Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin, Design & Democracy IV: Responding to the AAAS Decree Against ID
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/june_symposim.htm ^

Posted on 11/05/2003 5:29:49 AM PST by truthfinder9

All day Saturday, November 15, 2003

Most of science is an objective search for the truth.

However, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) seems to abandon that concept when the discussion turns to the question of our origin. Only one answer is allowed - naturalistic evolution.

On October 18, 2002, the AAAS Board decreed that all public schools and AAAS members should censor and suppress the scientific challenge to the naturalistic explanation of our origin - Intelligent Design. Darwinists claim that life is not designed. Other scientists disagree. The AAAS, in a curiously unscientific fashion, seeks to suppress that scientific disagreement. WHY?

The fourth annual symposium on Intelligent Design, DDD IV, will address that question with 18 experts in biochemistry, neuro science, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, philosophy, theology and the law.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: creation; darwinsim; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Markofhumanfeet
Out of curiosity, would you die to support your theory of evolution?

I trust it won't be necessary. Are you planning on dropping by?

21 posted on 11/05/2003 3:35:57 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
No, I am curious because for over 6000 years now, God's people have chosen to give up this version of reality for the true version. Since your version is your true version, is it worth dying for, and not at my hand, say at some future Roman hand?
22 posted on 11/05/2003 3:41:10 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
Freedom is worth risking death for. Anyone forced to bow to a lie might as well be a slave.
23 posted on 11/05/2003 3:42:40 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Excellent! Now you see our viewpoint!
24 posted on 11/05/2003 3:48:04 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
Excellent! Now you see our viewpoint!

Yes and no. The world has betrayed your viewpoint by making you wrong. The very heavens mock you. You need to make some minor allowance for that when crying about science not paying enough attention to your "truth."

25 posted on 11/05/2003 3:51:57 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Someone needs to tell your buddies that transitional forms have been found because evolutionist Gould denied they existed as do/did many others. How is it you are more informed than your superiors?

Oh, and BTW, if Gould actually believed there were transitionals, why did he invent the fairy tale known PE?

The bottom line is that evo apologists have redefined what it means to be a transitional form. Regardless, where is the fossilized

Answer: They exist only in the minds of the evos.
26 posted on 11/05/2003 3:53:45 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Freedom is worth risking death for.

Meaning the existence of a Creator cramps your style?

Anyone forced to bow to a lie might as well be a slave.

Meaning you'll stop trying to convince others?


27 posted on 11/05/2003 3:57:54 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The "world" has betrayed not a one of us, for we cannot be deceived.. As to the heavens mocking us we know the contrary, that the angels wonder at us instead. The hosts of heaven marvel after us, yet we do not take the credit, the glory is all God's. We care not what men of scientific opinion want to believe, after all it changes often, but as you yourself just stated, death is preferable to bowing before and serving, a lie, something that the men of evolutionary bent are intent on forcing upon us.
28 posted on 11/05/2003 3:58:02 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Having another amnesia attack? Perhaps this will refresh your memory.

Here Gould talks straight to people like you.

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Is it starting to come back to you yet?

Answer: They exist only in the minds of the evos.

Out for a bit.

29 posted on 11/05/2003 4:01:36 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
... the angels wonder at us instead.

Don't know about angels, but those 10-billion year old quasars don't fit in your story very well. Now I mean it, gone for supper.

30 posted on 11/05/2003 4:03:30 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Hey Retro.

Students who think for themselves are creationists.
Students who have difficulty in that area prefer evolution.
Smarter students are creationists.
The not-so-smart are evos.

Where did you go to school?

The study is scientific so you should love it.

31 posted on 11/05/2003 4:06:10 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Are you serious? Let us contemplate the word of the Lord:

Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like the stars forever and ever.

The Lord's quasars were burning with a purpose for spiritual man ere there ever was a man.

32 posted on 11/05/2003 4:21:02 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Smarter students are creationists. The not-so-smart are evos.

Then the not-so-smart ones go to college and the smart ones fry burgers.

From here.

