Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
June 9, 2009 — “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” That statement is not being made by creationists, but by science reporters describing work at Oregon State University that cast new doubt on the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The main idea: their leg bones and lungs are too different.
Science Daily’s report has a diagram of the skeleton showing...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Politics is not science....apples and Volkswagons.
...but...not in my science world.....which is generally research articles pertaining to molecular biology and protein chemistry and actual discoveries at the molecular/protein level of things, not theories to make claims about. We either discover a new surface protein and publish about it or we do not......a new disease or not.
But if I were trying to argue that evolution is nonsense...I wouldn’t post an article that says “Dr. Strawberry says that animal X didn’t evolve from animal Y” as evidence against the ToE when that article later says that “Dr. Strawberry says that animal X evolved parallel to animal Y” because I wouldn’t be stupid enough to post contradictory evidence and think the evidence proves the assertion.
Put it this way.....I’ll fully agree the claim of the scientist in this article is valid. Thusly, birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs........they co-evolved with dinosaurs, possibly from a common ancestor.
I’m OK with that. GGG posted it as “valid”, but I bet he’s not OK with that.
But the science is very much affected by politics, ideology etc.
No one asserted that. The assertion is that "creationism" implies an opposition to evolution.
Well why would you need to assert that when you've already got your hands full stomping your feet with creationism? LOL!
If you don't think it should, I'd take it up with the self-described creationists. If they continue to describe their anti-evolution position as "creationism," I'll continue to use the word that way too.
Well, I've got no doubts you'll do what you want to do, including ignoring the fact that many more creationists are on record willing to hear both sides, while next to no one on your side is remotely capable of tolerating such arrangements.
The last sentence of this one is what I've read most often here on FR. Is there some reason you think "evos" don't agree on it?
evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.
Agreeing isn't so much the point as for every evo, there's a new and continually "evolving" definition. And where's the part about origins, earth age, etc.; as evos are virtually always ascribing to creationists when braying about YEC and so forth? Not to mention how many times have evos actually described adaptation when "defining" evolution?
I will continue to use the word creationist according to the definitions both you and I have provided and I refuse to adjust my behavior to suite your inclinations to adopt a new definition that suits you.
The Pope is a Christian. The Pope believes evolution is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such”; and as such is NOT a creationist.
*Sigh* And normal, rational people will continue pointing out your absurd purposeful errors.
I don't know why this is new though...with your endless posts about anyone that doesn't march in lockstep with your cult hates science and so on...what's really changed here? Liberals hijack everything including the lexicon. DUH!
I know it suits the purpose of creationists to try to formulate the debate as God vs atheism rather than science vs erroneous Biblical interpretation. Thus the rather lame attempt to redefine the clear meaning of a word.
If the so-called vast majority mean the Pope does not believe in creation, then there's a profound disconnect in the first place and no conspiracy is needed. As I've pointed out before, even 5 year olds understand how absurd your position is.
I know it suits the purpose of creationists to try to formulate the debate as God vs atheism rather than science vs erroneous Biblical interpretation. Thus the rather lame attempt to redefine the clear meaning of a word.
And no creationists aren't trying to formualte a debate, but rather trying to help people see your cult for what it is...any and all cristicism or even examination of the cult of evolution are labeled as anti-science religious attacks.
Oh really? I've read the definition I gave dozens of times here, from dozens of "evos." What are some of the other definitions you've read?
And where's the part about origins, earth age, etc.
You know those aren't part of evolution, so why would you expect them to be part of the definition?
Not to mention how many times have evos actually described adaptation when "defining" evolution?
Adaptation is certainly part of evolution. But the distinction between "adaptation" and "evolution" is an artificial one set up by creationists to give them another line of attack.
The God vs atheism aspect of the debate is a very integral part of the whole thing. Atheists like to use evolution to try to eliminate the need for God and that is part of what creationists object to, well, most of them.
On what basis do you determine that the Biblical interpretation of Genesis is *erroneous*? Is it because someone mistranslated the account in Genesis? Or is it because it doesn't agree with current scientific consensus?
Why when there's a conflict between science and Scripture, do you make the assumption that Scripture is wrong by default? Why not consider the possibility that science could be *gasp* wrong?
Don't forget that the Bible didn't agree with current scientific consensus when the steady state theory of the universe had it's heyday with the scientific community, and look who was right about the universe having a beginning.
And you're serious?
Some I've seen:
Evolution IS God's tool, (in effect evolution itself IS intelligent design).
Evolution is not God's tool since God doesn't exist...it's all just so much random, unplanned, happenstance
Man evolved from apes...
man evolved from ape-like creatures...
man evolved from "common ancetors" of apes...
man evolved from common ancestors of ape-"like" creatures...
evolution addresses origins of species...
evolution does NOT address origins...
