Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[andysandmikesmom]

placemarker

[Dimensio]

- Oh, so evolution never uses time periods of millions and billions of years.

I have made no such statement. I am unable to understand how you have arrived at such a conclusion.

- IF the "New MYTH" of evolution includes order, design, precision, and a plan then provide it and explain it.

What, exactly, do you wish for me to explain?

As it has been taught for decades evolution is founded on CHANCE. An random, accidental transmutation of simplicity to compexity.

You are incorrect. The theory of evolution relies upon 'random' mutations, but it also employs the non-random filter of natural selection.

Of non-life to LIFE.

You are again incorrect. The theory of evolution does not and has never addressed the subject of life emerging from "non-life".

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'll see your placemarker and raise you one.

[Dimensio]

- I'm pulling up from what I was taught in school back in the '60's and '70's.

Your inability to provide references for your claim suggests that you may not be remembering events accurately.

[RadioAstronomer]

I and a generation of students were taught.

They owe you a refund. Big time!

[Religion Moderator]

is it permitted to point out, bluntly, to an aggressive and profligate poster who is either a complete idiot or a liar (or both) that he is indeed a complete idiot/liar/both?

No, it is not tolerable for any poster - on any side of a dispute - to characterize another poster in this way on the Religion Forum - or to read his mind or attribute motives to him. All such conduct leads to flame wars is not tolerated here.

It is tolerable however to say the statement made by another poster is false, incomplete, misinformed, inaccurate, etc. It is also tolerable to say the author of the article is a liar or an idiot - as long as the author is not a Freeper.

The key is to discuss the issues and not make it personal.

[Coyoteman]

- I'm pulling up from what I was taught in school back in the '60's and '70's. It may have CHANGED since then (which doesn't give much credence to the MYTH of evolution!), but what I'm posting is as I and a generation of students were taught.

If you are interested in factual information on radiocarbon dating, here are some good links:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

[Between the Lines]

Referencing the number of hits from a Google search on the phrase "science fraud" does not address this request.

See my post #406.

[Dimensio]

Your post #406 also does not address the request for you to support your initial claim.

[Dimensio]

- Evolve(d)=change(d).

What relevance has this to your previous claims?

HOW do you explain ALL the diverese, complex, unique species coming from one source, and that a single cell?!!

Actually, it is possible that the original "life" was itself not even a cell.

- Even a one-celled creature has too intricate a DESIGN to NOT have a DESIGNER, i.e. God.

Please justify this claim, and show that the cell is in fact "designed".

[unspun]

I do not recall that you have demonstrated that the vast majority of biologists in their classification of evolution as a theory.

The burden of demonstration lies with them. (Or, they can lie without it.)

[Dimensio]

- My bad, since when has the "Big-Bang" become DISASSOCIATED FROM evolution?

The Big Bang theory has never been associated with the theory of evolution. Each theory explains a different set of observations thorough a different set of mechanisms.

The two were twins for decades.

You are incorrect. The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are two seperate explanation in two different scientific disciplines. Neither is dependent upon the other. Falsifying the theory of evolution would not falsify the Big Bang theory, and likewise falsifying the Big Bang theory would not falsify the theory of evolution.

[Dimensio]

The burden of demonstration lies with them. (Or, they can lie without it.)

Ample documentation is available, collected throughout the past 150 years.

[Dimensio]

- Right, all mountains are always formed that way...

Do you have evidence that a mountain upon which marine fossils were discovered did not form in that way?