Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[mlc9852]

I agree and that's what the evolutionists keep trying to do.

[spunkets]

"that's what the evolutionists keep trying to do."

No it is not. Their observations and conclusions are simply honest science describing the truth of what can be seen by all.

[mlc9852]

Not "all" agree. Sorry.

[js1138]

For probability calculations, in fact, the chances of getting a final long (unaided) sequence correct...

What do you mean by "correct"? Are you asserting that if evolution were rerun, it would have to arrive at the current state to be considered correct? How do you determine or define correctness?

[Southack]

"How do you determine or define correctness?"

If the DNA sequence can form viable life, then it is correct for the purposes of the math under discussion. The optimistic range of correct values is discussed, of course, on the link that I provided.

[js1138]

Do you also claim that each new organism is a new Species?

No. Do you claim it is never a new species?

I haven't seen you respond to the bacterial culture starting with a single individual. How does a single individual have the built in variation?

[Southack]

"Their observations and conclusions are simply honest science describing the truth of what can be seen by all."

Was the Kenniwick Man simply honest science describing the truth of what can be seen by all, in your opinion?

[Southack]

"I haven't seen you respond to the bacterial culture starting with a single individual. How does a single individual have the built in variation?"

That's a Boolean option. Either it has the resistant trait or it doesn't.

[spunkets]

I can find examples of fraud from any group, or field. Those may, or may not be sports. What matters is the overall character, not the sports.

[Southack]

"Their observations and conclusions are simply honest science describing the truth of what can be seen by all."

[Southack]

"I can find examples of fraud from any group, or field."

So perhaps there is more to it than blithely claiming that Evolutionists are stating nothing besides simple, honest science.

[spunkets]

If you would have noted and underlined the word "there" in the beginning of my sentence you would have been honest and the point would be valid. Since you did not, the point is groundless.

[WildTurkey]

Wow. Just answer the following YES/NO.

Have additions been made to the Bible?

Have sections (books) been deleted from the Bible?

Does the KJV contain passages that are NOT in previous versions?

Please do not rant. Answer Yes/No.

[WildTurkey]

Oh. I see that you are interpreting the Bible to fit the facts irregardless of the fact that God says there are four corners and he shook it by grabbing its edges.

And I see that you have "interpreted" my post and God's word by substituting "points" inplace of the actual word "corners" and ignoring the key word "edges".

[spunkets]

"So perhaps there is more to it than blithely claiming that Evolutionists are stating nothing besides simple, honest science."

I make no blithe claim. My statement is a judgement made after considerable consideration. In #572 I posted what God says about the matter.

[WildTurkey]

By your logic, I could say you should not use math in the physics class because this is a science class not a math class.

That is about the DUMBEST statement I have ever seen. Math is used to model physical principles. There is NO physics without math. On the other hand, it is not required to know what originated the processes to understand how the work.

[Alacarte]

"How does that constitute a scientific theory, much less an inarguable fact?"

I'll let the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious science institution in the US answer that:

---

How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?

This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. Geologists can describe past changes in sea level by studying the marks ocean waves left on rocks. Paleontologists study the fossilized remains of organisms that lived long ago.

Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directly—such as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.

---

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

Arguing that evolution is not science puts you in a very silly position. Since you are basically saying that the scientific community doesn't know what they are doing, and they don't know what constitutes science. Well... until the church starts curing disease and developing new fuels with faith, I'm going to believe what the scientists say...

[WildTurkey]

Oh well, end of discussion. Everyone knows the gubmint schools haven't changed any in 50-60 years. (/sarcasm)

I bet you can't cite any instances where it is NOT taught as theory.

[WildTurkey]

I thought the tsunami was the result of shifting tectonic plates, but if you have other info, I'd be interested to know.

And you don't believe that God designed the plates to shift and cause tsunmis?

[Alacarte]

"I think any probability estimate must take into account the reasonable assumption that there are an infinite number of universes, and that somewhere, even the most improbable event has happened. "

haha! That's a good point, if he wants to take that much liberty with his logic, I guess we shouldn't pull any punches either!