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

Skip to comments.

Star Children for Darwin
CEH ^ | February 28, 2009

Posted on 03/01/2009 10:55:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Star Children for Darwin

Feb 28, 2009 — Why should we be looking for alien intelligence around other stars when it is right behind your eyeballs?  You may not have known that you are a star child, but that’s what a leading astronomer called you.  As a good star child, you need to pay tribute to Charles Darwin.    

In New Scientist, Lawrence Krauss called on children of spaceship Earth to “Celebrate evolution as only star children can.”  In this, he tied together the International Year of Astronomy 2009, the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first use of the telescope on the night sky, with Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.  He recounted the epochal discoveries in astronomy and biology that he feels neatly combine in modern evolutionary theory, the theory of everything:

Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the science of genetics which followed, demonstrate that humans and the rest of life on Earth share not just a common heritage, but virtually everything else.  At a molecular level, the distinction between humans and bacteria seems almost superficial.  All forms of life on Earth share a common genetic method of replication and energy storage.  Yet it is truly remarkable that from so simple a set of molecular building blocks such diversity can arise.
Krauss did not seem to consider the theistic alternative at all that explains the same evidence: the same God who created stars also created mankind from the dust of the ground.  Both worldviews produce the same observations.  Stars and humans are made of atoms and molecules.  Actually, he did quote Darwin’s ending sentence in The Origin about “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,” but he had just described cosmic evolution leading seamlessly into biological and human evolution.  Somehow global politics emerged in his conclusion:
Accordingly, the two discoveries we herald this year carry an important message for our future: the intimate connections between humanity and the entire cosmos, as illustrated by both evolution and astronomy, suggest that the only sensible perspective of humanity is a global one.  The need for a global perspective is of vital importance now, as we are the first generation in history that must seriously confront global limits to our future on Earth, from energy to climate change.
Christians might call this a non-sequitur or a half-truth.  They do not deny our connectedness, but explain it in terms of all creation (stars and humans) being the handiwork of a single Creator.  And instead of seeing a global perspective as the only sensible option for humanity, they might take the very same observations and point out the duty of each individual to its Maker.

The same mythology gets repeated over and over in the media.  Carl Sagan was talking this starstuff lingo back in the 1980s.  It’s all glittering generalities and logical fallacies.

Darwinism and the U.N. are not the only perspectives that explain the observations.  Krauss begs the question.  What does the connectedness imply?  If there are at least two competing explanations for that connectedness (i.e., that stars and humans are both made of atoms), he cannot simply assume that his worldview is the only sensible perspective.  In what other contest does a contender declare himself the winner before competing in the race?    

Don’t follow his bluff like a lemming toward socialism and global politics.  Thinking is done by individuals.  If you follow the global crowd after the Darwin bandwagon, and it falls into a sinkhole, you will not be able to shift responsibility to them; you took the steps.  Think for yourself.    

You might even think a profound thought: that thought cannot emerge from stars, or else it wouldn’t be thought at all.  It would be a hodgepodge of contingency and determinism.  The essence of thought is to purposely order one’s conceptual resources, independently of the material substrate that conveys them, toward principles that obey the laws of logic.  Our theories and explanations of stars employ logic, but stars don’t.  Do stars take philosophy and hold debates?  Of course not.  Then what kind of twisted logic can believe that logic is an emergent phenomenon of matter in motion?  If that were so, how could any human brain have any confidence that its reasonings were true?  It leads to that “horrid thought” that plagued Darwin: “whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.  Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” he said.  If a monkey doesn’t have a mind or convictions, you can be sure that stars don’t.  Stop thinking horrid thoughts.  Think wise thoughts.  Daniel the statesman wrote, “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever” Daniel 12:3).

Next headline on:  AstronomySETIEvolutionDumb Ideas



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aliens; astronomy; bandwagon; carlsagan; charlesdarwin; climatechange; creation; darwin; democrats; energy; evolution; galileo; globalgovernance; globalism; globalwarming; heritage; intelligentdesign; lawrencekrauss; moralabsolutes; newscientist; oil; socialism; un; unitednations; worldgovernment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 03/01/2009 10:55:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

2 posted on 03/01/2009 10:56:08 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why do you keep spamming me to every post you make?


