Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2smart2fall4it; atheistagenda; creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 2,061-2,064 next last
To: LanPB01

The whole argument was just a stack of “guilt by association” ploys to start with. Bad data, bad logic, bad conclusions.


921 posted on 09/17/2008 10:40:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01

I didn’t say anything about what regimes they came from. I said Pape was able to determine that the vast majority of the Hezbollah suicide bombers were affiliated with secular leftist political groups such as the “Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union.” And while Pape did everyone a great service by gathering this data, his interpretation of the same leaves much to be desired. Making sense of that data is better left to competent conservatives IMHO.


922 posted on 09/17/2008 10:48:44 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
Theory is a postulation that has been verified to some degree. It does not rise to a Law because there are elements yet to be explained (like the evolution of the eye).

You are unclear on the relationship between a theory and a law. Perhaps this will help:

Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory.


923 posted on 09/17/2008 10:48:58 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

You said, “liberal mayor in Montgomery county Maryland who DIS-invited santa to come and light the town Christmas tree because he might somehow offend the handful of non-American children there.” The clear implication was that anyone who wouldn’t want Santa lighting the Christmas tree was non-American. I know some Jewish people who do not celebrate Christmas and are uncomfortable with having Santa shoved in their faces for a month each winter, so the obvious conclusion was that you would call them non-American.


From the information I’ve read the dispute was because of TWO foreign families. And I’d also be willing to bet just like Michael Newdow hijacking his daughter...they probably had no problem with santa in the first place.

Of course your agenda requires you drag Jewish Americans into the discussion. Jumping to conclusions.

Again, I saw right through it.

(Frankly, I’m uncomfortable with having Santa shoved in my face for a month every winter, too. I would not miss him at a tree-lighting ceremony—I wish we didn’t have to inject the present-bringer into every other Christmas ritual.)


LOL....shoved in your face? Ummmm normal American children aren’t concerned with your “discomfort”!

Geee get over yourself already!


924 posted on 09/17/2008 10:58:03 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

But I do not believe that the “intelligence” is dead, AWOL, in suspended animation, or has returned to the Mother Ship! Rather, my faith (note: small “f”) compels me to choose that the design was conceived and implimented by the eternal, living God.


925 posted on 09/17/2008 11:01:41 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

OK, I’ll capitulate, since you actually seem to be seeking some answers instead of sniping.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

Now, to explain “why I think it’s authoritative” - the BIBLE is Authoritative, it is the axiom. I start with that assumption.

I do NOT start with the assumption that man’s logic is infallible,\; that if the Bible “contradicts” man’s reason, the Bible must be wrong. The logical conclusion of this starting point - the explanation that shows the authoritativeness of the bible is the correct one.


926 posted on 09/17/2008 11:03:04 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The New Zealanders will eat up what this cosmically haughty, galactically narcissistic “astrobiologist” has to offer. That country has become so secular, I do believe that the name of Christchurch will be changed to Devilden.


927 posted on 09/17/2008 11:13:13 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The New Zealanders will eat up what this cosmically haughty, galactically narcissistic “astrobiologist” has to offer. That country has become so secular, I do believe that the name of Christchurch will be changed to Devilden.


928 posted on 09/17/2008 11:13:31 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Now, to explain “why I think it’s authoritative” - the BIBLE is Authoritative, it is the axiom. I start with that assumption.

Which bible? We have already established by your research that the English versions are inadequate.

929 posted on 09/17/2008 11:14:17 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

But I am God’s servant, not His slave. Big difference!


930 posted on 09/17/2008 11:19:59 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
But I am God’s servant, not His slave. Big difference!

Servant, slave, it matters not which you prefer to call yourself. I am still your Master.

931 posted on 09/17/2008 11:21:18 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Yeah, if we want to know what the bible says, we HAVE to learn the original languages.

Heck, why don’t we just OUTLAW printing them in English? They outlaw Chinese language bibles in China! Sounds like a great idea.

That’s what your ideal would be, wouldn’t it?

Seriously, let’s just boil it down to your goals - NO BIBLES, NO RELIGION, NO MENTION OF GOD, NO MENTION OF ABSOLUTE MORALITY -

because it bothers your conscience.


932 posted on 09/17/2008 11:26:45 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: Dionysius
Law as in the “Law of Gravity”.

