Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla
Or was this observations of natural populations in the wild?
Some of the instances of observed speciation occurred via experiment. Other instances were observed in nature.
This group that you are referring to does not encompass all Christians.
Not to let you believe I have gone as I am too busy to bother right now. But you obviously haven't been reading my posts or just have some reading comprehension issues if you saw me referring to all Christians. I think I was very clear which Christians I was talking about and in fact differentiated several times between the "tame ones" and the Mullah style Christians. Sorry but beat your anti-Christian bandwagon over someone else's head.
>>You misunderstand
>>If you are trying to make a point, then it is your responsibility to communicate it in a clear and concise manner, not mine to be psychic.
>>evolution is both a theory and a fact. How so?
It is a theory based on facts water can be steam, or ice, not both at once.
There are facts like Fossils, they exist, there are theory’s about the fossils, how old, how they lived, what they looked like… some things we will never know for sure unless we can literally see the past. Evolution is a theory, based on facts most religions are philosophies of men, backed up by scripture.
>>there is so much evidence for evolution and considering observed speciation, it's laughable to deny it. It's equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
First, I challenge you to show me a single instance of observed “speciation” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speciation Evolution within a species is not speciation, show us something that has evolved to the point there it is not genetically compatible with its grandmother. (Species: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species ) Dogs are a species, they can mate with one another, but you and I would be very surprised if two Pedigreed Danes gave birth to a poodle)
Second, you remind me of the quote from Helen Thomas saying: “How did Reagan get so many votes, I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Just because something seems obvious to you does not mean I will accept it without evidence, or argument. Quite the contrary, I’m afraid. (I find challenging the “norm” to be most enlightening of how and if others think)
>>In the same manner, there is the fact, law, and theory of gravitation.
I disagree, there is the Law of gravity (independently verified by apple growers world wide) and theories about strength, cause, and even refinements of the mathematical formula used to describe gravity, but that there is gravity is not doubted as it is repeatable, constant, and measurable.
Evolution is neither repeatable, constant, nor measurable by us mere mortals.
>>As for competing theories however, there isn't any evidence that really supports anything else.
“I can’t imagine a better…” has been uttered by provincial self proclaimed illuminati for generations, then someone comes along with a better idea, and they can’t imagine that there could be a better idea than the current “best” idea.
>>…They couldn't withstand the scientific scrutiny, but evolution did.
Really, when did that happen? I must have missed the proof that turned a highly speculative, and tenuous theory into a law; please post links the scientific paper(s) that prove The Theory of Evolution, along with filling in all the gaps in the Fossil record, and the explanation on how sentience cam about.
Just so you understand my position, I am not saying I have a better explanation, just that we aren’t done on this frontier yet, we don’t know, so lets have more exploration until we have the answers. Shutting off the debate and saying this is now a law will not get us more answers.
“True science is merely another form of Theology.” – Me 20 years ago.
Evols were even upset when one school system wanted to put a sticker on their science books that said "Evolution is a theory." Sounds like evols have their own agenda, e.g. don't question the party line.
>>Glasses wont help you. Your problem is what you are using to process the information.
I guess your right, I'm processing the information, not regugitating it.
Reality, what a concept.
"E" you areound somtime.
"Is the Big Bang theory open to experiments? Clue: falsification tests."
If it's not then it's not a theory, is it?
"If you look closely at most GW science, you will see corruption, selective data and doctored results. "
Yes, but that NEVER happens in any research related to evolution. I know this because many people on FR, including at least one scientist, have told me it's so.
Yeah, right. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
No, they don't. Nearly all of my friends are Christians. Absolutely none of them are like that. I was not attempting to paint all with the same brush, and I certainly hope that you did not take it that way.
I was uncertain. Some harsh comments have been made about Christians on this thread. I am a Christian, and those comments didn't describe my beliefs regarding evolution and education. I realize that sometimes Christians are not well represented by how a few behave though. Thanks for your post. I was not offended by you. In light of other comments made on this thread, I was feeling a bit defensive in regard to my faith that Christ is God's Son. I apologize if I came across as abrasive.
Which Christians are interested in moving on to communism? I'm sure you could provide some support for your statements. Naming some names and demoninations would be a good start. Then you could provide us with a written record of their own stated agenda.
Not at all. That was certainly worth clearing up, and you weren't the least bit abrasive about it.
Go for it.
Then why should we listen to the evo proponents on these threads? Many of them, by their own admission on these threads, have no degree in the biological sciences, yet continue to tell the non-evo crowd that they are wrong about evolution. Well, if Phyllis Schlafly's word on the subject had no credibility because she's not a biologist, that should logically apply to all the non-biologist evos on these threads. They are not qualified to speak on the subject any more than she is so their word on the subject has no more credibility than that which they give her.
Vile creatures, truly vile. Somebody earlier referred to them as "the Mullas of Christianity", and they weren't so far off. If that particular faction of the party ever gains the power which they so desperately lust after, they will be little different than the Taliban (no burkas, anyways - at least probably not). This same faction is the more vocal of the proponents of ID, and has even joined forces with Islam in an attempt to attain their goals. They make all of Christianity look bad.
And, no, I never for one microsecond thought that you were one of them.
A-ha! Then the only ones who are obliged to speak are the biological experts, and THEY overwhelmingly say that there is a lot more evidence for evo than ID.
For my part, all I am doing is appealing to their authority. My only original contribution is pointing out inconsistencies in the IDers arguments. Since I took a logic class in college, I like to believe that I am qualified to do that.
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.