Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Poll on Evolution
Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?
You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; id
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Here's the thread on Godel's evolution poll: Freeper Only Poll. Do you believe in Evolution or Creation? Godel described the cheating at post 137, and then named the cheaters in post 186. One of the named persons admitted cheating in post 189, and the other admitted it in post 279.

Where are alll the anti-evolutionists jumping out to support editor-surveyor? How many of them read that thread the way he does?

How many support his scholarly work on ascorbic acid?

621 posted on 09/25/2006 9:28:59 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Godel described the cheating at post 137, and then named the cheaters in post 186. One of the named persons admitted cheating in post 189, and the other admitted it in post 279."

Can you get anything correct? Perhaps you thought that everyone was too lazy to check?

None of the above is accurate, infact it is completely false.

Post 186: Good Job. This poll was quite informative wasn't it you two? I'm glad we got to know a little bit more about each other.

Post 189: I'm not humiliated, I pity the dumb who don't know a root from the branches---hung(upside-down) like a chirping monkey!

Looks like the typical evo deception to me.

622 posted on 09/25/2006 9:36:48 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; js1138
"Godel described the cheating at post 137, and then named the cheaters in post 186. One of the named persons admitted cheating in post 189, and the other admitted it in post 279."

Can you get anything correct? Perhaps you thought that everyone was too lazy to check?

None of the above is accurate, infact it is completely false.

Post 186: Good Job. This poll was quite informative wasn't it you two? I'm glad we got to know a little bit more about each other.

Post 189: I'm not humiliated, I pity the dumb who don't know a root from the branches---hung(upside-down) like a chirping monkey!

Looks like the typical evo deception to me.

623 posted on 09/25/2006 9:37:54 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

Comment #624 Removed by Moderator

To: SoldierDad
"They are not evidence for common decent because no-one has discovered any transitionals between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx (or the others you listed).

So every time we add a transitional between two species we end up with two holes instead of one? If this is what you require then you will never be satisfied, as there will never be enough transitionals to fill all the holes. Fossils do not form readily and the probability that a given fossil will not only form but be found by a human before it is destroyed by the elements is as small as the probabilities Creationists throw around for the likelihood of abiogenesis. If you don't consider this difficulty in your expectation for transitional fossils and demand hundreds of transitionals, In my opinion, you are being disingenuous.

Transitionals should exhibit features from the source species, the destination species and all three should share other features. There are morphological features that in extant species are diagnostic, they are used to identify a taxonomic group because they occur in only that group. These diagnostic features are considered when determining if a fossil is a transitional. This is what we find when we examine the Achaopteryx. Archy has features diagnostic to reptiles and features diagnostic to birds as well as features that are shared by theropod dinosaurs, Archy and modern birds and *by no other groups*.

"One day there was a dinosaur, then hundreds of thousands of years (or millions) later this dinosaur became a Archaeopteryx. Where are the transitional formations which logically should be found between these two events?

There are a number of other proto-bird fossils that have been uncovered but they appear to be on different branches than Archy. This is common with fossils because there are far more branches that stay branches than become part of a 'trunk' in the phylogenetic tree. This does not diminish their status as transitional fossils because they too contain diagnostic features of reptiles (dinos) and birds.

"Did the caveman hide them? Did Captain Kirk beam them off the planet?

I thought you were up for a serious rational discussion? At least that is what you suggested in previous posts. I hope that this isn't the best you can do.

If you don't believe that fossils are rare for a reason, I suggest you investigate taphonomy and do your own calculations. Just make sure you include in those calculations not only the necessary initial conditions for fossils to form but the conditions necessary for fossils to survive the movement of earth, erosion and exposure to the elements and the length of time those fossil have had to become exposed to the elements compared to the length of time humans have been looking for them.

"Your evidence is based, yet again, on conjecture and supposition (guess work). Someone came up with this little theory, and then went about trying to prove it in ways that provide no proof. DNA, geneology, strata, etc.

The relationship between fossils and the great age of the Earth was known long before Darwin. When Darwin started his travels aboard the Beagle he was firmly intrenched in beliefs one would consider to be ID today - he believed whole heartedly in Paley's designer and complexity argument.

Scientists aren't trying to fit the evidence to a theory, in fact the majority of tests are designed to falsify the theory. You apparently do not understand the adversarial nature of modern science. All of the data, statistical analysis, and the conclusions one scientist produces from a physical object such as a fossil are available to all other scientists in that, and related fields. In many cases the actual fossil is also available - although it is more common to supply replicas for study although the original is always available for comparison to the replica. Scientists do not spend time trying to find ways of agreeing with others in their field, they spend time picking holes in the conclusions of others. There is no way that a conspiracy to fit data to a theory is possible in today's scientific environment.

"Of course DNA exists in common - they all lived on the same planet in which the same genetic codes were used to create all life, but placed in different configurations. If one were to "create" life, why reinvent the wheel? Why not use the same substance already once used, but configure it differently for a different animal structure? Really, this is not rocket science.

Its funny that you should claim ID as being so self evident when there is a much simpler and more logical way of producing a variety of species and reusing bits of code when your code is self replicating.

As a designer you produce an initial species and give it the ability to modify the DNA it passes on to its descendants. You then create an environment that will guide the DNA in a specific direction. In this way you are not only reusing chunks of code(DNA) but avoiding the need to hand insert those snippets into each new species you create.

As an old programmer who has reused many, many snippets of code to build applications, I would much prefer to just set the fitness parameters for the end product and let my code rewrite itself. A lot less work for me - far less than hand inserting snippets into my code for each new app.

Now *that* makes sense.