3 posted on 03/01/2009 10:56:41 AM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Just thought you might be interested. But I can see how Creationists exposing the howl-at-the-moon craziness that passes for science coming out of the Temple of Darwin might upset you. As such, I will respect your wishes and stop pinging you to articles exposing the silliness that is Darwinism.

All the best—GGG

4 posted on 03/01/2009 11:07:38 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For my part, ping away!

(I enjoy a good laugh.)


5 posted on 03/01/2009 11:11:36 AM PST by shibumi (" ..... then we will fight in the shade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

My cousin, the rock.


6 posted on 03/01/2009 11:17:16 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
I enjoy a good laugh.

Yeah. Like the irony in some of his posts, ie "Thinking is done by individuals. If you follow the global crowd after the Darwin bandwagon, and it falls into a sinkhole, you will not be able to shift responsibility to them; you took the steps. Think for yourself."

Followed by a bible verse.
7 posted on 03/01/2009 11:21:35 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So now the Evolution Doctrine is followed by the Star Children precept.

the leftarded Humanist Religion is basically the same as scientology, but just with a better-researched plotline.

It's a religion, and it must not be tax funded.


8 posted on 03/01/2009 11:21:46 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Why not...you don’t have to feed rocks, and they don’t get upset and tear your face of either :o)


9 posted on 03/01/2009 11:22:07 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

“Followed by a bible verse”

Totally. A Bible verse should give you a lot to think about. It’s sad to see it the way you seem to.


10 posted on 03/01/2009 11:23:19 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

That is precisely what I am trying to wake Christians and Conservatives up to. You hit the nail right on the head.


11 posted on 03/01/2009 11:23:27 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
"My cousin, the rock."

LoL! Oprahs new religion. "Be one with the rock". If you stare at the rock in your hand long enough, it comes to life, and a wave of "awakening" comes over you.

They must be smoking some new kind of pot on that show.

12 posted on 03/01/2009 11:23:38 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

No - I don’t visit this site each and every day. Your posts make it more difficult for me to review actual responses to my comments.

I mean it would not have killed you to be polite and ask first.


13 posted on 03/01/2009 11:27:39 AM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Actually most of the “Star Children” philosophy that I have encounted is backed by intelligent design theory, not Darwinism. New Agers don’t believe in random genetic mutation, they just don’t go with Yahweh (or Elohim) as the designer.


14 posted on 03/01/2009 11:29:37 AM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I fail to see the link between globalism and a predatorial based universe under Darwin.

How about adding to Darwin? How about truth?

No, Darwinism seem to arrogantly supplant it all, it’s your one stop science shop.


15 posted on 03/01/2009 11:34:03 AM PST by JudgemAll (control freaks, their world & their problem with my gun and my protecting my private party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Oh I think the chosen Daniel verse is excellent. But then Daniel gets all crazy with the end-times stuff and loses me.

Like verses 11 & 12: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

What if I give up at 1,313 days?

Daniel is probably the most interesting book of the OT, if not the bible. The Jewish version of the Apocalypse, it was written before Christ and purports to be prophetic, but forgot the part about Christ’s birth and the subsequent (much later) expansion of Christianity.

Of course, perhaps this was a different end time and it DID happen in a relative sense, which is fine. Just tell Jack Van Impe.


16 posted on 03/01/2009 11:35:52 AM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"Like verses 11 & 12: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days." That's from the time the (Christs) church falls, and the false Christs rule over earth is about 4 years. Those that live during that time are completely cut off from God, the gateway to heaven is shut. No souls can transfere into their spiritual bodies. etc etc. If you die before those days pass, then you will be risen up on the last day, the day of the lord, it tells you in revelation.
17 posted on 03/01/2009 11:43:01 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; chuck_the_tv_out; GodGunsGuts

Your post exemplifies the type in inferred reasoning (meaning your assumptions about what I find laughable) that makes Darwinists so amusing.

Please, keep it up. We all need some levity to block out the national tragedy occurring as we speak.

