Skip to comments.
Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls
Discovery Institute ^
| 5/3/04
| Staff: Discovery Institute
Posted on 05/05/2004 11:10:33 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-352 next last
To: K1avg
See any resemblance? Not the slightest. One is a picture of Charles Darwin the other is a little x
Do you and "Dr" Kent Hovind, think Darwin was wrong.
Permit me to be underwhelmed.
101
posted on
05/05/2004 5:06:51 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
("Despise not the jester. Often he is the only one speaking the truth")
To: Dark Knight
Are you saying that to you, overwhelming evidence is just a few scores of papers?Sure, if they're repeatable. How many papers do you think have been published, say, on some of the more exotic fundamental particles?
far bwetter, though, I've done the experiments myself. As undergraduates, we took cultures of bacteria, exposed them to mutagens, and plated them out in the presence of penicillin, and presto! We isolated cultures of penicillin-resistant bacteria.
So what am I going to believe, my own lying eyes, or some guy on the net whose sole biological knowledge is obtained from creationist websites?
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
Fine. Just keep your religion out of my science class, and we can live and let die.
To: PatrickHenry
The average student will never be a surveyor, so why study geometry? The average student will never be an historian, so why teach history? I could go on with this list, but you get the picture.
When it comes to macro-evolution, its more like astrology than geometry. So why teach astrology?
To: Oztrich Boy
If you'd continue reading, you'd notice that the desired picture is one of Karl Marx. Both men were quite brilliant, and quite confused. We've seen the damage Marx's teachings can bring, and Darwinism is just one of many liberal ideas presently tearing at this country's Judeo-Christian heritage.
BTW, I linked to that site because it offers more hard evidence disproving evo than I could ever hope to consolidate in one post.
You are permitted to be underwhelmed per your request, but do not henceforth condemn the majority opinion without factual evidence.
Have a lovely evening.
105
posted on
05/05/2004 5:13:36 PM PDT
by
K1avg
(What would Savage do?)
To: Right Wing Professor
I've heard of the penicillin experiment, and IIRC there was a minor rearrangment of DNA that resulted in the resistance, not a fundamentally different form of life. Just like the bug with an extra set of wings, a minor rearrangement, not a fundamentally different creature.
So, as evidence, you RWP, intelligently designed a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin, using information other intelligent designers gave you.
You'll have to excuse my rudeness earlier, I did not realize I was talking to a bacterium god.
DK
To: microgood
When it comes to macro-evolution, its more like astrology than geometry. Okay. You're one of those who grudgingly (I assume) admit the existence of what you call micro-evolution (which is, after all, nothing less than evolution), but you draw a magic line -- somewhere, somehow -- when it progresses to what you call macro evolution. Fine. As long as you're happy.
107
posted on
05/05/2004 5:24:21 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist!)
To: PatrickHenry
Okay. You're one of those who grudgingly (I assume) admit the existence of what you call micro-evolution (which is, after all, nothing less than evolution), but you draw a magic line -- somewhere, somehow -- when it progresses to what you call macro evolution. Fine. As long as you're happy.
I do not grudgingly agree with microevolution, since it is observable. Macroevolution is not observable. To me it is the nature of the evidence, not just believing what I want to believe. I know physics works because I can watch the space shuttle take off.
Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.
To: Right Wing Professor
Okay.
109
posted on
05/05/2004 5:37:43 PM PDT
by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: Right Wing Professor
It was a joke. I apologize if you took it personally, but I don't even know you or any member of your family.
110
posted on
05/05/2004 5:40:54 PM PDT
by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: microgood
111
posted on
05/05/2004 5:42:21 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist!)
To: orionblamblam; PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor
As Trollia Creationatis evolved, it found a digital niche in which it baits the logical and sensible, and derives sustenance from the pixels hurled its way.
To: orionblamblam
"Uh-huh. Like the "theory or relativity?" I look forward to your after-action reports from when you try to argue with a nuclear bomb that it can't be a fact."
The theory of evolution, unlike the theory of relativity, has NEVER been proved to be factual.
113
posted on
05/05/2004 6:17:03 PM PDT
by
ChevyZ28
(Most of us would rather be ruined by praise, than saved by criticism.)
To: ChevyZ28
You do not appear to understand what is meant by scientific theory. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
To: orionblamblam
No scientist makes such claims. Oh, please. You don't know many scientists, do you?
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
Fine. I didn't understand it anyway.
To: ChevyZ28
That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.
I made a change in a bacteria, therefore all flora and fauna respond similarly.
I found a single example of speciation, therefore it is true for all species.
Without a rigorously defined mechanism, it pablum. Hardly a satisfying or robust theory.
I had to stop reading the 29 evidences for macroevolution because you could change a few words and say it was evidence for Intelligent Design. Just like the philosophical arguments for the existence or nonexistence of God. Semantic drivel that does not advance science or man one whit. If you cannot use NS as a predictive or quantitative model, it has limited usefulness as a theory.
RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS? Of course the more trivial the prediction, the more trivial the theory.
DK
To: Dark Knight
Your gratuitous assertions, reliance on obvious logical fallacies, and willful ignorance and perversion of even the terms and language of scientific theory indicate that you are incapable of any serious, truthful discussion.
To: PatrickHenry
I respectfully submit that you've been misinformed
I actually read some of it. They author admits common descent is a hypothesis like abiogenesis. The problem I have with his logic is that it states basically that all life is similar in design so it came from one species.
But it is still possible that we all had basically the same design but were created at the same time. And the only way they can prove the point is from a lot of historically dug up stuff, a totally different place from where the evidence of microevolution comes from, transitional species, seawater hogs, timelines, etc.
It becomes essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy which begs the original question.
To: Right Wing Professor
Fine. Just keep your religion out of my science class, and we can live and let die. Only a few fringe elements want to put religion in the science class, and I'm not one of them. The poll was whether evidence contradicting evolutionary theory ought to be presented in science classes. Real scientists shouldn't have a problem informing students about some of the problems with current evolutionary thinking.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-352 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