BTW, I noticed you didn't have any evidence to back up the assertions in your post. What gives? I thought you wanted a rational discussion?

625 posted on 09/25/2006 10:08:32 AM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The truth is the opposite; most of the pro-evo votes came from the same computer.

How do you know this? Do you have a reference handy?
626 posted on 09/25/2006 10:09:43 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Ascorbic acid, by itself is not what has classically been called 'vitamin C.' Ascorbic acid is merely a preservative, and has been found in studies to be incapable of curing scurvy, for example. The real vitamin c is a group of polyphenols found in many acidic fruits, and together they cure many things. No animal has yet been identified that produces a single one of the polyphenols that constitute 'vitamin C' even though some of them do produce ascorbic acid.

Curious. Do you have references that support your assertion that Vitamin C is something other than the molecule "ascorbic acid"? All references that I have found thus far do not concur with your explanation, and state that Vitamin C is, in fact, ascorbic acid and that most mammal species produce it.
627 posted on 09/25/2006 10:14:46 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
seems there is a 59% ignorance percentile here at FR....how sad.

What do you consider ignorance? Is someone ignorant if they don't agree with evolution? Or are they ignorant if they don't agree with you?

628 posted on 09/25/2006 10:17:58 AM PDT by jerri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
No matter what evolutionists say ... ahem ... there are still some rational people out there that want both sides taught. There is increasing doubt about evolution and the evidence is what is driving that doubt. Evolution and Origins just don't add up! Never will.


No matter how often you tell a lie, no EVERYONE is going to believe it. Some of us actually use our God given brain. We don't need godless people fabricating "evidence) (LOL) to fit their agenda. We are easily sway to believe the absurd.

629 posted on 09/25/2006 10:19:00 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

He's flailing, desperately.

I think it's rather funny, but I find humor in creationists grabbing for a lifeline that isn't there.


630 posted on 09/25/2006 10:20:17 AM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: nmh
No matter what evolutionists say ... ahem ... there are still some rational people out there that want both sides taught.

What is the "other" side?

We don't need godless people fabricating "evidence) (LOL) to fit their agenda.

What have "godless" people "fabricated"? Please be specific and provide references.
631 posted on 09/25/2006 10:20:26 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Oh, there was so much in that post, no, I won't do it, it wouldn't be prudent.


632 posted on 09/25/2006 10:21:23 AM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Evos don't have any respect for FR's goals and purposes, and don't belong here.

Editor-surveyor, thank you for letting your true colors fly.

Folks, it seems this debate is about more than science class. It is about "purifying" FreeRepublic. It is about expunging "undesirables" from the conservative movement in general and the Republican party in particular.

FR is a pretty popular site. How many people are going to read crap like this, and wonder? How many will leave with the impression that Republicans are anti-science? How many lurkers from Democratic Underground are thanking you for making their job a whole lot easier?

Your post is exactly what this whole thread is about.

Please don't hold back. Tell us again who does and doesn't belong on this website.

633 posted on 09/25/2006 10:24:07 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
There really is increasing doubt. Every day, the same five or six people flee from evolution all over again and write ever-more strident articles for the Discovery Institute. I'm tellin' ya, it's a real landslide out there.
634 posted on 09/25/2006 10:25:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Look at who is touting your theories.

Look at your "evidence" . It's down right shameful that you label it "evidence". Then again faulty dating methods and looking for that "transitional" ape will surely keep circular reasoning alive and well.

Odd how the poll indicates the MAJORITY want BOTH sides TAUGHT.

Funny how YOU conveniently ignored that little FACT. Even polls on FR highlight how people are not buying into your fairy tales.
635 posted on 09/25/2006 10:25:35 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Unless we are to remand the totality of the dabate to the domain of philosophy, none of the THEORIES ought be promulgated as anything other than that, but they ought all be treated with eqanimity.

Pushing evo, alone, as "the only boat floating" is no more a demonstration of "scientific method" than creation proponents are accused of implementing.

FWIW, most of what I've read from creationist researchers says no more than "here's how the data collected would fit within the creation framework established in the Bible". But, in fact, it seems that simply making THAT statement is more infuriating to evo's than anything else that could be said to them. The merest suggestion that a set of numbers or data points could stand as evidence of ANYTHING other than "The Only True And Great Theory Of Origins Embraced By Sentient Beings™" is put forth as empirical evidence that whoever made the suggestion is not a REAL "Scientist®".

This is neither more nor less than the origins equivalent of islamofascism. "Anyone who doesn't see it OUR way is a science INFIDEL and must submit to professional dhimmitude or death." So evo goes out to wage jihad aginst all comers, shrieking "Great is the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) and great is his Holy Theory!!"

We can only hope they stop short of scientific terrorism.


636 posted on 09/25/2006 10:29:19 AM PDT by HKMk23 (Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Some of us actually use our God given brain.

Does that include Catholics?

637 posted on 09/25/2006 10:32:06 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; All
The poll results are pretty much as I reported earlier. Among registered freepers (who can only vote once), those who have expressed an opinion (not "undecided" or "pass") have voted as follows:
Yes (put creationism in science class) 948 votes
No (keep creationism out of science class) 524 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,472
Percentage voting "No" is 35.6%
638 posted on 09/25/2006 10:34:09 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
So evo goes out to wage jihad aginst all comers, shrieking "Great is the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) and great is his Holy Theory!!"

We can only hope they stop short of scientific terrorism.

Outstanding. Please beat the darwin-idolatry and terror-science drum louder.

That'll bring in the votes.

639 posted on 09/25/2006 10:34:17 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

They should make a movie of this thread and call it "Invasion of the Retards".


640 posted on 09/25/2006 10:34:31 AM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,621-1,636 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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