You know, it's bad enough the libs have programmed people the way they have when it comes to peer review and so on, but you're actually oblivious to the fact that there's so much failure on the part of these socialists that since they don't bother with actual education that it's NO WONDER there's no consistent definition used by the programmed.
You know those aren't part of evolution, so why would you expect them to be part of the definition?
Oh? And how does one determine that, particularly when:
A. evos DEMAND to make this exactly so...and if these threads aren't evidence of that, I don't know what is!
B. evos get highly defensive and off the rails when someone else addresses origins.
C. evos demand, as I said earlier, to lump creationism in with origins, earth age, etc. on most of their tirades.More evidence of evo-hypocrisy.
Adaptation is certainly part of evolution. But the distinction between "adaptation" and "evolution" is an artificial one set up by creationists to give them another line of attack.
Source?
”The Pope is a Christian. The Pope believes evolution is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such”; and as such is NOT a creationist.”
You ought to mark the place in the above where you stamp your foot. You think your quote of Pope Benedict is your open sesame to slander any Christian who disagrees with you (on anything)? What you can’t stand . . . what you gag on – what you flee in terror from . . . is that Pope Benedict went on to observe (according to the same MSNBC report you cited) that evolution does not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’” That’s as quintessentially Creationist as is philosophically and religiously possible, whether or not the Pope calls himself a Creationist. Pope Benedict’s question, “Where does everything come from?” is a question that Darwinian thought cannot answer, but it is a question that goes to the very core of Creationism.
So, cling to your little intellectually dishonest out-of-context quote (something The Masters of the Universe pretend to particularly hold in contempt), just as you have refused to hold up your end of the conversation on all the issues provoked by your categorical declarations.
”The end of the discussion is this.”
The discussion never started. It stalled out on your refusal to engage on any of the critical issues.
The assertion does not prove the fact.
”You have been unable to do the same for any other meaning.”
Another assertion. I turned to the quintessential repository of language; the dictionary. That didn’t fit your agenda, so you turned from participant to flag thrower. I don’t recognize your flag. If you can make flat declarations, then so can I.
”You can cast this as some great war of dictionaries vs. propaganda if you want . . .”
No, it’s actually a rather sordid tale of your murder of the language.
So the solution to this is for the evos to publish their own dictionary and get it regarded as an authoritative, unbiased source which they can refer to as the need arises.
Sort of a wikidictionary.
They can start with coyoteman’s List-O-Definitions from posts in his posting history. Or, no doubt, from Darwin Central, which in all likelihood has a copy.
Well it doesn’t end there...definitions alone aren’t good enough...from there you have to go to theories, the laws, curriculums...
And so on...ad infinatum.
“In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.”
If we use that definition, and why not do so, it would mean no single specimen could be used as an example of evolution since, by definition, only genetic changes in “populations from one generation to the next” constitutes biological evolution.
No population, no proof of evolution.
Maybe this would be a good opportunity to define what an *evolutionist* for all the evos, since they seem to feel free to define what a creationist is for us.
By *evolutionist* we mean one who believes in a random mutation, natural selection, no intelligence allowed, no room for God, everything just happened out of nothing for no reason paradigm.
The evolutionist is one who is a hard core militant, God hating atheist who shows nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn’t follow their belief system and consigns all who disagree to working at McDonald’s for the rest of their lives. (atheist hell, no doubt). Dawkins is their hero and figurehead, whom they believe no matter how much *Lying for Science* he does.
But hey, it’s all good. They don’t have to worry about violating any moral code, as they have nothing to base it on anyway, they can’t be accused of being hypocrites.
[[Or is it because it doesn’t agree with current scientific consensus?]]
Fitting hte bible to scientific assumptions- soemthing Creationists are acused of all the time, but it’s apparent just who is fitting what to what- I’ve seen the ‘correct itnerpretations’ of the bible by macroevolutionists and old age earth proponents, and it takes a pwoerful lot of biblical manipulation, word mangling, and out of context passage grafting to make their bible conform to macroevolutionary assumptions
Thus the rather lame attempt to redefine the clear meaning of a word.
And yet evolutionists resist the clear meaning of Scripture in the creation account in Genesis.
So when Scripture says, (Gen 2:7) Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. , they twist and manipulate to say that it means what evos say, that God used evolution to create man.
Talk about straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
==And yet evolutionists resist the clear meaning of Scripture in the creation account in Genesis.
Dreamer doesn’t care about the clear meaning of scripture. If he did, he wouldn’t spend so much time attacking Christians who believe the clear meaning of scripture!
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.