Skip to comments.
Okay, We Give Up [Scientific American "Caves" on Evolution]
Scientific American ^
| 01 April 2005 (ponder that)
| Editorial staff
Posted on 04/05/2005 8:56:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-218 next last
To: mikeus_maximus
Or maybe you could just post the pics of the Cambrian transitional forms. Xenudidit.
61
posted on
04/05/2005 10:45:18 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Sarcasm tags are for wusses.)
To: rustbucket
..Lysenko American..Ouch!..thats gonna leave a mark. ..Stalin fav. Geneticist.. :^)
62
posted on
04/05/2005 10:47:18 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
To: inquest
Saying that Darwin was wrong was an "attack on their readers"? Is suppose for some readers who take their theories just a little too personally... Exactly. There is another agenda at work here, and it is not so much scientific as it is political or even religious. Richard Dawkins gave the game away when he said that evolution makes atheism intellectually respectable. Dawkins and his ilk see science -- and evolutionary science in particular -- as a weapon to use against religion. In so doing, they commit the logical fallacy of begging the question (or circular reasoning).
To: PatrickHenry
Frankly, I can't see how a scientist cannot believe in God.
64
posted on
04/05/2005 10:56:18 AM PDT
by
stevio
(Let Freedom Ring!)
To: mikeus_maximus
You might want to look at the research of Peter and Rosemary Grant, studying evolution among finches in the Galapagos islands. They've been doing it for decades, and _have_ documented ongoing change in the birds there.
And as to Cambrian transitional forms: why don't _you_ show us when, where, and how creation by divine fiat occurred? Not just Bible quoting, mind. Actual physical proof.
To: PatrickHenry
They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. Hope they don't cut out the missile defense and global warming articles. WE MUST BE WARNED!!
66
posted on
04/05/2005 11:03:47 AM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: Trimegistus
Don't play word games. Intraspecies variation and adaptation (finches beaks) is not disputed even in religious circles.
It's the baseless and unobserved extrapolatian to speciation that's debated.
To: dead
Instead of responding with this insulting misdirection, they should answer the question many of their readers want to know - Do they intend to be a science publication or a political publication? Actually, in their snitty way, I guess they did answer it. Yep they have made it crystal clear that any dissent from the politically correct conventional wisdom will be met with ridicule and not serious scientific argument. It is sad because if people are not allowed to dissent to the latest theories, it is no victory for true science. Global Warming is a prime example. A substantial part of the theory is based on computer models that have more assumptions than facts, but SA will tar and feather anyone who dares questions any aspect of it.
To: Spiff
More funny when an exalted theory crumbles under new evidence and they are left with nothing. Are you projecting the future fall of evolution as a theory, or suggesting that the "new evidence" already exists?
69
posted on
04/05/2005 11:17:06 AM PDT
by
atlaw
To: PatrickHenry
The scary thing is, we're likely to see DI or AIG latch onto this as if it were the real thing. Remember how all those Christian sites went nuts over the Onion piece on Harry Potter?
70
posted on
04/05/2005 11:20:37 AM PDT
by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: atlaw
Are you projecting the future fall of evolution as a theory, or suggesting that the "new evidence" already exists? All scientific theories in general eventually fall to new evidence, the theory is discarded, and a new theory is developed despite the fervor of the original theory's adherants.
71
posted on
04/05/2005 11:22:40 AM PDT
by
Spiff
(Don't believe everything you think.)
To: Long Cut
One last laugh before you go ...
72
posted on
04/05/2005 11:34:11 AM PDT
by
balrog666
(A myth by any other name is still inane.)
To: PatrickHenry
If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. This is the part that's idiotic and why I don't subscribe to this left-wing rag any more.
To: Lazamataz
I am a Turtlist. So Happy, Togetherrrrrr..
74
posted on
04/05/2005 11:56:32 AM PDT
by
Drammach
(Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
To: MEGoody
Strange, I thought science was supposed to be completely objective.I can't recall a time when it was.
The real question is: compared to what?
75
posted on
04/05/2005 12:01:01 PM PDT
by
js1138
(There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
To: js1138
The real question is: compared to what? Hey! Don't start getting profound.
76
posted on
04/05/2005 12:02:38 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
To: mikeus_maximus
Don't play word games. Intraspecies variation and adaptation (finches beaks) is not disputed even in religious circles. It's the baseless and unobserved extrapolatian to speciation that's debated. Horse hockey..
It's all about the monkeys.. our ancestors..
You are all aghast and mortified at being descended from apes..
Ooock.. Ooock.. That's Gran'paw saying, "hello, sonny"..
77
posted on
04/05/2005 12:03:07 PM PDT
by
Drammach
(Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
To: PatrickHenry
...slinks off, looking for flat rock...
78
posted on
04/05/2005 12:05:18 PM PDT
by
js1138
(There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
To: inquest
Saying that Darwin was wrong was an "attack on their readers"? Is suppose for some readers who take their theories just a little too personally... Nope, you probably misunderstood their title as I did--which is what they wanted to happen. The cover says "Was Darwin Wrong?" Then you open to the article and it says "NO" and then proceeds for many pages in a fairly condescending and mocking tone to shred anyone who might just happen to believe that something besides random chance was involved in our creation. I think you can go to their site and read it for yourself and form your own opinion.
To: dead
I am a person who believes in evolution and I subscribe to Scientific American, but still I found this editorial smarmy, condescending and arrogant.As a believer in a Creator (but not "creationism,") bravo for your intellectual honesty.
80
posted on
04/05/2005 12:09:46 PM PDT
by
L.N. Smithee
(Honestly - would anybody be surprised if it was revealed George Felos is a necrophiliac?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 201-218 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