33 posted on 11/05/2003 5:34:27 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I have come to the conclusion that you are against the Lord. Is this a valid conclusion? Are you seeking something that the Lord can help you with? You may email me privately if you wish.
34 posted on 11/05/2003 6:11:13 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
I have come to the conclusion that you are against the Lord. Is this a valid conclusion?

It is true that he has no professed belief in Lord Vishnu. Or Zeus. Or Wodan. So what? Does that make him against the Easter Bunny too?

35 posted on 11/05/2003 6:21:10 PM PST by balrog666 (Humor is a universal language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Markofhumanfeet
I am agnostic on whether there is a spiritual side of the universe, whether we go anywhere when we die, whether the universe was set in motion by the acts of a being. It is clear to me that such hypotheses are unnecessary in answering real-world questions of "Why does X happen?" Scientists all over the world are aware of the same thing.

Now, I have said some things that might seem critical of a creator, things of the form, "God shouldn't tell people to behave the way Discovery Institute is doing in that paper." When I do that, I don't really think the creator of the universe is ordering people about. What I'm really saying is that faith in things unseen doesn't seem to be all that healthy for everybody. The people trying to order science and science education about for sure do not understand science and often don't really want to. They should not be humored.

36 posted on 11/05/2003 6:25:39 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
It is true that he has no professed belief in Lord Vishnu. Or Zeus. Or Wodan. So what? Does that make him against the Easter Bunny too?

Throw me in the water and I swim to shore. The Puritans would probably have burned me.

37 posted on 11/05/2003 6:26:58 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Someone needs to tell your buddies that transitional forms have been found because evolutionist Gould denied they existed as do/did many others.

No, he did not, as anyone with an ordinary level of reading comprehension knows if they've read anything of Gould's besides the out-of-context quotes that creationist sources like to parade around. Gould discussed many, many transitional forms, including over half a dozen here. Excerpt:

Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.

How is it you are more informed than your superiors?

How is it that you are so poorly informed about what Gould actually believed?

Oh, and BTW, if Gould actually believed there were transitionals, why did he invent the fairy tale known PE?

He didn't invent it, Darwin did, and it's no fairy tale:

I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]

[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]

This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.

The bottom line is that evo apologists have redefined what it means to be a transitional form.

"The bottom line" is that you make a lot of amusing claims without a shred of support.

Regardless, where is the fossilized:
half feather / half scale

On Sinosauropteryx :

half leg / half wing

On Protarchaeopteryx :

half foot / half hoof

On late Condylarths:

Yeah, I know, lousy picture -- can't find a decent one on the web. But the "one hooflet per toe" structure easily meets your "half foot half hoof" requirement, as do the feet of modern Tapirs (themselves sort of a living fossil):

etc etc etc.

Yes indeed, etc. etc.

Answer: They exist only in the minds of the evos.

Uh huh... Well certainly, there are a lot of things that exist only in *your* mind.

38 posted on 11/05/2003 6:33:57 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yes, I think I am beginning to have a better idea of where you are coming from. I respect that, as much as you may think that I do not. It's sort of like your theory of evolution and my theory of creation. You are what you are and to God go the glory!

Perhaps we can help each other in understanding the other's viewpoint, perhaps not, but I am willing to try. The problem is much deeper than where one was academically educated. It goes to the core of being, one's purpose here on earth. Perhaps you see the reason that you are on the earth is to procreate and to advance the species? If so, you must have many children!

In contrast, I am of no particular notice, just a defender of the word bespoken in ages past to the apostles. It matters not whether I am here or there, but here I am at this moment. And here you are. Perhaps we must make the most of out time together, for tomorrow the wind will blow where it wilst.

39 posted on 11/05/2003 6:45:58 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
The gods you name are reflections of the men of their particular eras, when men avidly sought meaning to their lives, but alas, being unspiritual men, they devised gods of their own scheming, and worshiped the works of their own hands.

Why do you profess to speak for your brother? Have you not enough unbelief to occupy yourself?

40 posted on 11/05/2003 6:52:01 PM PST by Markofhumanfeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson