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]

If those things are adequate evidence for scientists, the the written testimony of people who lived with Jesus and talked to Him is adequate to use as hard evidence that He lived and died and is everything He said He was, so when He said that God created the heavens and the earth, it has all the weight of the scientific peer reviewed research papers that scientists put their faith in.

Where may these written testimonies be found? What peer review exists for these written testimonies? How can the events described in these testimonies be reproduced for independent observation by others?

[Dimensio]

Actually, my perspective is that there's tons more hard, scientific, court-room level proof of God and His priorities as outlined in The Bible

Please provide this "proof".

[Quix]

No thanks.

Some proofs are more suitable for the truly interested to dig out themselves. Cheap gold is not worth as much.

The religious PhD's of Christ's dusty pathed days often demanded proof. He was not inclined to comply.

Some gold is for family. And family membership tends to require commitment.

[js1138]

Here's some perspective on Lamarck in textbooks. This essay is a decade old, but still being referenced.

http://www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm

[Quix]

But, Josh McDowell's

NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT is a great place to start.

[freedumb2003]

So what can I put my hand on that started the Big Bang?

That tired strawman. *sigh*

OK, one more time: The BB, although interesting, is NOT a part of TToE. You do not have to understand the origins of the Universe to describe evolutionary mechanics.

Now don't go telling me that isn't science. By the way, scientific conclusion is not necessarily fact. The scientific community would like us all to think so but many of us know better.

You misconstrue what a Scientific Theory is and what Scientific Fact is. People who understand science know the definitions (and they have been posted on these threads countless times).

[muawiyah]

Good reason for any publisher to drop the Lamarck story ~ it's simply hearsay.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Unfair, actually checking what the evidence is.

[freedumb2003]

No thanks.

Some proofs are more suitable for the truly interested to dig out themselves. Cheap gold is not worth as much.

All you seem to have is assertions and tantrums. Can you not back up a single thing you say?

But I notice you are lighter on the caps lock key in the am.

[muawiyah]

Oh, yeah, another reason to drop Lamarckianism from biology books ~ both the original, and the made-up versions ~ it's "history" and not "biology", and its use for any purpose in a biology text belies the idea that "evolution is fundamental to biology".

[FreedomProtector]

The "law of abiogenesis" is either A,B, or C:

A) Perhaps it is a subtle, sarcastic statement indicating that nobody in the class learned the learned the Law of Biogenesis, and that abiogenesis surely happened.

B) Perhaps it is the result of human error from switching the sentence around a couple of times, and the fitness algorithm of the spelling checker didn't pick up a "fit" word in an "unfit" sentence. If this was the case to borrow from jock vernacular: my bad.

C) Or perhaps, since anybody who believes in intelligent design is by definition stupid and is "full of crap", and that this is proof once and for all that everything someone who believes in intelligent design writes is must be by definition invalid.


Anyways, thanks for the ping, js1138.

[Quix]

Can you not back up a single thing you say?

But I notice you are lighter on the caps lock key in the am.
= = = =

Do you have the statistics to back that last sentence up?

BTW, I guess your blinders blocked out the reference to LINDA MOULTON HOWE--the best source on a couple of the topics lightly brushed?

[Dimensio]

No thanks.

Then why should I believe that your claim is credible?

[freedumb2003]

BTW, I guess your blinders blocked out the reference to LINDA MOULTON HOWE--the best source on a couple of the topics lightly brushed?

Crop Circles or Alien Abductions?

[Quix]

I'm not the One who is into compelling belief.

Actually . . . I think belief is fairly strictly best/only entered into by invitation. The invitation is broadly extended.

Some dig truth out. Some ignore it. Some deny it. Some defend against it vigorously and elaborately.

The Truth remains, regardless.

Particularly in terms of YOUR faith based beliefs . . . goodness . . . trying to assail those sounds like an exercise in futility.

As I approach 60 in a few months, I'm increasingly trying to avoid seemingly useless exercises in futility and to engage in more fun activities.

You seem to enjoy what you do . . . at least there's a certain energetic fierceness about it. By all means, carry on! Much better to be cold or hot than luke warm.

[Quix]

She's a very experienced, ruthlessly scrupulous about facts and verifying the facts via multiple sources . . . sort of investigative journalist.

At this point, she's one of the world's best experts on both those topics.

Her website is a subscription website but some of her docs are available without it:

http://www.earthfiles.com

And her book

MYSTERIOUS LIGHTS AND CROP CIRCLES includes lots of the peer reviewed scientific journal data.

I realize most hereon are only interested in peer reviewed scientific journals that support their notions . . . but for those who are truly interested in the Truth . . . that book is a good source.

Biophysicist W. C. Levengood is one source worth checking out.

His research has been published in scholarly papers published by the international plant physiology journal:

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM

and the American

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION.

One paper in the latter was titled:

"Semi-Molten Meteoric Iron Associated with A Crop Formation 1995 Vol 9, No.2 pp191-199.

I post these for other folks.

I realize some only demand sources etc. to be cheeky and have no real interest in the facts.

[freedumb2003]

I was joking -- I didn't think you were really talking about UFOlogy.

I have no interest in UFOs and the like. They certainly have to bearing on science (as framed in this discussion) or TToE.

[freedumb2003]

You seem to be in a better mood this am (I don't have stats on that, though).

Good to see it.

I apologize for getting a bit caustic before. I sometimes let myself get dragged down the sarcasm level of others (I think I have apologized more on these threads than anyone else -- I get moody, too).

Time to go to work! Have a great day.

[metmom]

To keep it simple, we'll just deal with the life of Jesus for now.

Where may these written testimonies be found?

Um, in the Bible. To be specific, the New Testament; all of it.

Here are some links to the text in the original language:
http://biblestudytools.net/InterlinearBible/
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/gnt/
http://www.ntgateway.com/greek/

What peer review exists for these written testimonies?

Within the books of the NT, the writers often refer to what other writers have written. IF that were false, they would have stated so.
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

I John 1:1-3 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life -- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us -- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

How can the events described in these testimonies be reproduced for independent observation by others?

Simple, anybody can do it (run the experiment , if you will); it's just a matter of repenting and trusting Christ for salvation. When that happens, a person is spiritually reborn. It happens every time. There are millions of people whose lives are changed as a result of this. They consistently give the same account. It can be observed internally by the person doing it and externally by seeing the change in the lives of the people who have done it. It's been well documented over thousands of years and there are people on this forum right now who can give testmony to that very thing happening in not only their lives but hte lives of their family and friends.

[Dimensio]

Um, in the Bible. To be specific, the New Testament; all of it.

What evidence do you have that the books of the New Testament detailing the life and works of Christ were written directly by the witnesses?

Within the books of the NT, the writers often refer to what other writers have written. IF that were false, they would have stated so.

This does not demonstrate the validity of the claims. That the alleged testimonies refer to other written works does not demonstrate the validity of their claims regarding Christ.

Simple, anybody can do it (run the experiment , if you will); it's just a matter of repenting and trusting Christ for salvation.

Please provide the steps or a procedure for running this experiment. Please explain how this experiment does not require circular reasoning in preassuming your conclusion (ie, that Christ exists and is as you claim).