Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[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.

[Dimensio]

Look at who is touting your theories.

That does not answer my request.

Look at your "evidence" . It's down right shameful that you label it "evidence".

Why? What, specifically, do you believe is "shameful" about it?

Then again faulty dating methods and looking for that "transitional" ape will surely keep circular reasoning alive and well.

To which of the many dating methods do you refer, and how are those methods "faulty"? To which of the many transitional ape species do you refer? What do you mean, specifically, by "circular reasoning".

Funny how YOU conveniently ignored that little FACT.

Actually, I specifically asked what you meant by "both sides". You have apparently neglected to notice or ignored my request for clarification.

[editor-surveyor]

"Tell us again who does and doesn't belong on this website."

Go to This Page to see how you fit in.

You will notice a complete absence of the promotion of leftist philosophy as science.

[Liberal Classic]

Please continue to equate modern biology with "leftist philosophy." It's a guaranteed vote-getter.

[Dimensio]

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".

The problem with their claims is that much of the data that they present is false, or their attempt to fit it to a "Biblical" framework involves a great deal of unjustified, unsupported assumptions. As an example, note the "water canopy" hypothesis often used to support claims of a Biblical flood. No evidence exists for such a "canopy", and many of the claims have been shown to be physically impossible.

There is also the problem that specifically trying to fit collected data to satisfy a predetermined conclusion is inherently unscientific.

[andysandmikesmom]

"Tell us again who does and doesn't belong on this website.".....placemarker

[Coyoteman]

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.

OK, lets look at some evidence. This is a transitional (can't call it a missing link 'cuz its not missing). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[nmh]

Jaguarbhzrd:

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

Seeing the above as a reply from you that I directed to someone else on this thread tells me you've got to be an evolutionist.

The replies:

Reply #1

Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Posted by nmh to PatrickHenry
On Smoky Backroom 09/25/2006 10:19:00 AM PDT · 629 of 636

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.

Reply #2

Posted by nmh to Dimensio
On Smoky Backroom 09/25/2006 10:25:35 AM PDT · 635 of 636

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.

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies


Yes, Jaguarbhzrd this reply of your:

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

Really contributes a lot! It's so typical of those peddling the evolutionary and orgins hypothesis. It's no wonder your hypothesis's are losing ground with THINKING people that DO have a science background and others that simply have common sense.

Run along now. I'm sure you'll find another kindred soul that will be as touchy as you when others dare to laugh at your baseless religion - because your hypothesis certainly aren't based on facts or evidence.

Got better things to do with my time. I don't feel the need to argue with a rock today.

Toodles!

[Virginia-American]

? Is someone ignorant if they don't agree with evolution?

It's certainly a possibly. Here's Richard Dawkins' famous quip in context

So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Source

Of course, an individual may combine some of these characteristics.

[editor-surveyor]

"Curious. Do you have references that support your assertion that Vitamin C is something other than the molecule "ascorbic acid"?

If you are really interested in learning the facts regarding the use of vitamin C in nutrition, rather than use as a food preservative, Google the name "Dr. Szent-Gyorgi" and read the information that the various nutritional supplement vendors present (I am not trying to sell you any vitamins)

Gyorgi was the researcher that studied the effect of acidic fruits on diseases such as scurvy, and won a Nobel prize.

[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, in fact 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.

LOL. you really are mentally impaired. Go back and read the thread, and quit making yourself look retarded. You've messed your pants on this one, and I'm not changing your diapers.

Go back and read the thread.

[editor-surveyor]

Biology has nothing to do with the plilosophy known as evolution.

[editor-surveyor]

I read the thread when it was first posted. You obviously did not.

[js1138]

You mean like this?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-28,GGLR:en&q=Dr%2E+Szent%2DGyorgi

LOL. Look at the list of websites it brings up. Are you sure you aren't from DU?

[js1138]

You asked us to google your doctor, so here's what I found, after bypassing the quack sites.

Finding Aid to the Charles Glen King Papers, 1918-1988

Charles Glenn King (1896-1988) was born in Entiat, WA., and was a pioneer in the field of nutrition research. He entered Washington State University early, as his local one-room school did not have a twelfth grade. World War I interrupted his college studies, where he served in the 12th Infantry, a machine gun company. He did not receive his B.S. in chemistry until 1918. He immediately departed for the University of Pittsburgh, earning his M.S. in 1920 and Ph.D. in 1923. From the outset of his graduate studies, the nascent field of vitamins interested him. He remained in Pittsburgh as professor until 1942, when he left to become the first scientific director of the Nutrition Foundation, Inc., which worked to promote scientific and public health research, both in the U.S. and internationally.

King's contribution to the science of nutrition revolves around his isolation of vitamin C in 1931-1932 by studying the antiscorbic activities of guinea pigs with preparations from lemon juice. Albert Szent-Gyorgi was conducting similar research at Cambridge University, focusing on hexuronic acid. The chemical identity of King's active substance was almost identical to Szent-Gyorgi's hexuronic acid, but the research of S.S. Silva had declared the hexuronic acid was not vitamin C. However, within two weeks of each other in the spring of 1932, King first, and then Szent-Gyorgi, published articles declaring that vitamin C and hexuronic acid were indeed the same compound. Szent-Gyorgi would later win a Nobel Prize for his part in the discovery, and controversy remains over whether both men deserve equal credit. King later established the important functional role of vitamin B, and throughout his 40 year research career made many significant contributions in the areas of fats, enzymes and vitamins. King would author over 200 articles on good nutritional practices and the positive effects of vitamins. He helped establish

Apart from his work with the Nutrition Foundation, King's public service activities involved creation of the USDA's Plant, Soil, and Nutrition Laboratory in Ithaca, NY. He helped establish the Food and Nutrition Board, dealing with food and nutrition problems in military and civilian populations, beginning in World War II and continuing through 1970. He also helped create the Food Protection Committee, the Recommended Dietary Allowances, the Protein Advisory Group, and the International Union of Nutritional Sciences. He also served on the advisory council to the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases. King officially retired form the Nutrition Foundation in 1963, only to begin a second career as Associate Director of the Institute of Nutrition Sciences and a consultant to the Rockefeller Foundation.

[spunkets]

The information given in that link regarding vitamin C is correct. Ascorbic acid has always been vitamin C and a deficiency of it results in scurvy. Administering ascorbic acid to scurvy patients results in recovery. The biochemisry ascorbic acid is involved in is known and given in your link.

Their is no mistaking ascorbic acid for polyphenols. There are no polyphenols that were, or are presently called vitamin C.

[jerri]

the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.

Dawkins is wrong on this point. Evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Based on the fact that evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt this whole statement is "ignorant, stupid or insane" and shows how biased he is on the issue.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Got better things to do with my time. I don't feel the need to argue with a rock today.

Wow, that's exactly what I was thinking when I decided that it wouldn't be prudent.

[js1138]

I read the thread when it was first posted. You obviously did not.

You should read it again, this time for comprehension. You obviously interpret everything backwards, as you have with vitamin C.

[spunkets]

" read the information that the various nutritional supplement vendors present"

I don't get my info from health food hawkers. I get it from the scientific literature.

[PatrickHenry]

You should read it again, this time for comprehension.

But the first time ... were you there?