Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Yes, politics affects science like it does everything, but we’re talking about statements in the same exact science-related article.....that a person posts as evidence for one thing and then conveniently ignores the other things said. We’re talkikng GGGs ability to post something he doesn’t believe anyway as an “A-HA!!” moment, while ignoring that he both doesn’t believe what he’s posting as “evidence” of something, and also doesn’t seem to mind that there are always further statements made that are just foolish to post as an “a ha” if you don’t believe it.
Quite foolish to post an article about topic X as an “a ha” when further down they start talking about 5 million year old animals if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
Did God not tell Noah in Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark" .....or EVERY living thing of ALL flesh......yet not ONE dinosaur found in the fossil record? Did God not tell Noah in Genesis 6:20 "...of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee"? ......EVERY creeping thing of the earth......yet not ONE dinosaur found in the fossil record? Noah did so, because Genesis 6:22 says he did so. So why did he not gather ONE dinosaur in the fossil record? Why are there no non-extinct animals fossilized with the dinosaurs? No cattle in the fossil record? The all died in the Flood at the same time as the dinosaurs, right? So where's the cattle fossils?
How Did Those Huge Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?
Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.
Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind,” Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind,” so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.
According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.
Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
Well by golly, the bible doesn’t say Noah took hummingbirds, Newts, Salamanders, Cockatiels, Birds of Paradise, etc etc etc- so I guess Noah just sailed the oceans blue with an empty boat? Apparently, because hte ibble doesn’t mention each living creature KIND by name, it must hterefore mean nothign actually boarded the boat? Noah took dinos as well as every other KIND of living creature, and htere was plenty of room for all
No, I don’t ‘remember’ that. You may attribute the same use to those you chose to call Creationists as a slanderous idiom, but your assertion does not prove the case. Not to mention the millions you would leave out, and who certainly want anything rather than being the target of your poisonous tongue.
Since you seem to believe you’re entitled to the privilege of selecting what you chose to definitively call “Creationist” and what you chose to exclude, I don’t see why I can’t do the same with a word of my choosing, like, oh say . . . ‘Evolution.’
I propose to chose eminent scientists, obviously friendly to the Theory of Evolution and widely acclaimed throughout the world as unchallenged experts on science, to provide us with a definition by virtue of their ‘popular use’:
Scientists such as William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, who, in a 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life,” declared that “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.” He then went on to enumerate them; 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
Or, Daniel Dennett, Tufts philosopher and professor of evolutionary biology and cognitive science, who has stated in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea that Darwinian evolution is “a universal acid” that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs.
Many prominent scientists have chosen to express similar sentiments and to declare value judgments, religious pronouncements, cultural conclusions and philosophical opinions grounded in Science generally, and Evolution specifically, among whom we can count, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Peter Sanger, Michael Tooley, Richard Lewontin, Carl Sagan (now deceased), Marc Hauser, Victor Stenger, and Steven Weinberg.
It’s not only individuals who can contribute to a definition of Evolution. See a Berkeley University website entitled “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under the rubric “evolution 101” and described as “your one-stop source for information on evolution” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01. And a site which a number of other universities list as a recommended resource on their own Evolution websites.
From just this little we can already begin to construct a definition of Evolution as a scientific theory dealing with ‘the origin of life,’ which serves as a ‘universal acid’ that ‘dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs,’ and establishes that ‘1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.’
You seemed to remain unmoved, maybe because you agree with the them, when I observed that turning to ‘popular use’ as found in the lapdog media for a definition of ‘Conservative’ would be fruitless since the news pukes associate ‘Conservative’ with bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps a definition that strikes closer to where your heart really lies will help you to understand my point. Not that you will ever be able to bring yourself to admit it.
I really can't decide if you're incredibly dense or just incredibly dishonest, and I really no longer care. I gave you three examples of people who identified themselves with "creationist" or "creationism" in their website names who meant the same thing by it as I do; plus a book author who described himself that way who meant the same thing; plus examples of people here on FR who use the term the same way. And here you are with your "Huh? What? I don't remember that!" act. You know what they say about an empty can, and friend, I can hear you from here.
When you figure it out, get back to me.
”and I really no longer care.”
Yeah. Like 0bama, if you can’t dominate the Lexicon and control the discussion, you resort to calumny and assume an air of superiority. You care only for how you can transmogrify a definition into a slanderous idiom. You try to destroy the norms and conventions of definition and then pitch a snit when I don’t buy your snake oil.
Why not answer the question instead of trying to evade it?
“It’s not only individuals who can contribute to a definition of Evolution. See a Berkeley University website entitled “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under the rubric “evolution 101” and described as “your one-stop source for information on evolution” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01. And a site which a number of other universities list as a recommended resource on their own Evolution websites.”
Well well...I guess the evos didn’t get the memo did they...they prattle on and on about evolution not having a thing to do with origins, and here’s one of their liberal schools Bezerkley, doing exactly that, as part of their own definition of evolution, indeed part of the curriculum...evolution 101.
I think evos had better just stick to all the problems they’re having with evolution, from defining it to defending why they need the courts to prop it up.
Do you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about?
I guess someone needs to tell those *not real scientists* at Berkeley that the FRevos have decided that they are wrong about origins.
I mean, all these internet posters who mostly don’t have any science degrees, and especially aren’t evolutionists, have already decided that the ToE doesn’t address origins.
Sheesh, Berkeley needs to get with the program.
Many thanks to YHAOS, the next time a liberal prattles on about evoultion having nothing to do with origins, I’ll just refer them to their liberal Bezerkley friends. ;0
Science actually thrives on failure and it is the second step in the scientific method (the attempt to disprove a hypothesis). We are entering an interesting age. Because of government interference in science we get politicized science which degrades all science.
At the same time government schools carry on the government line to children. The solution is to get government out of science and out of the education business.
Let parents decide how and where their children are educated and allow scientists to pursue science outside of political influence. The war between science and religion is largely a creation of the Leftist war against liberty. The goal is not to promote science, but to undermine belief, freedom of conscience and liberty.
While at the same time rationalizing the "scientific" control over society/people.
Truly, metmom, I do not understand why Berkeley does not put more distance between their Evolution website and what they term in the site as “From soup to cells – the origin of life.”
Funny you mention, I think it says no such article found with your link, however backing up you can get to the evolution site.
Really!! ( ^: } Maybe they are feeling some heat about embarrassing their defenders. Fascinating! LOL!
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.