(Obligatory Bible verse pertinent to the aforementioned tragedy: “My name is Legion, for we are many.” Mark 5:9)


18 posted on 03/01/2009 11:43:28 AM PST by shibumi (" ..... then we will fight in the shade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; GodGunsGuts
My cousin, the rock.

Been using that expression for sixty years. Can’t lay claim to any special cleverness. It’s just another way of saying “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” From clay we came and to clay we return. And, what is a rock if it isn’t some clay under pressure? One could just as easily say “stardust.” That’s true too.

19 posted on 03/01/2009 11:43:39 AM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

“We are star dust; we are golden and we’ve got to get ourselves back to The Garden” hippy ping.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Inna Gadda Da Vida ‘Mander


20 posted on 03/01/2009 11:47:19 AM PST by Salamander (Like acid and oil on a madman's face, reason tends to fly away.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Depends how much carbon is in that clay or rock....

The material our flesh is made from is irrelevant, as no flesh shall enter heaven. It’s the living spirit, the life force given to the flesh by God that is what ultimately matters.

Rocks don’t have that living spirit in them, so they are not my cousin.


21 posted on 03/01/2009 11:54:24 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

LoL! That song came out around the same time as “the age of Aquarius” way back in the sixties when the UN earthers began it’s “Gaea” earth worship campaign and began promoting it through the schools. Around 1967, think.


22 posted on 03/01/2009 11:57:46 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

OK, I’m not sure I understand your 1st post then.

“Oh I think the chosen Daniel verse is excellent. But then Daniel gets all crazy with the end-times stuff and loses me.”

Daniel is such a great book.

“Like verses 11 & 12: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.”

So meaningful. I couldn’t possibly do it justice. I would strongly a Bible study on Daniel. Chuck Missler’s is good: http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/biblestudy/daniel/

“Daniel is probably the most interesting book of the OT, if not the bible.”

tough call!

“The Jewish version of the Apocalypse, it was written before Christ and purports to be prophetic, but forgot the part about Christ’s birth”

Christ is ALL over the OT.

“and the subsequent (much later) expansion of Christianity.”

Paul says something about that, the Church being a “mystery”. Again, a proper study would do it justice.


23 posted on 03/01/2009 11:58:09 AM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

24 posted on 03/01/2009 11:58:11 AM PST by wolf78 (Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

The disease didn’t “evolve”. It mutated. Big difference. Evolve implies improvemnt. The disease didn’t improve, it’s still a virus, it didn’t grow arms and legs, a brain or otherwise “improve”. It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution.


25 posted on 03/01/2009 12:06:07 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Your post exemplifies the type in inferred reasoning (meaning your assumptions about what I find laughable) that makes Darwinists so amusing.

Your inability to discern I was being sarcastic (about what you find laughable) noted.

Anyway, I've never quite figured out what a dead naturalist's ideas about the diversity of life has to do with the bible. I guess that's my problem.
26 posted on 03/01/2009 12:08:09 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
It's a religion, and it must not be tax funded.

Finally! Another one who "get's it." A worldview that pretends, against the weight of historic evidence, in a "uniformity of natural causes" as a Closed System. The latter is a belief, pure and simple, based upon no further evidence than a "feeling." And that makes it a religion, and as such, it mush not be promoted by the State.

A religion of non-religion is still a religion. Just as when choosing not to decide we make a choice.

Neutrality is an illusion.

27 posted on 03/01/2009 12:16:39 PM PST by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I would call “greater resistance to drugs” an improvement in fitness.

That said, Doonesbury is like the comic strip included by the OP in that neither of them is really all that funny.


28 posted on 03/01/2009 12:22:04 PM PST by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
A religion of non-religion is still a religion.

That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, what you describe is a strawman and has little to do with science.
29 posted on 03/01/2009 12:35:31 PM PST by wolf78 (Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

One of the reasons Doonesbury’s cartoon falls so flat is that it has no basis in reality.

Louis Pasteur, who also happened to be a scientist who believed in the biblical account of creation...”discovered three bacteria: staphylococcus, streptococcus and pneumococcus. He developed vaccines against chicken cholera, anthrax, swine erysipelas, and rabies. His rabies treatment was tested on a man in 1885 for the first time.”


30 posted on 03/01/2009 12:44:51 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. I see no mention of Tuberculosis in your little tidbit on M Pasteur.


31 posted on 03/01/2009 12:49:22 PM PST by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

that cartoon sets up a straw man & knocks it down.

microevolution is a fact. no creationist would debate that with you. a germ can become a slightly different germ. we can breed dogs. particular traits are brought out in the DNA code. no new data is involved. you couldn’t go from a chihuahua to an alsation for instance. you’ve isolated such a small part of the DNA at that point.

to jump from that to say a banana is related to a giraffe is, well, dumb.


32 posted on 03/01/2009 12:51:22 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

“to jump from that to say a banana is related to a giraffe is, well, dumb.”

And why is that? What’s to keep an enormous number of very small changes from adding up into a big one?


33 posted on 03/01/2009 1:03:41 PM PST by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics. you can breed selective traits of an animal, sure. but the traits of a giraffe just don't exist in the banana code, and vice versa.

you seem basically honest about your understanding though (just a sunday evolutionist :). there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior. so for example, how would a thing evolve a blowhole?



evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea" (most people don't know about that part! it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features) so, at what point do you get a blow hole? You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead! The whole thing is preposterous. There are hundreds of impossible faults with the whole theory. The eye is another one, which Darwin himself admitted would be the downfall of his theory.
34 posted on 03/01/2009 1:16:43 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
you couldn’t go from a chihuahua to an alsation for instance.

Of course you can't just "go" from a chihuaha to an alsatian, because going isn't a scientific term, just like you can't "go" from caucasiod to mongoloid humans. You can however breed chihuahuas and alsatians, because they are the same species, just different races.

Only if the offspring gradually becomes infertil, you are witnessing a seperation of species. Example: horse / donkey -> mule.
35 posted on 03/01/2009 1:19:02 PM PST by wolf78 (Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wolf78

“you couldn’t go from a chihuahua to an alsation for instance”

indeed. because the alsation code has been lost. you could never get an alsation from breeding chihuahua together, because you have selected out an extreme portion of the dog DNA.


36 posted on 03/01/2009 1:25:38 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Krause:
Accordingly, the two discoveries we herald this year carry an important message for our future: the intimate connections between humanity and the entire cosmos, as illustrated by both evolution and astronomy, suggest that the only sensible perspective of humanity is a global one. The need for a global perspective is of vital importance now, as we are the first generation in history that must seriously confront global limits to our future on Earth, from energy to climate change.

This strikes me as a totalitarian mindset. If you don’t have the right global perspective, you are simply wrong, and may not deserve any rights. It brings to mind the Star Trek movie with the Borgs, the cyber-people who physically connected to the collective. A related idea is communism, otherwise known as international socialism. Edward O. Wilson may be the world's foremost expert on ants. Once asked about communism, he replied “wrong species.” But once we accept that “the only sensible perspective is a global one,” we will have set the foundation for a world where humanity takes central direction, as with an ant colony or a bee hive. Many of us are convinced this is wrong. But what is the source of our conviction? It is our values. But how did we get our values? I think the historical answer is Judeo Christian thinking that links the individual to God.

CFH response to Krause:
Christians might call this a non-sequitur or a half-truth. They do not deny our connectedness, but explain it in terms of all creation (stars and humans) being the handiwork of a single Creator. And instead of seeing a global perspective as the only sensible option for humanity, they might take the very same observations and point out the duty of each individual to its Maker.

In other words, to better contrast with Krause, the only sensible perspective is that of the individual to his Maker.


37 posted on 03/01/2009 2:01:14 PM PST by ChessExpert (Barack Hussein Obama's America: the land of the regulated and the home of the taxed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"Anyway, I've never quite figured out what a dead naturalist's ideas about the diversity of life has to do with the bible. I guess that's my problem."

I suppose the inability to see the ramifications and conflicts engendered by two mutually opposing belief systems would be a problem.
38 posted on 03/01/2009 2:32:02 PM PST by shibumi (" ..... then we will fight in the shade.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Rocks don’t have that living spirit in them, so they are not my cousin.

Not so, claim the wisemen of society, The Masters of the Universe. So I mock them with the expression. In the meantime, that ‘living spirit,’ of which they know not, goes elsewhere.

39 posted on 03/01/2009 3:01:23 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics. you can breed selective traits of an animal, sure. but the traits of a giraffe just don't exist in the banana code, and vice versa.

What do you mean when you say "Information" and "Code"? Do you mean the genetic code of a living being? The most concise definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states:

the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time

I fail to see what this has to do with genetic information. Perhaps you could you re-explain your position.

you seem basically honest about your understanding though (just a sunday evolutionist :).

I am an evolutionist only in that I find that modern evolutionary synthesis holds the most water when attempting to describe the diversification of life on earth. There is no feverishness on my part; no deification of Darwin. That'd be silly

there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

Well...OK. I'd be great if you could detail some for me.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior. so for example, how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea" (most people don't know about that part! it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features) so, at what point do you get a blow hole? You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!

Dolphins and whales do not merely possess mammal-like features, they are mammals. They possess mammary glands as well as many other features characteristic of their land bound brethren.

Is it not possible that the nostrils migrated from the end of the snout to the top of the head?

Where did you read (or see) any biologist claiming that cetaceans "evolved from some kind of cow"?

The eye is another one, which Darwin himself admitted would be the downfall of his theory.

Really? Here are Darwin's own words:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

This seems to support your claim. But he continues:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Which does not support your assertion. Darwin had no trouble believing that the eye could evolve from a simple bundle of light-sensitive cells to the complex biological machinery with which we are so familiar. And I agree with him.

40 posted on 03/01/2009 3:03:01 PM PST by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
I suppose the inability to see the ramifications and conflicts engendered by two mutually opposing belief systems would be a problem.

Millions disagree. Including me. Since when is science a "belief system?" Is physics a "belief system?" Astronomy? Chemistry? When you go to your doctor, do you accept the science he uses to treat you or do you A) thank him for his "belief system" or B) avoid the doctor at all costs because you'll just pray that broken leg away?
41 posted on 03/01/2009 3:43:21 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out
because information can't appear from nowhere.

In the case of DNA segments can be copied more than once (AGCT ->AGCTAGCT) and copies can mutate (AGCT -> AGCTAGCT -> AGCTAGAT). Creatio ex nihilo? No. But additional information? Yes.

2nd law of thermodynamics.

ROFL. Only applies to isolated systems. Which organisms are not. You do eat, don't you?

there are extremely good arguments against inter-special , or "macro" evolution.

There are more examples to the contrary. Hint: mules.

under that theory, each "mutation" would have to be superior.

No. It must only once have proven an advantage under certain historical conditions (climate, environment, competition for resources etc.). "Superiority" is a subjective human observation.

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.
42 posted on 03/01/2009 3:57:45 PM PST by wolf78 (Cranky Libertarian - equal opportunity offender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out; Boxen
because information can't appear from nowhere. 2nd law of thermodynamics.

See: star. Commonly referred to as "The Sun."

Re: little changes over vast amounts of time resulting in "big" changes.

See relevant comparison: Seconds, resulting in minutes ("microevolution") resulting in years, centuries, eons and epochs ("macroevolution").

how would a thing evolve a blowhole?

See: the hundreds of articles about just that. Is this the latest creationist "argument from incredulity?" Now that y'all are done with the eye nonsense?

evolutionists claim that dolphins "evolved" from some kind of COW, which "crawled back INTO the sea"

Sort of, yeah. I'm unclear as to why that's so hard to believe. See: the mountains of fossil evidence.

it's the only way evolutionists can explain sea creatures having mammal-like features

"Mammal-like features?" Are you suggesting dolphins, whales, and porpoises are somehow not mammals? That's curious. See: Definition of mammal.

You can't have half a blow hole, or you're dead!

Not even close to being remotely true, but whatever.

There are hundreds of impossible faults with the whole theory. The eye is another one...

LOL. I thought we were past this one. I'd link enough evidence regarding the evolution of the eye to occupy you for a week - if I actually believed you'd read 2 words of it. (FYI, MUCH research has gone into this supposed "downfall" and I think even you would be amazed at what's been discovered/published.

The argument of "I find that impossible to believe!" will get you nowhere. I'm sure people didn't think we could fly airplanes or have cell phones or land on the moon at points in the last 150 years. But we did. You'll have to come up with something better. Like some research showing how nothing can survive with "half a blowhole." If you do, it'll get published and would even be cover material.

Hint: All a blowhole is is a migrated nostril. There was never "half a blow-hole." Ironically, there were two "blow-holes" that became one, so your argument would be, "I can't believe two nostrils became one and migrated up the skull!" I would think this wouldn't be hard to imagine even for a "micro-evolution accepting creationist." After all, if my nostrils migrated to my cheek, I'd still be a human, right? You'd perhaps gain more audience with a better question about cetacean echo-location evolution. To me, that sounds crazier. Just trying to help.
43 posted on 03/01/2009 4:02:48 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
"The disease didn’t “evolve”. It mutated. Big difference. Evolve implies improvemnt. "

No, evolution does not imply improvement. Have you ever bothered to read a single book about evolutionary theory?

"The disease didn’t improve, it’s still a virus, it didn’t grow arms and legs, a brain or otherwise improve'."

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is flat-out retarded. Nothing in the theory implies, requires, or suggests that viruses need to change in this way.

"It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution."

Wrong again. Adaptation is evolution, as long as the adaptation has a heritable basis. If you don't like this fact, then go cry in a corner.

Executive Summary: Virtually every sentence of your post contained gross errors of fact or logic. You have no knowledge of the basic definitions of evolutionary theory, no understanding of the fundamental reasoning and data that comprises the theory, and lack either the self-reflective capacity or the mental health to recognize your own ignorance. Your presence in even this informal debate is as incongruous as a Democrat at the Business Roundtable, and your contribution similarly valuable.

44 posted on 03/01/2009 4:10:02 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oldmanreedy; Nathan Zachary; LeGrande; GodGunsGuts
"It just mutated into different strains. Adaptation is not evolution."

You know what's funny about creationists? Over a very short period of time (about 10 years, max), they've gone from:

YEC only
to
OEC
to
IR
to
ID
to
"micro-evolution happens"
to
adaptation happens but isn't evolution.

Pssst, creationists! So-called "micro-evolution" with adaptations over time is, um... shhhhhh... evolution.
45 posted on 03/01/2009 4:27:00 PM PST by whattajoke (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
It really is a remarkable irony that the positions of evolution-deniers have themselves undergone such rapid evolution.

I've idly wondered if it would be possible to construct a cladistics-style taxonomy of creationist nuttery. I mean, consider this:

So the Behe and Dembski clades are clearly nested within the Intelligent Design clade, while the Humphries/Setterfield/Dinosaur Clades are all nested within some YEC clade. But I guess since they're creationists, they'd insist that this nested pattern is just coincidence, and all varieties of creationist were created by God in one swoop exactly 150 years ago.
46 posted on 03/01/2009 5:22:38 PM PST by oldmanreedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; oldmanreedy; Nathan Zachary; GodGunsGuts

Could this whole anti evolution movement be paranoia? I was reading Dr. Sanity’s explanation of the Muslim’s hatred of Israel and its underlying causes.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

And it is remarkably similar to fundamentalist Christians hatred of Evolution. Evolution is the cause of all the problems, just like Jews are the cause of all the problems the Muslims have.


47 posted on 03/01/2009 5:56:09 PM PST by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; chuck_the_tv_out
"Mammal-like features?" Are you suggesting dolphins, whales, and porpoises are somehow not mammals?

Chuck has read a book that declares them to be "fish". Book wouldn't lie.


Pakicetus > > > Rodhocetus > > > modern gray whale

48 posted on 03/01/2009 6:59:41 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. - D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


49 posted on 03/01/2009 8:28:57 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


50 posted on 03/01/2009 9:24:38 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 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