Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To teach science, try focusing on Intelligent Design
The News Sentinal/FortWayne.com ^ | 05/26/04 | David Emmons

Posted on 05/27/2004 8:16:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: frgoff
You missed a step
1) Take the experimentally established and verified principle of micro-evolution

2) (the one you missed) determine the particular mechanism whereby #1 occurs -- random mutation of DNA coupled with the competitive selection of beneficial mutations and the elimination of negative mutations

3) Consider the effects of repeating step 1 over hundreds of millions of mutations (while assuming that no particular branch of the DNA strand is immune to the mutation process) and then use that model in conjunction with empirical evidence from the fossil record and DNA analysis to conclude that evolution is the BEST explanation for what we see in the world today.
41 posted on 05/27/2004 9:44:33 AM PDT by Huntingtonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Huntingtonian
Are we talking about ID and evolution here, or Biblical literalism? Take it easy on that strawman, man, he never did anything to you.

I was asked if there were Dino's in the Bible. I have no idea if there are or not. I simply posted a link that may or may not have answered his question.

42 posted on 05/27/2004 9:48:43 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
ID, Biblical literalism and evolution are an inseparable troika. The reason that Christian Fundamentalist are so hostile to evolution theory is that they believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that therefore every bit of it must be unadulterated truth. Anything therefore that calls into question this 'truth' must be undermined since if any of the Bible is untrue then it all must be--gasp--man made? Inspired but not dictated? Allegorical?

As a result, to support the Genesis story of creation they MUST believe in the young earth nonsense along with the idea that God created each species as we see it now.

The lack of mention of dinosaurs in the Bible is a real problem for the fundy crowd. More, shall we say, relaxed Christians who aren't litteralist can come to terms with evolution quite easily by concluding that a) the bible is allegory and genesis is just another origin myth and b) that perhaps God created the 'system of evolution' because he was smart enough to know that a static universe wouldn't work!
43 posted on 05/27/2004 9:57:41 AM PDT by Huntingtonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I was asked if there were Dino's in the Bible. I have no idea if there are or not....

I do know that donkeys talk. Specifically, "Balaam's Donkey" in Numbers 2:22-36. When I teach young people how to first ride a horse, I recite the tale of Balaam's Donkey, his mistreatment of the animal and how the animals senses saved Balaam from the Lord's wrath. The Bible is rich in good things, there is no reason to muck it up in a battle with science.

Scientists will eventually find their way to the creation of the universe with experiment and theory. Along the way, those that have a Bible on their stack of science books will find the answer first.

44 posted on 05/27/2004 10:04:00 AM PDT by elbucko (Pacifists are the cause of war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Few people yet realize that current cosmological research demonstrates a physical universe with no spatial center. All the matter and energy of the universe reside on the three-dimensional surface of the expanding four-dimensional universe. Just as all Earth's cities reside on the planet's two-dimensional surface and none can be identified as geographically central to all others, likewise none of the galaxies, stars, and planets hold the center position on the cosmic 3-D surface.

In one sense, the anthropic principle is possible because Copernicus was right. What makes humanity's location in the cosmos unique, or special, is that Earth resides away from the center of any astronomical system, such as Earth's galaxy. Humanity lives in a unique location—and moment—in cosmic space-time that allows not only for the possibility of human existence but also for the opportunity to discover that human existence represents a miracle, a special case.

Earth's particular location gives humans a special window to the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the universe itself. In virtually any other galaxy or at any other location in Earth's galaxy and at every other time in cosmic history, the view to the surrounding area would be so unstable and/or so occluded that the form, structure, size, and other characteristics of the galaxy and universe would remain obscure to any sentient observers.10 Earth's creatures enjoy a special view to the splendors of the cosmos. Nowhere else and at no other time in the universe would such glory be visible. Few people yet realize that current cosmological research demonstrates a physical universe with no spatial center. All the matter and energy of the universe reside on the three-dimensional surface of the expanding four-dimensional universe. Just as all Earth's cities reside on the planet's two-dimensional surface and none can be identified as geographically central to all others, likewise none of the galaxies, stars, and planets hold the center position on the cosmic 3-D surface.

In one sense, the anthropic principle is possible because Copernicus was right. What makes humanity's location in the cosmos unique, or special, is that Earth resides away from the center of any astronomical system, such as Earth's galaxy. Humanity lives in a unique location—and moment—in cosmic space-time that allows not only for the possibility of human existence but also for the opportunity to discover that human existence represents a miracle, a special case.

Earth's particular location gives humans a special window to the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the universe itself. In virtually any other galaxy or at any other location in Earth's galaxy and at every other time in cosmic history, the view to the surrounding area would be so unstable and/or so occluded that the form, structure, size, and other characteristics of the galaxy and universe would remain obscure to any sentient observers. Earth's creatures enjoy a special view to the splendors of the cosmos. Nowhere else and at no other time in the universe would such glory be visible.





45 posted on 05/27/2004 10:10:10 AM PDT by wolfman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huntingtonian

I see no problem with the mention of dragons in the Bible and the non mention of dinosaurs. According to my Websters, there was no such word as dinosaur until 1841. The Old Testament was written in HEBREW. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Hebrew word translated "dragon" is "tanniym". Strong defines this word as meaning a sea or land monster. To me, that sounds like that could describe a big lizard. The Greek word in the NT is dragon, but I think we err by projecting our 21st century concept of what a dragon is into the 1st century AD. I doubt they thought of a dragon as the fire breathing creature that we think of.


