Do you remember when "Neanderthals" where still in the common descent ?
Where did the Neanderthals descend from ?
Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
What are Darwinists so afraid of?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jonathan Witt © 2006
As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.
Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.
Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.
The standards are good for students and good for science.
Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?
Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.
We now know that 1) Haeckel faked his embryo drawings; 2) Anatomically mutant fruit flies are always dysfunctional; 3) Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks (the photographs were staged); and 4) the finch beaks returned to normal after the rains returned – no net evolution occurred. Like many species, the average size fluctuates within a given range.
This is microevolution, the age-old observation of change within species. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of fundamentally new body plans and anatomical parts. Biology textbooks use instances of microevolution such as the Galapagos finches to paper over the fact that biologists have never observed, or even described in theoretical terms, a detailed, continually functional pathway to fundamentally new forms like mammals, wings and bats. This is significant because modern Darwinism claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor by a series of tiny, useful genetic mutations.
Textbooks also trumpet a few "missing links" discovered between groups. What they don't mention is that Darwin's theory requires untold millions of missing links, evolving one tiny step at a time. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete in just those places where the need for evidence is most crucial?
Opponents of the new science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with that question. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why shield the theory from informed critical analysis? Why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?
The truly confident Darwinist should be eager to tell students, "Hey, notice these crucial unsolved problems in modern evolutionary theory. Maybe one day you'll be one of the scientists who discovers a solution."
Confidence is as confidence does.
Since it didn't transition into anything it is hardly a transitionary animal. It apparently is a mutant to nowhere. So far none of the questions answered at the beginning were answered by any of the Kings Horses or any of the Kings Men. Where are those transitional fossils let alone the missing link.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
In evolution threads, I've found that ordinary conservatives can turn into liberals (or at least, use hard core liberal tactics) faster than on any other issues.
What leads you to accept one proposition as true and another as false, and yet another as possibly half-true or half-false, when you don't have time to test them all in the physical world? Is it the letters "Ph.D.?"
I've heard and read a good many statements in my lifetime, and had opportunity to experience sensory perception on a normal level for some decades. Is there some obvious reason I should reject the plain and simple statement that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that it took six normal days to take care of the set up?
Are these propositions I should reject on the basis of your reason and experience? Why should I accept scientific authorities as any more credible than the biblical texts? Folks cry, "The evidence! The evidence!" when in fact is their interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself that is speaking.
The evidence favors organization, consistency, purpose, function, information, intelligibility, creativity, and so forth. Is there some compelling reason I must reject intelligent design in order to be "scientific," when intelligent design essentially entails all of these things?
File Not Found
We're sorry, but we did not find /indexcc/list.html\"
The status code for this request was 404
The TalkOrigins Archive changed servers in August, 2003, and a number of files and links require some adjustment. Please be patient with us as we work to make the TalkOrigins Archive better.
Aside from this insult to Pastafarians, your post was, as usual, valuable and presented evidence. Evidence seems to count for creationists when they watch TV court dramas, but doesn't matter to them in real life. Curious.
There is a so-called consensus in the scientific community that we are causing global warming. There is also a so-called consensus in the scientific community that believe in macroeveolution. On both issues, debate is being stifled and only one viewpoint is being taught to children. Two sides of the same coin. I think competition of ideas is healthy from a scientific viewpoint in both areas.
I can name two from personal experience.
Many of my friends are Lutherans, and the churches they attend all believe that the Pope is the antichrist.
I was a member of a non-denominational fundamentalist church (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away) that was an offshoot of the Four-Square church. The majority of the congregation (and the pastor) believed that all other churches were pagan, and going to hell.
No. When I first became a Christian I was a believer in evolution. It did not affect my salvation. However, as I learned more and more about the God who created me and who became flesh and dwelt among us and who died on the cross for my sins, the more I realized that evolution was simply not compatible with the God of the Bible.
Many on these CREVO threads, do indeed, tell those who support evolution, that by doing so, they are risking their souls, they will surely go to Hell and burn forever(and to my chagrin, they actually seem to delight in this notion)...
