Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
And the laugh is on you. Every member of every species is different. Everyone is indeed transitional, and at the level you think. Obviously, some mutations are self selected (via crib-death, spontaneous abortions, and the hordes of other things that cause children to be born deformed or dead). Despite some peoples protestations, evolution is still occurring as we speak. Here are some papers that show that somethings have indeed evolved on very short timescales.
As far as I know, these contain references that have not been refuted by any intelligent designer, or creationist. Each opposing theory has to show that they've described the evidence better than evolution to be considered. I don't believe they've ever done that.
Why?
It's not wise to employ reason / logic when dealing with emotionally immature / emotion-driven mentalities; they find it impossible to engage in critical thought because they instinctively know, and FEAR where it leads.
By the way .... cognitive dissonance is the mental confusion / psychological conflict that results from holding exact opposite (incongruous) beliefs and attitudes simultaneously. (See my previous posts on this thread). Hahahaha
Sounds like you're getting too emotional. Your previous post, if you mean number 74, basically justifies ignoring the amazing preponderance of evidence for evolution on the grounds that its all experience and thus perception and thus unreliable and thus we really don't know anything so maybe we really were made in 6 days 6K years ago . . .
I can't get excited about the "real science" because it has nothing to teach us except that we know nothing. That's not the girl we came to the dance of the 21st century with.
A few more words than that, no more substance.
Dan
It is important in science to be precise, so that everyone knows exactly what you are trying to say in your scientific paper. Therefore, you'd best make sure people understand what you mean when you state something.
In this case, it is a direct challenge to certain creationists who throw around the word "kind" like it was candy in their work, when they still don't have a straight definition for it.
I also think the scientists are missing the big picture if they think that ecosystems should exist in some sort of stasis; the big message of evolution is, given enough time, virtually all ecosystems are dynamic, and will become disturbed (whether by natural or man-made reasons) and some species will go extinct as a result. In short, given enough time, all things change.
They also fail to even mention the fact that it is extinctions of species that open the door for critters to exploit the now vacated eco-niches of the extinct species, and for new species to begin to radiate therefrom.
But, I'm no bio-nerd, so maybe I missed something.
Utter nonsense. The only way you can get away with getting rid of God in nature is to prove abiogenesis - that life arose from inate matter. Evolutionists (and atheists and materialists) do not even have a single plausible explanation to how it could have occurred let alone any scientific proof of it. Your belief in materialistic evolution is based purely on a faith which fights mighty hard against the scientific facts.
Evolution is not science. It is pseudo science. It is an ideology. Science has theorems and gives proof of them. Evolution has neither a theory nor proof of it.
Interesting point. If you want to drive an evolutionist nuts just ask him who wrote those natural laws that they believe in so much, who enforces those laws.
You now have the golden opportunity to put your numbers where your opinion is.
Wrong. Creationists say that when you take God out of the life equation you end up with barbarism and Darwin himself gave proof of that. The useless are to be disposed of, not helped. He was a believer in eugenics just as his theory clearly points to.
His paragraph on sandcastles was very instructive. If it is as hackneyed as you say, then perhaps you should find a refutation of it quite easily. It is the basis of the theory of intelligent design and it has roots that go back even further than Darwin. It has not been refuted and you will not be refuting it either, that is why you resort to the lame Clintonian excuse "it is yesterday's news".
Of course not! Every evolutionist knows that sandcastles are created by a million monkeys on typewriters!
Yep, I'm glad to know I am part of a "weed" species. They did cover the extinction/production cycle, however it is evil if people cause the extinction. They did note that 95% of all species are fossils only. I'm pondering the average 4,000,000 year species life-time(I think I heard that number). We need to exterminate the coelecanth, it's skewing the curve.
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.