46 posted on 05/27/2004 10:18:49 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
The Greek word in the NT is dragon, but I think we err by projecting our 21st century concept of what a dragon is into the 1st century AD. I doubt they thought of a dragon as the fire breathing creature that we think of

Komodo Dragon


47 posted on 05/27/2004 10:24:07 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Since ALL life undergoes a steady, random mutation rate over time, the theory predicts that there shouldn't be ANY life forms still existing in the same form for 600 million years. Sharks violate a prediction made by evolutionary theory.

Oh bubba. So many falsehoods in a single statement. First off, evolutionary theory says nothing about whether life forms from 600 MYA could still exist (please brush up on the actual theory -- if you can't get the simple stuff right, how can we trust what you say on more complex matters?). Yes, random mutations are happening all the time -- but the population will still clutter about the environmental norm. As long as the environment is pretty much the same, the species inhabiting that niche will remain pretty much the same. Second, I'm not sure what critters that were around in the Cambrian (600 MYA) are still around. I think that's pretty much limited to velvet worms -- and the modern descendents bear only passing resemblances to those present back then. Sharks most definitely were not around in the Cambrian. The first trace fossils of what could be sharks date from 400 MYA (Silurian/Devonian) -- and they bear little resemblance to modern sharks. Indeed, early sharks bear only a passing resemblance to their modern descendants; you make the mistake of thinking that, if sharks were around back then, they must be the same sharks around now. That's like saying that lizards were around at the time of the dinosaurs so they must be identical to the skink I keep in a terrarium in my living room.

48 posted on 05/27/2004 10:29:12 AM PDT by Junior (Sodomy non sapiens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Intelligent design is based on information theory. Information theory states that the least bit of randomness introduced to an information system creates chaos and destroys that system. It will never lead to positive change.

So a single error in one of your textbooks will destroy your college degree?

A single error published in a science journal will destroy the entire field?

A single error in creationist theory will disprove all of their nonsense? This right here seems like an error to me. I guess that means creationism has disproved itself. Maybe the theories behind it really were useful if they could get rid of something so worthless.

49 posted on 05/27/2004 10:30:08 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

To quote Foghorn: "It was a joke, son"


50 posted on 05/27/2004 10:37:52 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You'll soon discover that some believe that America has freedom of religion, as long as that religion is a flavor of Christianity.

Go tell that to the surviving branch Davidians.

51 posted on 05/27/2004 12:34:26 PM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
"The Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs, therefore they cannot have existed. The fossil evidence to the contrary."

You are wrong on two counts.

First, there is a creature called a "Behemoth" mentioned in the Bible in Job 40 that had a tail like a cedar tree. That matches a dinosaur better than any other creature. Of course if Job was able to record that some 4000 years ago, then the evolutionist time frame is badly off.

Secondly nobody claims that the Bible is meant to be an exhaustive source of all knowledge. Thus, just because something is not in the Bible, doesn't mean it can't exist. In fact, God continually reminds us that our knowledge is extremely limited compared to His. Also, if you read the story of the tower of Babel, you will learn that God intentionally slowed man's progress by dividing him into nations and different lanquages.

52 posted on 05/27/2004 12:56:39 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"Festival of Mirth and Madness" placemarker


53 posted on 05/27/2004 1:11:02 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Macroevolution has never been proven ...

Demonstrate that "macroevolution" needs to exist. Give me an example of something that could not have arisen by known processes, in steps of sizes that can be observed in current living things.

54 posted on 05/27/2004 1:22:18 PM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Give me an example of something that could not have arisen by known processes, in steps of sizes that can be observed in current living things.

A species changing into another species may have or may have not arisen from known processes. We just do not know as species changing has never been observed nor have we proven that is even possible.
55 posted on 05/27/2004 1:33:37 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Dancing on the head of a pinhead placemarker.


56 posted on 05/27/2004 4:39:50 PM PDT by balrog666 (A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
First, there is a creature called a "Behemoth" mentioned in the Bible in Job 40 that had a tail like a cedar tree. That matches a dinosaur better than any other creature. Of course if Job was able to record that some 4000 years ago, then the evolutionist time frame is badly off.

How did Job miss the fact that dinosaur bones are not made of bronze tubing?

57 posted on 05/27/2004 4:59:19 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("Despise not the jester. Often he is the only one speaking the truth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Job didn't say that behemoth's bones were tubes of iron. He said that his bones were AS brass. That's figurative language. That it's figurative is made obvious in the next line where behemoth's bones were like bars of iron. These are two similes presented in the style of Hebrew parallelism that dominates the poetry of the Old Testament.


58 posted on 05/27/2004 5:14:45 PM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I was being facetious.


59 posted on 05/27/2004 8:19:28 PM PDT by elbucko (Pacifists are the cause of war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: frgoff

I disagree. You ideas on evolution are not quite correct. Neccessity is the mother of invention. It applies to organics as well as machines. Just because a 3-armed human seems to have advantages, does not mean it will happen. There has be a need for it, or it has to allow a significant advantage to out perform 2-armed humans. Environment and food supply are what drives the physical form and function of living things. Sharks are the way they are because they fit perfectly into their environment. And the shark's food supply is always abundant.


60 posted on 05/27/2004 10:56:05 PM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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