Without getting all "pointy-headed" on you, the term "Law of Gravity" is in error. In fact, Newton's gravitational theory has been superseded and no longer applies in science. There is no "Law" of gravity. And note, there are zero "laws" in biology. The "highest grade" (so to speak) an idea can achieve is to be a theory. Airplanes and computers succeed based entirely on "theories." The Theory of evolution is a very strong idea - the strongest there currently is to explain the diversity of life.

(like the evolution of the eye).

A great example! It's quite well explained in the literature and even though creationist websites like to quote Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye is,"absurd in the highest degree," they seem to always ignore the next 1000 words he wrote to hypothesize how such an organ could evolve. Amazingly, he was very near the mark. If you are interested in the many years of research into this interesting topic, Google is your friend.

Interestingly, our eyes are not ideally fit for sitting at a computer nor reading a newspaper. Why is that?

I believe in Intelligent Design, which is as incapable of absolute proof as Evolution. And I have yet to see it disproved scientifically.

Your first statement is inadvertently correct; that is, one can not absolutely prove evolution. Science does not deal in absolute proof - it deals in evidence. Evolution has 150+ years worth of it. ID has, to date, nothing but a couple layman pop culture books written by lawyers, etc and a failed bid to insert ID to the curriculum in PA.

FWIW, ID also contradicts creationism, which is fine by me, but it must be noted that ID specifically attempts wild gyrations to disassociate itself from "God..."

...My faith in God drives my belief system

... Which you don't do. All ID has done to date is nitpick pieces of science which it claims there is no explanation (Argument from incredulity) which provides the ironic joy of watching real scientists studying harder and writing more about those specific supposed holes in the TOE. In one sense, ID is tightening up the TOE here and there. So thanks.

I shall not cravenly apologize for this or accept the “theory” that it is symptomatic of a degraded intellect.

Your high-minded insult is appreciated. It's nice to read something like that here for once. I'm sorry you have difficulty accepting facts which you and your particular flavor of Christianity can't remedy with your particular interpretation of Scripture.
933 posted on 09/17/2008 11:28:30 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; ColdWater
This whole thing got started when your fellow evo Cold Water tried to associate Christianity with Radical Islam:

“I think I see a light into your view. ‘Materialistic’ is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.”

I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.

934 posted on 09/17/2008 11:29:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; ColdWater

This whole thing got started when your fellow evo Cold Water tried to associate Christianity with Radical Islam:

“I think I see a light into your view. ‘Materialistic’ is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.”

I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.


935 posted on 09/17/2008 11:30:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; ColdWater

This whole thing got started when your fellow evo Cold Water tried to associate Christianity with Radical Islam:

“I think I see a light into your view. ‘Materialistic’ is the key word, right? That is the same fight that the Islamic terrorists are fighting against us, materialism.”

I was merely pointing out that his attempt to link Christians (and excuse materialists) from the scourge of international terrorism is not backed up by the actual facts.


936 posted on 09/17/2008 11:30:50 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Why would you believe in a movement that has a leader that says the Designer may be dead since there was no evidence of his interaction in evolution for the last few hundred million years?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s odd... If I were looking for outside intervention in evolutionary history, the branching of the human and chimpanzee lines just a few million years ago would seem like an obvious possibility. The basic similarity between humans and chimps is screamingly obvious and denying it is where Creationist arguments are at their weakest, but there are also some serious differences in the fine tuning that make us what we are, like greater intelligence and walking completely upright. Explaining the divergence has led to theories ranging from the wacky (von Däniken-esque space aliens guiding human evolution) to the plausible if not generally accepted (the Aquatic Ape Theory). Someone trying to bring religion in line with science would just about have to assume divine intervention at that branching with the intent of producing a being with enough intelligence for free will, I would think.


937 posted on 09/17/2008 11:30:57 AM PDT by Deklane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

In your dreams, ColdDrinkOfWater! Last time I looked in my handy-dandy, unscientific dictionary, sophistry is not mastery.


938 posted on 09/17/2008 11:32:35 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Yeah, if we want to know what the bible says, we HAVE to learn the original languages.

Yes. That goes back you your earlier posts citing how the English versions were inadequate and subject to literal misinterpretation.

939 posted on 09/17/2008 11:32:41 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

If you need clarification of any passages that you read in English, the original language and extended translations are available,

but that’s not what you’re getting at, is it?

Seriously, what’s your point?
What would be your ultimate solution to the “translation problem”?


940 posted on 09/17/2008 11:36:27 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 939 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 2,061-2,064 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson