AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms? - Page 10

post #361 of 525
5/7/03 at 8:07am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
We should not mandate criticism of evolution.

We should mandate criticism of theory.

We should mandate that people are taught the difference between pulling an explanation out of your ass theory and a scientific theory.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #362 of 525
5/7/03 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo

What about the leap at the beginning: But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible. Saying "if the complexity of the cilium is irreducible..." and deriving a proof or further statements is fine, but stating it and abducing consequences is not.


3. The purpose of the platypus is to flip out and kill people.

Shrews are the other poisonous (and the only venomous) mammal, as their saliva contains neurotoxins. Polars bears are also toxic to predators ( ) due to the high concentration of vitamin A in their livers, but that doesn't really count.

The author had an argument for why the celium is irreducible. I choose to grant the claims that without a part of the celium, it doesnt function.... the rest follows.

As for the shrew, I was going to say that, but wasnt absolutely sure... and as for platypus' killing people...

i will end here lest i reveal my true reason for liking platypuses...
Reply
Reply
post #363 of 525
5/7/03 at 9:24am
OK, it makes more sense if this is the middle of the argument regarding cilium. Were there any interesting points raised ? (apart from "with one component missing it will not function)"

The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #364 of 525
5/7/03 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo
OK, it makes more sense if this is the middle of the argument regarding cilium. Were there any interesting points raised ? (apart from "with one component missing it will not function)"

The stupid "Fact 1 Platypuses are mammals" bit is lifted from realultimatepower, a (purposefully stupid) site dedicated to ninjas. One section starts with "Ninjas are mammals", etc. It is one of the slightly funny at first but quickly irritating Internet phenomena.

no, not really... its the first site that trumptman posted on page 7???

i choose a paragrahph that exemplified the logic, maybe i should have included more...

ah well
Reply
Reply
post #365 of 525
5/7/03 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Evolution is a total failure as a theory...


There is no roadmap that explicitly tells anyone how rocks turned into human beings.

Maybe George W. Bush should set out his 'road map' on this issue. It would make for an amusing read.
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #366 of 525
5/7/03 at 2:19pm
would this thread be considered a failed evolutionary step towards intelligent dialogue?
Reply
Reply
post #367 of 525
5/7/03 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
would this thread be considered a failed evolutionary step towards intelligent dialogue?

yeah.

and maybe now my call to the rafters will be heard, finally...
Reply
Reply
post #368 of 525
5/7/03 at 2:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This is the most ignorant post I have read yet.

Xenu, please show some reasoning if you wish to convince.

You see through my religious agenda? Perhaps you a paranoid facist. I suppose you and Joseph McCarthy would get along well. Criticism=you are the enemy and believe as them. Yes you certainly show your tolerance for crititical thinking.

Gould and Dawkins do contribute information and I have not said it should not be shown or taught. I have just added that when their explanations use assumptions, imaginings, and simplifications where none exist, we ought to be willing to consider the explanations of others who are not taking squar peges and smashing them through round holes.

Likewise this is the second thread in as many days where a layperson tells an educator they don't understand the educational system.

Newtonian physics is taught in high school through the use of experiments. The students can see the margin of error there and when they ask about it, you can mention relativity and quantum mechanics give us a more true representation of the world.

What experiment do they do with evolution that shows the margin of error? Likewise when they do see the margin of error, what would we say to explain it. Where is the more sophisticated explanation?

You do nothing here but prove my point. Present evolution with no experiment, no discussion and no questioning however I guess that suits a McCarthyite just fine.

Nick

LOL. Push your button did I?
Your an educator? Now I'm worried (actually I'm not. I'm sure you are a very good educator, until you prove otherwise)

Evolution is presented with experimental evidence. When asked about errors, they are answered. Just like with the teaching of newtonian physics. This is what we observe. This is the theory. This is how we believe the evidence confirms the theory. This is the statistical model we propose for our analysis ...

Here is a hint for you. Ever heard of the term "metric"?
It's a way of representing "distance".

Every theory makes assumptions. From evolution to superstring theory. That's why they are called theories. The theory then requires experimental confirmation if it is to survive. Evolution has survived quite nicely.

The fact that you don't understand this is your problem.

Feel free to come up with a better theory, or a better metric.
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #369 of 525
5/7/03 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Thank you oh wannabe moderator.

Xenu claims I have a religious agenda when I have not mentioned nor advocated religion throughout this entire thread.

It's called reading between the lines.

Quote:

He uses this "religious agenda" to dismiss scientific evolutionary criticisms brought up by myself.

Nope, quite happy for evolutionary theory to be criticised. It is, and you pretend it's not.


Quote:
He then claims I know nothing about the educational system (sounds familiar it is a something you employed) when I have worked for ten years.

Nope, just that I doubt you understand how to teach science at high school.

Quote:
Definition for McCarthyism:

1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

That's nice.
Sounds very creationist.


Quote:
I stand by what I typed and as usual you stick your nose in without adding anything. Post some support of evolution or at least answer the question the title asks.

Nick

Read a book on evolution. Plenty of evidence.
Go to a museum. Plenty of evidence.
Go ask a teacher.

That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence simply strengthens my belief that you have a religious agenda.
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #370 of 525
5/7/03 at 3:54pm
WHAT?

A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?
Reply
Reply
post #371 of 525
5/7/03 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
WHAT?

A 10 page long AO discussion on creationism vs. Evolutionism without the mandatory "fat, stubborn, bad tempered, probably liberal, jew looking science teacher vs. the polite, young, good looking, blond, young student" cartoon?

Actually I'm waiting for fellowship to post the cartoon he learnt evolution from.

It's brilliant, but I don't think creationists really understand why.
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
http://freehenson.da.ru/ - chased out of America because he exposed the evils of Scientology. So much for freedom.
Reply
post #372 of 525
5/7/03 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Bah you and your simple two line reply...beat me to it.

"God" is a theory.
"Darwinism" is a theory too.
The "God" theory implies that "Darwinism" could possibly be wrong.

But only one of those two theories is backed by strong facts.
(you know... bones ;-)
Reply
Reply
post #373 of 525
5/7/03 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
Platypuses are one of two poisionous mammels, but i can never remember the other one....

the rest of this thread just sucks.

Platypuses are not a proof of evolution. it's a genetic manipulation performing by US to obtain a secret weapon : the result was lame (the playpuses are damn slow) and the animal was put in the garbage. He survive and now dwell on earth.

For the second point you are right.
Reply
Reply
post #374 of 525
5/8/03 at 6:35am
How I love this thread and everything that obtains to it.

I want this thread to live forever and ever.

Reply
Reply
post #375 of 525
5/8/03 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How I love this thread and everything that obtains to it.

I want this thread to live forever and ever.


sweet jesus will people just stop replying....

i am of course (as i was in my poll) kidding...
Reply
Reply
post #376 of 525
5/8/03 at 9:33am
Thread Starter 
Well I have stopped replying because of quality of the retorts to the scientific disputes put forth.

They are basically summed up as, evolution is true, evolution is true, you're a creationist, you're a creationist and even if you swear you are not you are secretly a creationist because only a religious fanatic would criticize evolution.

I have posted studies, criticism of studies, explained what I would do in the actual classroom situation, lists of scientists, picked apart articles showing assumptions and biases.

I have not mentioned a competing theory, claimed God, the Bible or anything else and yet some in this thread sit there and make unsubstanciated claims, post paranoid delusions, and do it 25 times a day before I can come home and actually respond.

Oh well, at least we learned who is open minded and who truly will bash based off of blind faith. To bad they get to do it while claiming it is scientific.

When people see here how dogmatically people will defend evolution, moving wel beyond reason and logic, they wonder why I would suggest the criticisms be mandatory. No one would act in this manner over other scientific theories.

So thanks for proving my point. Since so many here have proven that even those who would consider themselves rational and scientific have shown that they believe evolution is not just a theory, but closely associated with a worldview.

If it weren't a worldview, then you could criticize it just like any other science, but since criticism = must love religion it is obvious that it means much more to them. Since they cannot differenciate between theory and worldview, criticism should be mandatory.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #377 of 525
5/8/03 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

When people see here how dogmatically people will defend evolution, moving wel beyond reason and logic, they wonder why I would suggest the criticisms be mandatory. No one would act in this manner over other scientific theories.

Evolution is an excellent theory that conforms to just about everything we know about anatomy, the fossil record, chemistry and physics. It's a GREAT theory. That's a fact.

No-one would act in this manner over other scientific theories because no other scientific theory gets bashed like evolution and deserves to be defended like evolution.

The only people who ever have any cause to bash evolution are religious fundamentalists. Everybody else thinks it an excellent theory, which it is.

It is a superb theory with an enormous body of detailed research behind it that gets more complete every month.
Reply
Reply
post #378 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Evolution is an excellent theory that conforms to just about everything we know about anatomy, the fossil record, chemistry and physics. It's a GREAT theory. That's a fact.

No-one would act in this manner over other scientific theories because no other scientific theory gets bashed like evolution and deserves to be defended like evolution.

The only people who ever have any cause to bash evolution are religious fundamentalists. Everybody else thinks it an excellent theory, which it is.

It is a superb theory with an enormous body of detailed research behind it that gets more complete every month.

It doesn't conform to the fossil record. It doesn't withstand scrutiny by chemistry. It is an UNTESTED, UNOBSERVABLE theory that was created before the modern understanding of DNA and proteins. Many of the stories and supposed experiments supporting are not recent, not peer reviewed and upon further examination are shown to reflect our own ignorance. (Peppered moths are nocturnal, let's release them during the day for example)

When someone uses Piltdown man or something of that nature as a proof against evolution, it does not win arguments scientifically saying that evolution doesn't work. But it does show the humanistic bias within the science since such an obvious error took 50 years to be rejected.

Perhaps in another 50 years or so you will be less fanatical and more willing to indulge actual science in your claims rather than just ideological nonsense.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #379 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It doesn't withstand scrutiny by chemistry.

Last I checked chemistry is a field that chemist study. Chemistry does not scrutinize. Chemist scrutinize. Under some chemists' scrutiny evolution doesn't make sense. Under many more chemists' (including my own) scrutiny, evolution makes sense. No one apparently read my posts (well maybe someone did).


I give up.
Reply
Reply
post #380 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I Many of the stories and supposed experiments supporting are not recent, not peer reviewed and upon further examination are shown to reflect our own ignorance. (Peppered moths are nocturnal, let's release them during the day for example)

While everything in your post is wrong, this is the most irritatingly wrong.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Peer-reviewed as it gets.

Mitochondrial DNA from fossils.

Fossils and the chimp-human clade (hominadae)

Local inherited adaptions to insecticides detailed by genetic markers
Reply
Reply
post #381 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I have stopped replying because of quality of the retorts to the scientific disputes put forth.

They are basically summed up as, evolution is true, evolution is true, you're a creationist, you're a creationist and even if you swear you are not you are secretly a creationist because only a religious fanatic would criticize evolution.

I have posted studies, criticism of studies, explained what I would do in the actual classroom situation, lists of scientists, picked apart articles showing assumptions and biases.

I have not mentioned a competing theory, claimed God, the Bible or anything else and yet some in this thread sit there and make unsubstanciated claims, post paranoid delusions, and do it 25 times a day before I can come home and actually respond.

Oh well, at least we learned who is open minded and who truly will bash based off of blind faith. To bad they get to do it while claiming it is scientific.

When people see here how dogmatically people will defend evolution, moving wel beyond reason and logic, they wonder why I would suggest the criticisms be mandatory. No one would act in this manner over other scientific theories.

So thanks for proving my point. Since so many here have proven that even those who would consider themselves rational and scientific have shown that they believe evolution is not just a theory, but closely associated with a worldview.

If it weren't a worldview, then you could criticize it just like any other science, but since criticism = must love religion it is obvious that it means much more to them. Since they cannot differenciate between theory and worldview, criticism should be mandatory.

Nick

Indeed.

It is rather interesting how sheepish so many are and will consume a theory with no questions asked. It is science they say. It is a scientific theory they will say. What they will not do is question evolution. This is the part that really amazes me. Well all the books and studies say evolution is true they will say. All the professors say it is true. It goes on and on. These people that fall for evolution do so not on any merits that actually support the theory of evolution but by social pressures that say "If you are one to question evolution you are a nut" "and if you accept the theory you are very intelligent like us scientists and professors" so for weak minded low self-esteem folks they want to appear in the "cool" group. This is exactly the cult of evolution. It is a group of humanists that want to say God is dead and materialism is how nothing turned into everything. These materialists do not recognize even the possibility of anything supernatural. No everything is a closed system that just evolves on its own. Until more students start to actually question things evolution will continue to be a theory that will deceive thousands more.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #382 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:30pm
trumptman, I'm curious. Why do scientists in the earth and life sciences accept evolution? Why do people like my botanist brother-in-law use it every day in their work? Why aren't the actual experts in the relevant fields seeing these glaringly obvious flaws that people like you and Fellowship, who I'll generously call amateur biologists, see?

Are they all atheists, dupes, stupid, blind, brainwashed, what? It just doesn't make sense. Every scientist lives for the the opportunity to overthrow an old theory and replace it with their own. To be an Einstein or a Copernicus. Why aren't they doing it? You realize you are advocating a conspiracy theory here, right?

And why do people believe that there is a religious agenda to this? Because in our experience that's where the anti-evolution always comes from. I'd say it's a pretty damn good guess to infer that an anti-evolution perspective comes from a Christian conservative agenda, because that's where it has always comes from in the past.

Are you a Christian conservative? You seem to be denying that that's your perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #383 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
While everything in your post is wrong, this is the most irritatingly wrong.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Peer-reviewed as it gets.

Mitochondrial DNA from fossils.

Fossils and the chimp-human clade (hominadae)

Local inherited adaptions to insecticides detailed by genetic markers

Hassan you have not read a thing over this subject have you. I read over every link you provided and they add nothing to support Evolution. They all speculate based on guess.

Show me one and only one thing that is actual evidence for evolution.

Quote:
The use of mitochondrial mtDNA to investigate human history is not without drawbacks.

The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record.

I am sorry link after link of speculation based on assumptions is not going to cut it Hassan. You are welcome to believe it as you well know but if you are going to make a point come on and make it.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #384 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:40pm
Quote:
It is a group of humanists that want to say God is dead

This is a large and sweeping generalisation and is totally wrong. Supporting the theory of evolution does not imply one is an atheist or has no belief in the supernatural.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #385 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo
This is a large and sweeping generalisation and is totally wrong. Supporting the theory of evolution does not imply one is an atheist or has no belief in the supernatural.

You are correct that statement is not 100% always the case. There are exceptions to every rule but that is the rule regardless.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #386 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:43pm
can anyone tell me why evolution can't just be God's hand in our world?

what requires Genesis to be taken literally? there are numerous passages (esp. when related directly to God) where figurative speech is used.

wtf is everyone arguing about?

Evolution backers - you get to keep evolution. you can believe it's from lightning and RNA in the oceans.

Creationists - you get to keep God as the origin of Man and every other creature on Earth. it just means that God might not do everything as a minute rice miracle. SO WHAT. as far as you're concerned, God is still the guiding/creating hand behind everyone/everything on earth.

WHERE'S THE PROBLEM.
Reply
Reply
post #387 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You are correct that statement is not 100% always the case. There are exceptions to every rule but that is the rule regardless.

Fellowship

Now that Fellowship has granted the ability of posters to make broad generalizations or rules as they are called in the aforequoted post, those of you who have said that all people who question evolution are religious zealots can now raise that flag again, slap a sticker on them, and throw a hootenany....
Reply
Reply
post #388 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
can anyone tell me why evolution can't just be God's hand in our world?

what requires Genesis to be taken literally? there are numerous passages (esp. when related directly to God) where figurative speech is used.

wtf is everyone arguing about?

Evolution backers - you get to keep evolution. you can believe it's from lightning and RNA in the oceans.

Creationists - you get to keep God as the origin of Man and every other creature on Earth. it just means that God might not do everything as a minute rice miracle. SO WHAT. as far as you're concerned, God is still the guiding/creating hand behind everyone/everything on earth.

WHERE'S THE PROBLEM.

Glad you asked. Did you know I had a professor in college who made fun of Christians twice a week at minimum? He did not believe evolution was reconcilable with creationism. He all but hit us over the head with how evolution is a closed system with NOTHING supernatural about it.

THIS is where the problem lies. If one such as I am a Christian and view life as a supernatural creation by a supernatural God I can not expect a theory with no supporting evidence that materialism in a closed system is how nothing became everything including life.

It is not a meshable two ideas.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #389 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Glad you asked. Did you know I had a professor in college who made fun of Christians twice a week at minimum? He did not believe evolution was reconcilable with creationism. He all but hit us over the head with how evolution is a closed system with NOTHING supernatural about it.

THIS is where the problem lies. If one such as I am a Christian and view life as a supernatural creation by a supernatural God I can not expect a theory with no supporting evidence that materialism in a closed system is how nothing became everything including life.

It is not a meshable two ideas.

Fellowship

is earth really a closed system? is anything, perhaps the universe but esoterics aside? i fail to understand your professor's claims...
Reply
Reply
post #390 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:53pm
Quote:
It is not a meshable two ideas.

that's crap.

say i believe in evolution. i also believe Genesis. i believe that evolution is the hand of God creating the world, and all that's in it.

why can't God work through evolution? which part doesn't mesh?

who cares if people say evolution is a closed system. you think you can measure the will of God? didn't think so. the fact that specific creatures lived, died, evolved, can all be God's plan. God creates the Universe and all that's in it, so why can't he have had some lightning hit an RNA strand or 12 to set off evolution as we know it?

if you truly believe in an all powerful God, why do you think evolution is out of his grasp?
Reply
Reply
post #391 of 525
5/8/03 at 12:53pm
I posted one web-page that demonstrates how you can prove the relation of homo neanderthalis to homo sapiens by extracting mitochondrial DNA from a fossil and another that demonstrates how fruit flies pass on an adaptation to insecticides and how we SEE the adaptation in their genes and Fellowship posts this:

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Hassan you have not read a thing over this subject have you. I read over every link you provided and they add nothing to support Evolution. They all speculate based on guess.

Show me one and only one thing that is actual evidence for evolution.

Reply
Reply
post #392 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
is earth really a closed system? is anything, perhaps the universe but esoterics aside? i fail to understand your professor's claims...

Read this link..

Hassan and Alcimedes are also welcome.

The bottom line is information and chance are not the same.

Take a read of this Link

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #393 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:04pm
this thread needs to be taken out back and shot.

it's to retarded to live.

nothing is worse than when people insist on finding ways to disagree.
Reply
Reply
post #394 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
that's crap.

say i believe in evolution. i also believe Genesis. i believe that evolution is the hand of God creating the world, and all that's in it.

why can't God work through evolution? which part doesn't mesh?

who cares if people say evolution is a closed system. you think you can measure the will of God? didn't think so. the fact that specific creatures lived, died, evolved, can all be God's plan. God creates the Universe and all that's in it, so why can't he have had some lightning hit an RNA strand or 12 to set off evolution as we know it?

if you truly believe in an all powerful God, why do you think evolution is out of his grasp?

aclimedes you are free to believe anything you wish. That is all I am doing as well. I clearly answered your question. We all need to live and let live with our differences. I am not going to give you a hard time because you have a different view I did simply explain why I did not see it the same.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #395 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:11pm
I have followed Fellowship's link, and this is the website of the author.

It is, frankly, a joke.

In the meantime, I've posted two links above. One of them shows how neanderthals are related to hom sap and we can tell because we have extracted mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal fossils and how we can see inherited resistance to insecticides in the genes of fruit flies.
Reply
Reply
post #396 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:15pm


you guys, you guys....

we just haven't ever seen information added to DNA----I just don't see how this can be so confusing.


Adaptation of existing information? YES

Information added to build new features, ex nihlo? NO


...also on the front end of evolution, they haven't the foggiest idea on what the intermediate forms would be and how to keep the intermediate forms stable through the advent of DNA-based life forms. Evolution starts nowhere and then goes nowhere.

If you weren't speculating on pure conjecture I might hypothetically agree with you.

Maybe.

*closes hatch on space ship and leaves for home planet*
Reply
Reply
post #397 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I have followed Fellowship's link, and this is the website of the author.

It is, frankly, a joke.

In the meantime, I've posted two links above. One of them shows how neanderthals are related to hom sap and we can tell because we have extracted mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal fossils and how we can see inherited resistance to insecticides in the genes of fruit flies.

Hassan it is funny how you do exactly what I would expect. You don't even consider anything from my perspective. What is it you take issue with the links I have posted?

Instead of being simply ignoring why not deconstruct the arguments that are being made on the creationism side and tell me why you disagree.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #398 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:27pm
Earth is definitely not a closed system (the Sun supplies it with a not considerable amount of energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: another item on an evolution thread's checklist.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #399 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Stoo
Earth is definitely not a closed system (the Sun supplies it with a not considerable amount of energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: another item on an evolution thread's checklist.

Indeed. Closed meaning no influence from a supernatural being "God"

I never said Earth.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #400 of 525
5/8/03 at 1:38pm
Evolutionists should listen to this audio and actually think about what is being said.

Audio Stream

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?