Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Obviously they are not lies. More information is chronicled in "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. I know...he's an idiot right! Anyone who speaks out against evolution is an idiot or a moron or a liar! (spit on the floor)
Yes, let the lurkers decide. Your opinion is worthless to me.
Show me the wording in the first amendment that disallows States from educating their children the way they want, and the wording that does not allow citizens to publically acknowledge God. Please post it right now. You can't because it DOESN'T EXIST. All that exists is unconstitutionoial precedent that has nothing to do with the Constitution or the original intent of the founding fathers.
The fact that the science isn't on your side doesn't make the opposing viewpoint a "religion".
Define "science"
And if people want good science education, they will continue to let science teaching professionals do their job, which includes a thorough teaching of the theory of evolution. Personally, I think it would be great if creationism could be mentioned in the classroom. Then well-trained biology and earth science teachers could (and would) rightfully tear the flimsy "science" behind creationism to shreds on a regular basis.
Haha. The people don't need Eugenie Scott to tell them what to teach their kids in school. Evolution is taught, but it can't be questioned. That is not science. Science allows unhibited scrutiny of any theory. Evos do not allow any scrutiny of their precious theory, not even to list the WEAKNESSES of the theory (which are legion). That makes is sacred dogma by definition.
It would be interesting to hear all of the "just so" stories from the primordial goo thru the zoo to you, but it's not science. It's metaphysics.
More precisely my independently verifiable data, not my opinion. Try google.
From the mouth of "the man", himself:
LOL bttt!
Charles Dawson's (an Brit. paleontologist) Piltdown Man was accepted by the British Museum and Geological Society of London in 1912. It was rejected later. That IS indeed a case of an evolutionist "misinterpreting the evidence," and also for evolutionsits to jump on he bandwagon before the proof is in. Much later, it was learned that the evidence was faked, but it was accepted in many scientific circles at the time. The scientific world and their media lackeys were eager to see Darwin vindicated - far too eager it later proved. That is historical fact buddy. Go ahead and deny historical fact - if you can. We will let the lurkers look it up to see if I am right.
Now to the peppered moth: Yes, the moths were glued to trees, but there is one problem - peppered moths aren't found on tree trunks - they like to rest under branches of trees where camoflauge makes little difference. They are also nocturnal again making camouflage trivial. Finally, unlike the staged photos, they get eaten by bats not birds. The photos were a staged photo op (see Judith Hopoer's book, "Of moths and men" for more delightful info). There was no random mutation to speak of, no new species. And the pollution and trees had nothing to do with it. There were just diverse populations of moths,waxing and waning when one gropuo and then another enjoys a selective advantage. Scientists began to realize that the proportions of light and dark moths had fluctuated in other parts of the world wherer pollution wasn't a factor.
Well, there's two confirmed examples of evolutionists misrepresentinig evidence - and famous examples at that. So, you can huff and puff all you want - but I have more information where that came from. Save your ad hominems in your reply - if you can't use logic and reason and directlly address the arguments and facts, then don't bother answering bub.
Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. NEW Also: Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.
You're twisting words again. People can publicly acknowledge God all they want, and should be allowed to. What they can't do is endorse religion on the government's bill.
Define "science"
science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Evolutionary biology qualifies. The fact that you do not accept its consequences does not disqualify it.
Evolution is taught, but it can't be questioned.
Who says it can't be questioned? You can question it all you want, but if you don't want your argument refuted, you better have something better to say than "evolution is against the laws of thermodynamics" or "evolution can't add genetic information" or the like. Evolution survives because it is empirically supported, not because it is dogmatically supported.
Evos do not allow any scrutiny of their precious theory, not even to list the WEAKNESSES of the theory (which are legion).
Sounds like you've been reading the junk on creationist websites. Try perusing a real peer-reviewed scientific journal or other such publication, and you will see that the evidence supporting evolution is stronger now than at any point in history.
t would be interesting to hear all of the "just so" stories from the primordial goo thru the zoo to you, but it's not science. It's metaphysics.
What you just said is neither science or metaphysics, but a gross mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, and not even an original one at that. As I said before, evolution is supported by a wealth of information in genetics, biogeography, zoological morphology and paleontology, and contradicted by none of it.
If you disagree, please find citations in refereed journals or peer-reviewed literature, in its original context, that suggests otherwise. Or submit your own research for peer review. Don't expect trained science teachers to run their classroom curricula with information from websites run by crackpots and hacks - they cannot professionally be expected to do this. Evolution is the mainstream scientific theory of origins for good reason, and educated science professionals understand exactly why.
Tell that to Roy Moore. Tell that to the courthouses that cannnot display the 10 commandments. Tell that to the City of Los Angeles who were sued to remove a tiny little cross from their seal by the ACLU commies, tell that to San Diego who said Boy Scouts can't use Balboa Park because they are a "religious" organization. I got a million of em. Want more examples? I follow the communist tactics of the ACLU, Americans United and Southern Poverty Law Center. I can cite scores of examples where religious expression is under assualt in this country by these hateful groups and their black-robed lackeys in the courts.
What they can't do is endorse religion on the government's bill.
That's what tyrants in black robes say, yes. You need to show me in the Constitution where it says that people can't express religious views in school, in courthouses or any other public place they want, and where it says that the government must be secular. I'm still waiting.
Sounds like you've been reading the junk on creationist websites. Try perusing a real peer-reviewed scientific journal or other such publication, and you will see that the evidence supporting evolution is stronger now than at any point in history.
Oh you mean like Richard Sternberg - who lost his job at the Natural Museum of History over a peer-reviewed article he published by Stephen Meyer that the evos didn't like? It seems the evos have the deck stacked doesn't it?
Has a scientist observed or confirmed abiogenesis thru scientific experimentation? When was that? How about the existence of Q - when was that? It seems empirical methods are cited only when convenient.
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Scientific approaches to studying it are just beginning. If we knew the results of scientific studies and experiments beforehand thay wouldn't be studies and experiments; they'd be demonstrations.
Evolution is pretty well established and useful.
You gave fradulent examples, since scientists were the ones who uncovered the frauds.
Scientists look at all new information skeptically, even if it would appear to confirm the premise they would like to prove. That's what defines science, and why ID doesn't come close to meeting that burden.
Not to mention the fact that you've listed notions that were never taken seriously by scientists, were debunked almost instantly, yet get constantly trotted out by creationists desperate to prove that evolutionists are corrupt or mistaken or liars. That's disingenuous at best.
In trying to make the point that evolutionists manufacture evidence, you've only given us yet another example of creationists doing it instead.
You're just repeating the same tired, discredited creationists lies. I'd like to believe that you're doing it out of ignorance.
Tell that to the evos defending it on this thread.
first, the fraud was perpetrated if only for a time. So it is valid example. They LATER uncovered the frauds - much later in the case of Piltdown man - it was after Dawson's death in 1936.
I fail to see what any of these examples (all of which I would side with you on) have anything to do with the teaching of good science in public schools.
I follow the communist tactics of the ACLU, Americans United and Southern Poverty Law Center. I can cite scores of examples where religious expression is under assualt in this country by these hateful groups and their black-robed lackeys in the courts.
I'm not a fan of the ACLU either. But like I said, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
You need to show me in the Constitution where it says that people can't express religious views in school, in courthouses or any other public place they want, and where it says that the government must be secular.
I just got done saying that people can express religious views in school. Go right ahead. The USSC has endorsed the right of prayer groups to meet in public schools, for example. What the government can't do is officially endorse religion. The 1st Amendment is very clear on that.
Oh you mean like Richard Sternberg - who lost his job at the Natural Museum of History over a peer-reviewed article he published by Stephen Meyer that the evos didn't like?
The incident was a matter of procedure. Meyer's article was extremely flawed and didn't go through review by the chief editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Your statement is definitely an exaggeration of what really occurred there. And it's interesting to mention that even the taxonomy in Meyer's article supported evolution.
It seems the evos have the deck stacked doesn't it?
Yes, scientists do certainly have a bias against bad science. Are you trying to tell me all the findings of genetics, biogeography, paleontology and zoological morphology over the last 200 years should be brushed aside in favor of a "theory" that has no scientific support whatsoever? Evolutionary biologists do have the "deck stacked" in the form of centuries of empirical data that supports their theory.
Has a scientist observed or confirmed abiogenesis thru scientific experimentation?
No. What does this have to do with the evolution that occurred over the 3.5 billion years after life began?
There is no complete theory of abiogenesis. Scientists know that. It is not as incomplete as creationists would like to believe, however.
How about the existence of Q - when was that?
I'm not 100% sure I know what you're talking about here. If it's what I think you mean regarding a lost gospel, I don't see what it has to do in the slightest with what is being discussed here. Please clarify.
You said people could publically acknowledge God anytime they want, and I proved you wrong. What judges say is law not what the Constitution says. Oligarchy.
first, the fraud was perpetrated if only for a time. So it is valid example. They LATER uncovered the frauds - much later in the case of Piltdown man - it was after Dawson's death in 1936.
But the fraud was in fact exposed. By scientists. using the scientific method. That's how science works.
When will creationists stop perpetuating their frauds?
You asked for examples of misinterpretation of evidence
or fraud by evolutoinists and that is exactly what I gave
you. In addition, the claims in the peppered moth experiment had to do with industrial pollution -that was later proved false.
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.