the hand of God from the actions of nature]]

Again- ID isn’t abotu determining who or what the intelligence is- only that intelligence is needed and that nature is incapable- ID DOES bring the evidence- Yuo simply reject it out of hand because you SUBJECTIVELY beleive ID is a religious practice, and you SUBJECTIVELY beleive they must posit and prove God exists before they can receive any credibility i nthe scientific world- But fret not- you’re not alone in your impossible to satisfy demands- the majority of scientists who are married to naturalism also ostracise non naturalistic scientists subjectively and biasedly- just liek you do- all while falsely claimign to be objective- playing hte innocent routine- hoping peopel won’t notice hte blatant hypocrisy.

[[I don’t see creationists doing that, though.]]

Of course you don’t- your eyes are shut tightly, and all you can invision is that nature someone beat out incredible impossibilities, and miraculously evolved species simpyl because it’s a consensus BELIEF amoung scientists who can’t invisions anythign but nature being responsible for life. There are countless examples of biological impossibilities presented here on FR, but yet you ‘don’t see creationists presenting anyhtign that might indicate an intelligence is needed” huh? Why am I not surprised?


87 posted on 01/24/2009 9:36:11 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

[[Bravo for your amazing ability to wave away a century of biology, geology, paleontology, physics and chemistry to name a few of the sciences involved in determining that progression of skulls.]]

Bravo- you’ve managed to IGNORE the myriad refutations of that chart here on FR for the past few years- You’ve managed to IGNORE the countless articles and evidences which have debunked the claims many times, and you’ve managed to impose yet another silly set of demands on Creationists by claiming:

[[1. They’re all fakes and scams
2. They’re all failed “designs” of the Designer
3. They all still exist somewhere, we just haven’t found them yet.
4. Satan placed them in the strata to deceive and confuse the less faithful
5. They are exactly what the chart says they are, but my particular brand of Christianity does not allow me to accept that.]]

Bzzzzt- Wrong! We don’t have to do any such thing- ALL we have to do is point to the very science which itself REFUTES the wild claims of some imaginitive scientists who can’t invision anythign but naturalism, and hwo’s imaginations run wild and ignore hte evidences agaisnt hteir claims.

While some were indeed fakes i nthe past, most are ligit- however they fall squarely into two distinct camps- fully human, or fully ape. There is NOTHING in either creation science or ID that claims there aren’t genetic variations WITHIN the kinds, and there certainly is nothign statign that various features can differ greatly due to disease, malnutrition etc. There is NO need to claim any one of your silly points.


88 posted on 01/24/2009 9:44:36 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
you’ve managed to IGNORE the myriad refutations of that chart here on FR for the past few years

Riiiight. I also ignore my 3 yr old when he's being petulant and not making any sense. Same thing.

most are ligit- however they fall squarely into two distinct camps- fully human, or fully ape.

Interesting. Whatever that means. Is there "fully human" fossil evidence of "full humans" who no longer inhabit earth? Why? What happened to them? I suspect you'll say that they are all apes on there, even though it would be very tough to say so in light of the full fossil record.

Are lungfish and mudskippers "fully fish?"

There is NOTHING in either creation science or ID that claims there aren’t genetic variations WITHIN the kinds

One last point and one more question: Define "kind" and I hope you do realize that the inventor of ID and its lead proponent (and money-maker), Dr. Behe accepts common decent and would tell you without hesitation that Coyoteman's chart is accurate and true.
89 posted on 01/24/2009 10:45:06 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
re: dissent from darwin. Go here, read down, stop embarrassing yourself.
90 posted on 01/24/2009 10:53:00 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
THis is good stuff!

The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[9][53] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[54] However, Salthe prominently appears on the list as "Emeritus Professor, Biological Sciences, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York."

I am confused.
Does he dissent, or does he not?
Are his opinions changeable based on who is doing the survey?
Does he blindly sign things regulary because he is irritated?
Is he not really a Professor?

In either case, this does not bolster the argument of the anti-petition Wikipedia writer, nor does it help the case of the Discovery Institue. The fellow seems to be unstable and unsettled in either case.

91 posted on 01/24/2009 11:33:44 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I also ignore my 3 yr old when he's being petulant

Ad hominem, no substance. Are lungfish and mudskippers "fully fish?"

Red Herring. Coelacanth are fully fish, so what? Are suggeting their skulls should be placed in Coyoteman's chart? :)

one more question: Define "kind"

I would assert the definition would be similar to that of Genus, and about as robust as our human abilities will allow. Try defining Genus in a way that all "scientists" agree and abide by it. I will acknowledge that defining "kind" is a very difficult thing to do. But I can provide a few: Cat kind (tiger, leopard, house cat, etc.), Dog, Turtle, Horse, etc.

Dr. Behe accepts common decent

Share with me your definition of "evolution". Needs to be much more specific than "Climate Change", BTW.

92 posted on 01/24/2009 12:02:10 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Show me where the belief in descent with modification development of new Genus' has brought similarly strong experimental results.

The theory of evolution has lots of strong experimental results backing it up. I'm not sure anyone has carried out an experiment aimed at creating a new genus. Do you have a reference to someone trying to develop a new genus in the lab and failing?

93 posted on 01/24/2009 1:05:40 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
ID DOES bring the evidence- Yuo simply reject it out of hand because you SUBJECTIVELY beleive ID is a religious practice, and you SUBJECTIVELY beleive they must posit and prove God exists before they can receive any credibility i nthe scientific world-

My objection doesn't rest on ID being a religious practice. You claim that Intelligent Design doesn't need to show who the Designer is or where and how they acted. I say that makes it a ridiculously weak competitor to the Theory of Evolution. Thousands of scientists are at work trying to figure out how evolution happens--what came first, what changed, what caused the change, how one organism is related to another, and so on. They're willing--even hoping--to find something difficult to explain, because that's what they live for. We just saw in another thread that many "evolutionists"--without rejecting evolution in the slightest--are challenging the picture of a family tree of species and trying to replace it with some kind of web or bush. That's because they found new facts that forced them to reevaluate how evolution actually happened.

And against that you propose a theory that just says "If you haven't seen it develop yourself, start to finish, you must ascribe it to a Designer." That's weak, weak, weak.

94 posted on 01/24/2009 1:20:12 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

you really should look into a deprogrammer and learn to recognize your endless projections.


95 posted on 01/24/2009 3:48:59 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 90 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
The theory of evolution has lots of strong experimental results backing it up.

The only evidence I am aware of to support your claim is genetic research that show variation within a genus, an often within a species. For all of the experimentation on e.coli and drosophila melanogaster, the same species has been reproduced. Of the different types of speciation identified, and the barriers that are often erected between species, no new Genus', with new unique additional features, have been created. To do so would begin to support your claims.

Do you have a reference to someone trying to develop a new genus in the lab and failing?

When evidence is published that the "evolution" of new genus is being observed in the laboratory, with processes that simulate those found in nature, then you will start winning the argument!

On another subject, how do you define "evolution"?

More importantly, who did Jesus claim to be, and why did the disciples die violently preaching the samer claim about him? I have investigated evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the central claims of the New Testament?

96 posted on 01/24/2009 5:01:32 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
"Let the children decide" is all well and good, but give them the children the evidentiary ammunition first so their decision will at least be informed.

It looks like the chilrun of Texas are gonna have a lot of homework...they may have to shut-down their HS football and other sports teams.

97 posted on 01/24/2009 5:02:59 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Students required to analyze and evaluate what they're being taught? We know where this will lead! Jay walking, chewing gum while they walk, maybe even (choking up here) Doubts About Darwin! The Horror, The Horror!
98 posted on 01/24/2009 5:32:53 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
When evidence is published that the "evolution" of new genus is being observed in the laboratory, with processes that simulate those found in nature, then you will start winning the argument!

Like I said, I don't think anybody's set up a laboratory that applies constantly but slowly changing selective pressure over thousands of generations to see what they can come up with. I don't know what the value of that would be, except to answer objections like yours.

I also suspect you'd then just quibble about whether the result was really a new genus. For example, I read that there are 35 genera of frogs--if a 36th appeared, wouldn't you just say "it's still a frog"? The animals we see alive today are the tips of the twigs of the evolutionary tree. Anti-evolutionists seem to want to see an animal jump from one twig to another, and every time someone points to the growth of a new twig, the response is "but it's still on the same branch." Of course it is, but how big does a twig have to get before you'll call it a branch? You're insisting there's this barrier between species, I think it's up to you to define it.

I have investigated evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the central claims of the New Testament?

Not that it has the least bit of relevance, but yes.

99 posted on 01/24/2009 5:47:13 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
you really should look into a deprogrammer and learn to recognize your endless projections.

You know your insults really suck when they make no sense.
100 posted on 01/24/2009 6:15:55 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 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