Here's a nice reconstruction combining various incomplete Neanderthal fossils:
Fragments of two Neanderthals:
Posted on 08/04/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by Crackingham
A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."
Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.
SNIP
"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.
"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."
Nope. Science simply describes the world and the machines. The Bible addresses the content and output of the world's machines. There is no conflict, or compitition whatsoever.
Proof link please or is this just another theory, Thanks And please don't send me a link to a fossil fingernail.
You know what, your right. How about they just stop making me pay for it.
And apparently by the liberal media who began this discussion. Listen, I am not sure what your public school biology teacher related to you about evolution, but mine dealt mainly with man's ascendancy from apes. I am sure that there are aspects of TOE that are not nearly as controversial, but the fact remains this debate is not about those aspects and TOE, as it is taught in public schools, does present ape to man as settled science. I say since this is unproven, give all sides an hearing and let the debate begin.
Wrong. ID says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world. That is not science, that is religion.
Proof:
ID uses the laws of physics to make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says that the laws of physics can't explain the observaitons.
There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:
Something's missing, there's 2 possibilities:
1) The model is missing some -knowledge and understanding(of physics)
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an intelligent force
Take your choice:
The laws of physics are not sufficient and you inject an IDer, else they are.
So because they don't teach, say, the ancient Greek view of mechanics alongside F=ma, physicists don't really believe Newton's laws of motion?
They would have no problem discussing "flat earth" theory, for instance, because they can make an ironclad case that the earth is a sphere while at the same time show those who believe otherwise are crackpots.
Yeah, that's how we teach science - by bringing up ridiculous theories and then demonstrating they're ridiculous. What a productive use of teaching time!
So you want to essentially emulate what the evolution-enthusiasts are doing: insisting that junk science theory being taught in public schools is some kind of "right".
No wonder so many conservatives support homeschooling.
Right, because if there were people would be in disagreement over whether we got her by God or by evolution, but since no one disagrees with that we never have any such disagreements. Everyone agrees, and there's no need to even explain, in a science class, that there was ever any conflict about any scientific discovery--it was all just accepted and everyone just grinned and it was so happy! Yep, that's the history of science, it just rose up in a vacuum.
On your planet, at least.
Well, I didn't go to public school, so I can't comment.
I am sure that there are aspects of TOE that are not nearly as controversial, but the fact remains this debate is not about those aspects and TOE, as it is taught in public schools, does present ape to man as settled science.,
All of the evidence supports the evolution of humans and the other existing apes from a common ancestor. This is only controversial because some people are uncomfortable with the fact that humans are smart, tool-using, relatively hairless apes.
Come up with an alternative theory, and we'll discuss it.
Actually, it was an elderly Neanderthal with a bone disease. Since then, there have been plenty of fossils of healthy Neanderthals.
It was in school, geography class probably, that I learned that there used to be a theory that the earth was flat. It was in school, science class probably while learning about the elements that the teacher felt the need to tell us about the theory one of those Greeks had, maybe it was Aristotle, about everything being made of fire,water,etc.
Were my teachers just wasting time?
smokeman: I just love blanket statements with no references. [sarcasm off] Examples please..., Thanks
Leviticus 11:
[6] And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
(The hare does not "cheweth the cud". It eateth the poop).
[21] Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
[22] Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
(locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles have 6 "legs above their feet", not four).
And those are just two scientific errors in the bible. There are more. Many more.
I noticed you ignored my entire post and just respond ed with this. In order for this claim to be true, you must show that science proves the God of the Bible does not exist.
Intelligent Design is not elegant, it is not compelling, and most importantly, it is not a theory.
Here's a nice reconstruction combining various incomplete Neanderthal fossils:
Fragments of two Neanderthals:
Now we're getting somewhere. It's astonishing to me that "scientists" ask religionists not to speak to issues of science which they, supposedly, know nothing about, but then these same scientists don't hesitate to speak to issues of religion, like telling us that evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity. Thanks for your uneducated opinion, but no thanks.
Second, your assertions about what the scientific evidence purportedly demonstrates fails to mention that all of these interpretations and conclusions started with the assumption of evolution. I'm sorry, but proving what you have assumed to be true a priori doesn't count as science. Doh!!! This massive hole in Darwinian Dogma has been written about extensively.
Third, as long as the Darwinistas are on an honesty binge and willing to admit that Darwinism is in absolute conflict with the teachings of the Bible, will you go all the way and admit that if Darwinisim is true then there is absolutely no credible way to construct or believe in any system of morality, ethics, meaning, law, or civilization?
I'm continually amazed how the Darwinist Religious Fanatics are oh so quick to advance their faith commitments in so far as they get rid of the idea of God, but then try to clinng to all the moral order and notions of meaning which derive inherently from theism. If the Belief System which you want to brainwash the kiddies with is correct, then the entire moral system which stops those kiddies or anyone else from raping, torturing, killing, and/or eating you for their afternoon snack is gone too. Are you willing to teach them that?
(Will Provice of Cornell is one of the very few Darwinist kooks who is willing to go down this round, but even then he didn't have the guts to go all the way)
And finally, as explained in a previous thread, historically Darwinism was accepted as Dogma amongst the "elite" long before any meaingful body of supposed evidence existed, even meeting The Prophet's own requirements. Because it's a case of believing what you want to believe, not what the evidence supports.
Darwinism appeals to intellectuals for the same reason that running away from home appeals to children.
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.