I'm not sure I've actually seen that. I do believe, however, that those who mock God and who insist that he did not do as he himself claimed and who trivialize the creation are standing on sandy soil. I would not want to be in their shoes when I stand before God. We will all stand before God and make an accounting of our lives. If we spend our days ridiculing God and making light of his work, we should not be surprised when we are visited by God's wrath.
Now I may be as wrong as rain on this whole God thing. My belief in creation is based upon faith. While I see evidence of the majesty of God's creation, the evidence I have for my beliefs is admittedly not empirical, it is the evidence of things unseen.
There seems to be a split among those who do not support evolution, as to whether or not, support of evolution leads one to damnation...
Ultimately "sin" is what leads to damnation. We all do it. We all will continue to do it.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23 KJV)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23 KJV)
bump
Because first and foremost for Christians is truth. And evolution is not truth. Tell me about irreducible complexity at the cellular level. Tell me about the thousands of missing "missing links" representing the incremental changes between one specie and another. The truth about a Creator is plain. *That* much doesn't require a degree in science....
Never mind ... sorry, Coyoteman; found the later link. Great file! Days of reading ahead.
I am curious---do you obey all 613 Commandments?
"....no scientific evidence to contradict the theory of evolution has been brought forth."
Not all of the scientific evidence that proves DARWIN'S theories have "been brought forth" either.
If you look at my posts on this issue you'll notice that my point has always been to state that evolutionary theory is a THEORY. As of now and certainly in a scientific realm it is the best answer but it is STILL an incomplete set of evidence.
One other thing: evolutionary theory is not exclusive of the idea of a higher power. To believe in a higher power does not mean one is a biblical literalist but for some on this board a "biblical literalist" is the unfair label ascribed to ANYONE that questions the incomplete physical record that is evolutionary theory.
In other words it is a cheap shot.
No. It's not fake at all.
But the interesting thing is, those antievolutionists who claim that Archaeopteryx is fake (specifically that the fossil impressions of feathers are faked) claim that the creature is really just an ordinary dinosaur, i.e. a reptile, and not a bird at all. At the same time antievolutionists who accept Archaeopteryx as a legitimate fossil creature (feathers and all) claim that it's 100% a bird, and not a reptile at all.
Funny thing, isn't it Bray, that antievolutionists are certain that Archaeopteryx is in no way transitional between reptiles and birds, but they can't agree which one it is, a reptile or a bird!
How would you explain that? And how would you explain that in conjunction with your denial that Archaeopteryx is transitional between reptiles and birds?
After all, what better definition for a transitional fossil could there possibly be than one for which a case can be made to put it either in group "A" or group "B," whereas those groups are utterly discontinuous and non-overlapping with respect to living organisms? And indeed Archaeopteryx DOES have both distinctive characteristics of reptiles (which no modern bird possesses) AND distinctive characteristics of birds (which no modern reptile possesses).
And if you unreservedly deny transitional status to just such a fossil, then haven't you moved the goal post so far back that you've put yourself out of the game entirely?
If you studied their doctrines, you would find that Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah's Witnesses differ from Biblical Christianity. In fact, each has its own scripture outside the Bible. Many Christians regard these groups as non-Christian cults. However, most Christians are either Catholic, eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, and those groups all use basically the same Bible and hold to the same creeds. They differ, sometime bitterly, on how the church should be organized and run. That's a human failing. It does not affect the validity or value of essential shared Christian beliefs.
Speaking of real life, would you please tell me the number of people who seriously, in real life, believe an airborne spaghetti critter is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the physical universe. Be sure to quote credible sources. I mean, not that two-dozen people can't be wrong, but it does matter in real life. IMO, such people - like those who belive organized matter performing specific functions can arise entirely without intelligence or design - are a long noodle short of a full bowl. No sauce.
I don't believe that there is such a face to spit in. In any case, spitting in people's faces is not my style. I have read the Bible through several times, cover to cover, both the KJV and New American Standard. You talk about Paul, but what about Moses? He sacrificed everything, and even gave 40 years of his life leading a bunch of whiny, griping people, and was not allowed into the promised land because he got mad - once. Is that loving and caring, or tyrannical? God used him up and threw him away, all because he got mad - once.
I do that now. Always have done. My heart is not evil, and I do not have evil desires (contrary to what many Christians have said of - and to - me on this forum).
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.