Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy
More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.
The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]
Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.
"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."
Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.
"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."
Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.
Because that's what the copious evidence indicates happened, because every prediction of evolution which has been put to the test has been confirmed, and because I've done numerous evolutionary algorithms and they've performed spectacularly well in exactly the way that creationists claim is impossible.
As further confirmation, over the past thirty years I've examined every creationist attempt to poke a hole in the theory and found that in every single case the argument failed because the creationists making the proposal were a) ignorant, b) idiots, or c) dishonest (or some combination thereof).
Okay, that's not *entirely* fair (just mostly) -- on very, very rare occasions I've found a creationist attempt at "hole punching" to be the result of an intelligent, well-informed, honest attempt which turned out to be in error in some subtle way. But such examples are rare enough that I can count they average out to far less than one per year. The vast majority are just the same old recycled trash which was shown to be trivially fallacious (or shockingly dishonest) long, long ago.
The flaw in your "logic" is this:
Your evolutionary worldview assumes the GC was rock just as it is today. That is an assumption imposed by your worldview. You are hanging the drapes before the house is built.
Still don't get it? You're assuming your pressupositons and using those assumptions to discredit other presuppositions but your presuppositions are not logical necessities.
Don't know what logical necessities are? How about first principles?
Still don't get it?
Wow, you *really* need to lay off those drugs.
But just for giggles, please do attempt to document this amazing claim. And while you're at it, take a stab at all the other several dozen challenges for you to support your silly pronouncments as listed in the FABNAQ (Gore3000's Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions).
and even nowadays you can read arguments from moronic evolutionists saying that it is not true in all cases.
Because it's not. Lateral transfer, for example, is one of the several ways that genetic information can be passed without Mendelian genetics. I would accuse you of ignorance, but the inflammatory nature of your post along with your past posting history points more towards an indication that you're just trolling again.
Evolutionists also delayed the greatest discovery since DNA, that genes are merely factories, and are tightly controlled by DNA elsewhere in the genome to make it do what needs to be done.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Document *that* bit of trolling too, if you don't want it added to the rest of your FABNAQ. (The part about evolutionists delaying it, I mean.)
If genes had no control, no connection to the rest of the genome, to the rest of the organism as moronic evolutionist theory has long postulated,
Yet another silly thing for you to document, or retract. You're really piling up quite a list of spewed falsities, G3K.
then the complex related processes of our bodies would be going in totally different directions and completely kill us.
That's so ridiculous I'm not even going to bother asking you to try to support it.
What science has discovered IN SPITE OF evolution, is that organisms are tightly controlled SYSTEMS which cannot be randomly changed without deleterious consequences.
You're deluded. Or trolling. I don't much care which. In truth, being "tightly controlled systems" increases, not decreases the ability of random changes to cause profound results, because it allows mutations to make systemic changes that bring about large-scale alterations in the organism (instead of microscopic differences that hardly matter), while the existing control mechanisms mediate the change into something that fits with the rest of the system. There's been a lot of research on this topic, G3K, are you 40 years behind on your reading?
Only the un-scientists of evolution would have proposed such a self-centered, nonsensical proposition as that 95% of human DNA had absolutely no purpose at all
The really funny part is that the *one* item on the FABNAQ which Gore3000 has *ever* tried to support was this one, and the scientific citations HE HIMSELF provided ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THIS RESULT that Gore3000 calls "nonsense".
This was pointed out to him, but true to form, Gore3000 is back again acting as if nothing had ever happened. A closed mind gathers no thought.
and that it was there just to show us that evolution is true.
G3K keeps making this goofy (oh hell, let's be honest and call it "stupid") claim that somewhere some evolutionist has said that non-coding DNA "was put there to show evolution is true", but needless to say he's just making a donkey of himself. It's in his FABNAQ, by the way, and he has made no attempt to support his claim. Not only has no evolutionst said such a silly thing, but such a claim would obviously *contradict* an evolutionary belief that DNA has arisen naturally and no one "put" anything in the DNA in order to "make" any point. Gore3000 can't even keep his own goofy stuff interally consistent.
Not only is such a view moronic and unscientific,
Yup, sure is -- but you're the only one claiming it.
but it also shows the lack of respect that evolutionists have towards those who they push their drivel on.
On the contrary, it shows Gore3000's contempt for his readers.
You "forgot" to support your claims. Feel free to take a shot at it. I'm especially looking forward to the "tremendous obstacles to be overcome".
As for "little different from any religion", the creationists keep saying that so often they obviously have a great wish for it to be true, even though it's trivially false. Once you work through that one and manage to get a handle on the issue equal to that of a high school introduction to epistemology, here's a lot more reading on the topic to make sure you don't forget it.
As for "solid fact", start here if you want to have grounding in anything beyond your unsupported rhetoric. this is good, and so is this.
If you read and fully understand the above sources, you'll have caught up to where I was on this topic 25 years ago.
Yup, that's a good one. But perhaps it could be titled: "Disappointed One-Stop Shoppers."
Yeah, and you're the one who responded with this:
Your naturalist assumptions make sense only if you apply them to a naturalist worldview.
So I want to know, where exactly did the interface between the supernatural and natural occur to create the Grand Canyon? If a lake of sulphuric acid carving out the Grand Canyon is too absurd for you, then describe for me a miraculous creation of the Grand Canyon that isn't absurd.
I have never asked you this question before, and I've never seen you address the issue. Please do grace me with your answer.Ah, this brings up a question I've wanted to ask you creationists for some time: Why do you try so hard to twist the facts to fit your dogma? Why not simply assert that God blinked and poofed the Grand Canyon into existence? Why try so hard to relegate the miraculous to the deep, deep background? Why not simply posit the miracles up front?
I'd say "fair question" if you hadn't been told the answer so many times before. I'll give you an answer but only if you promise not to keep asking the same lame questions and keep ignoring the answers. Deal?
No, the "rules" are that if we make a factual claim we should try to back it up so we can agree on just what the facts are. You said "250,000,000 year old bacteria". That's 250 billion years old. I thought I had seen a story of 100 million+ year old bacteria, but it's very vague.
Then you said something about blood proteins surviving intact for 65 million years. Again I asked if you had a cite. Somehow asking for cites is a disreputable practice to you.
In fact, this is exactly how urban legends get started - and creationist apologetics is teeming with urban legends.
What about river deltas? Is the Mississippi or Nile really showing a muddy mouth that is millions, or just thousands, of years.
The oldest man died today. He was 113. Does this mean that the Earth is only 113 years old?
I look at questions and evidence. Why is there still helium on the earth after billions of years.
Ah, you got the argument backwards! You're supposed to say "if the earth is billions of years old, where's all the helium?" You see, the YEC argument is that helium (which is constantly being created as uranium decays) doesn't escape into space .
Why aren't the oceans MUCH saltier?
Because of all the salt that gets removed that the YEC'ers ignore.
You really need to spend some time examining this page. (But only when you're feeling brave enough to withstand the cognative dissonance!)
"What men . . . believe (( link )) really matters."
LOL So now Answers in Genesis is just "some New Zealand site"! I LOVE IT!
(For the lurkers, AiG is Kentucky-based, and is generally recognized as hands-down the most influential YEC-based ministry today.)
Gee, what does that say about all those professors at all those Bible colleges (Bible colleges!) who are theistic evolutionists?
To repeat, this is from <ahem> that obscure New Zealand site <snicker>...
Recently an AiG event coordinator spoke with the pastor of a large evangelical church and asked why he did not want AiG ministry there. He answered, ‘It’s because of your stand on the six days of Creation.’ When asked why this was a problem, he said it was because of what he’d been taught at Bible college. This is not an isolated case, sadly. ... You see, I visited Regent University a number of years ago and discovered that a number of its professors were teaching theistic evolution. And over the years we’ve had contact with a number of students who have confirmed this (although there may be some literal Genesis professors at Regent). ...
If someone believes that there is a primary and intelligent cause for life, the universe, and everything; would that make the individual ignorant, an idiot, or dishonest?
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.