Skip to comments.
Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^
| March 11, 2003
| Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano
Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 1,221-1,228 next last
To: Junior
Can you replicate this impact? No, so you can only "extrapolate" and "theorize."
To: ican'tbelieveit
Why are evolutionists so scared of this? 1) Junior is talking your ear off on it. 2) The questions are interesting, but creationists routinely argue from gaps in knowledge to gaps in history. The incompleteness (but not lack) of data about an event 65 million years ago is hardly evidence that it didn't happen at all. Holes in the data are holes in the data, not in the historical sequence that produced the data.
To: VadeRetro
historical sequence placemarker
To: ican'tbelieveit
Can you replicate this impact? No, so you can only "extrapolate" and "theorize." And indeed, there you go. What are you afraid of?
To: Ichneumon
Why is that all the idiots think they are on God's side when they deny reality?
365
posted on
03/12/2003 7:04:07 PM PST
by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
To: balrog666
That's rich coming from a guy with 666 in his username.....
366
posted on
03/12/2003 7:07:19 PM PST
by
ALS
To: VadeRetro
I am not afraid of anything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in regards to evolution. My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done.
To: Right Wing Professor
" No, the difference between what we call the theory of evolution and scientific laws is a matter of nomenclature. The theory of evolution could more accurately be called the law of evolution. "
Well then. Use the 'Law of Evolution' to make a prediction that is proven, and not by circular reasoning.
I can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what will happen when I strike a pool ball with the cue ball with a certain speed and angle ( one of those things to predict it commonly called the law of conservation of momentum ).
Since evolution is now apparently of the same weight as these other laws, I eagerly await the predictions of of the 'Law of Evolution'.
I, for one, will continue to hold a very skeptical opinion of many of the claims made by the high priests of evolution ( not that I think creationism is any alternative, but I have real problems with hubris.).
To: ican'tbelieveit
"I am not afraid of anything. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in regards to evolution. My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done."
AMEN!
369
posted on
03/12/2003 7:15:54 PM PST
by
ALS
To: VadeRetro
Morton's demon placemarker.
370
posted on
03/12/2003 7:17:50 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
To: Right Wing Professor
It is CLEAR that you have not been keeping current.
As I posted earlier, evolution is not THE paradigm of modern biology, it is simply one of many paradigms and much of modern biology has nothing to at all to do with evolution.
And "paradigm" is no magic word that makes something science: the whole point is that evolution is a paradigm masquerading as solid science - when in fact it is a theory that has many holes and is far from having been proven to be factual.
To humor you, I post information you recommended (second listed site at google when searching under the terms "evolution paradigm biology"
http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/bio100a/allen/L01.pdf ):
Paradigms in Biology
1. Living organisms are material entities.
2. All living organisms are composed of cells.
3. The structure of a molecule,organelle, cellor organ is related to its function.
4. Living organisms are capable of self-organization and self-regulation
5. Evolution (as we can see, evolution is but one of many paradigms of moedern biology)
371
posted on
03/12/2003 7:22:29 PM PST
by
Notwithstanding
(What have you done for LIFE lately?)
To: ican'tbelieveit
My point all along is that it is ridiculous that this professor be asked to step down from her position over this issue as presented by this article. It should not be wrong to ask questions and present other theories in the context this was done. I do not claim to know what she said, but I am familiar with the so-called "evidence against evolution" which ID-ists routinely demand be taught in school alongside the actual body of biological science. The description of her talk sounds mightily like something from this same body of cult literature.
There ARE stupid questions, and this is the problem, whether she should be teaching in the very area where she is unable to demonstrate critical thought. An astrologer or a flat-earther may certainly question modern astronomy, but do you want your aspiring-astronomer child to be taught astronomy by such a naysaying dolt?
To: VadeRetro
Vade, do you always see everyone as intelligent or stupid based on whether they hold your personal beliefs or is it just in this thread?
373
posted on
03/12/2003 7:27:36 PM PST
by
ALS
To: VadeRetro
You are still missing what kind of class this was. This is not a class of beginning students, these were upper level honor students. This would be the perfect place to present these theories.
To: ican'tbelieveit
From the main article:
Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."
She has a case if this guy is simply lying, but it seems unlikely that she gave anything other than the standard Discovery Institute claptrap: " ... a presentation titled 'Critical Thinking on Evolution' -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design."
To: VadeRetro
I don't care if she discussed Creationism, ID, or aliens. This was a discussion class.
To: ican'tbelieveit
As presented by the article.
To: ALS
Vade, do you always see everyone as intelligent or stupid based on whether they hold your personal beliefs or is it just in this thread? I'm pretty sure it predates this thread.
To: Notwithstanding
2. All living organisms are composed of cells. Is a virus a living organism?
379
posted on
03/12/2003 7:34:08 PM PST
by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
To: VadeRetro
I'm pretty sure it predates this thread. Too many Guinness Stouts placemarker.
380
posted on
03/12/2003 7:35:44 PM PST
by
balrog666
(When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 1,221-1,228 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson