Posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:48 AM PST by JediGirl
Respectfully, I disagree with the bacterial mutations idea. The interpretation of the evidence is what leads one to suppose that this is evolution at work. In reality, what has been shown is that the bacteria already were resistant.
Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population, as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia, non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss of genetic diversity.
LOL! Same tired old arguments that have been debunked so many times they belong in a hall of fame.
I'm not defending it as my pledge. In some forty-three years, most in the church, and in several denominations, I don't ever recall reciting this, although most churches I've attended do display both the U.S. and the Christian Flag.
The Pledge to the U.S. Flag was written in 1892. The Pledge to the Christian Flag was written in 1908. Congress adopted the Pledge to the U.S. Flag in 1941 or 42. Around the same time, churches established a protocol of sorts for dealing with the Christian Flag. (I pulled this from several websites).
I have no allegiance to a Christian "flag," but don't find the pledge particularly "disturbing."
It is NOT hard science, not in the way Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and the like are.
Uh...you do realize that evolution is a central pillar of all of modern biological science, don't you? If Darwin was wrong, then most of biology is wrong.
Regards,
Snidely
There's another age old axiom that states "A is not non-A." A finite point (particular) makes no sense without an infinite reference point (universal). That's been the age-old struggle since Aquinas, Plato, Kant, Skinner... and so on. To try to define the unversal in context of the particular is self-defeating. While the question you've asked has perplexed many people over the ages it's only done so because people have lost touch with the Universal and focused on the particulars.
I have a suspicion that most of them don't care. There's no shortage of arguments from the consequences if evolution is accepted, but the consequences of rejecting it just don't seem to count for much.
As a degreed person in his field of expertise, he says that there is absolutely no substance to the statement you just made. If anything, his daily lab work has shown him that evolutionary theory is unnecessary to perform his duties.
I understand that people who believe in evolution will appeal to their own authoritative specialists in natural sciences. Might I suggest, as I'm sure that others have with CREVO, that what we are arguing about is the interpretation of the data?
People who are inclined to believe in evolution because that's what "Dr. So-n-So says" are just as wrong as those who say that there is no credence to the study of evolution.
Personally, I believe that science is at its best when it is like the marketplace...competing theories. I think that all theories of beginnings should be studied in school, including Intelligent Design (which implies some deity but not necessarily the Christian God), Creation Classic (Genesis/Flood Geology), & evolution (Lamarkian, Darwinian, et. al.).
Today, however, scientists treat evolution as the "Holy Grail" at the expense of competing (and, yes, scientifically valid) interpretations of the available data. Personally, after reviewing the various theories, I am of the opinion that "Creation Classic" is the model that best fits the available information.
That's good stuff man!
Got any examples?
Sure...
You ask me for examples of creationists who simply want the schools to teach the weaknesses of evolution. Examples of course can be representative of a large population or representative of a fringe view. I submit these examples are representative of a majority of American people. The American Scientific Affiliation is a scientific organization of Christians, many of whom are creationsists of one form or another. Their site is here...
A prepresentative statement of what both the evolutionists and the creationists in teh ASA can agree on. Which is what I said and what you asked for examples of...
In the current climate of controversy over science teaching in public schools, stretching the term evolution beyond its range of scientific usefulness promotes the establishment of evolutionary naturalism. Besides inviting reaction from proponents of scientific creationism, such careless usage also erodes support of sound science education among the broader population of theists, to the detriment of the whole scientific enterprise.
You have to read this article for a long while before you find out exactly what the statement of the Alabama board of education said. ABC News Evolutionist Propoganda
Here is the statement according to the article. I frankly find it to say exactly what most of us who are Christians and Creationists of one stripe or another would like to see as the over-riding tone of scientific education in public schools.
**********
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.
There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mention in your textbook, including:
— Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")?
— Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record for a long time?
— Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record?
— How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of "instructions" for building a living body?
Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth.
Its a little weak in that it seems to limit the concept of "fact" to that which can be repeatedly observed. I'm not sure that is a fully satisfactory definition, but the overall tone of this disclaimer shouldn't scare anyone, unless of course they know they are overstating their cases.
Rippin
Surely, you meant to write: "Hall of Shame"....
you would have thought they would have taken their... clergy-witch doctors---with them!
you would have to shut down the internet wouldn't you.
The Truth will penetrate the debunked false science--monopoly...state stealth religion--pol-theo-fat-bureau-cats!
SHHHHH...(evolution is a hoax-joke)!
More likely they shared a common ancestor somewhere far down the line and that ancestor's offspring split down a path, one ending up at the "dog" line and the other at "cat" (and possibly untold others going elsewhere). In theory you might be able to select and breed a dog, taking the offspring with the closest matching DNA, and keep breeding them until you get back to the common ancestor, then trying to get a cat from the subsequent offspring...when you have a few million years free to try the experiment, let me know.
So what you're saying here is that they "more likely" shared a common ancestor at some unknown point." Convenient that this is an unprovable assumption as your strongest explanation for this. You also state that this must occur over millions of years, that many generations are needed to be able to get a feasible hybrid from it. I hope you realize that the evolutionists have backpedalled away from this viewpoint because of the lack of all the transitional forms that should have been discovered to support this type of change, but that do not exist. They now have modified their position that these evolutionary changes occur very quickly BECAUSE of the lack of transitional forms. Lack of evidence now means evoultion occurs faster than previously thought.
Point 6. You state: The scientific principle demands observable, repeatable results. Show me where scientists created life out of nothing. Oh dear, the common fallacy of mixing evolution and abiogenesis. Sorry, but evolution is a theory dealing with existing life forms, it makes no claims as to where that life originated.
I can't even believe you believe what you're saying - you are a truly rare evolutionist. Every one I've ever talked with believes that single celled organisms eveloved out of amino acid brines with electrochemical reactions, and evolutionists, by their own origin trees, have illustrated so by showing cellular organisms at the "root" of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionary theory supports the evolving of life from simple, single celled organisms to more complex ones. My science books I had in high school and biology classes promoted this as evolutionary fact. Frankly, I have personally heard a college professor in a lecture admit he believed we came from rocks.
‘'Do not worry, saying, "What shall we ear?" Or, "What shall we drink?" Or, "What shall we ear?" For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.’ (Matthew 6:31-33)
"Jesus' words contradict the mood of the age. Applied science has given people in developed lands and enormous increase in wealth. For the most part, the power to acquire property has not filled those people with contentment. One of the first acts of a person who comes into money is to load himself or herself with a pile of things that makes life fretful and death difficult."
"For Jesus, life was much more that material security. He viewed the abundant life as one in which spirit reigned supreme over things. He never asked everyone to give up their possessions, but he did ask it of some, because their 'things' were destroying them. He would ask it of many today. There is no salvation for some, except in the abandonment of their riches."
"The virtue in forsaking wealth does not lie in what is given up, but in what is gained. It is the secret of inner possession. What moths and rust can get at, what thieves can steal, are not treasures at all. Christ taught that the internal must transcend the external. Character needs to come before gain; duty before pleasure. These are spiritual qualities that not even death can take away from those who own them."
"According to Jesus, life needs to be continually re-evaluated in the light of the highest ideal. The kingdom of God must take pride of the place above the kingdom of the senses."
"When forces are aggressively working to accumulate wealth, when property and power is praised, society undervalues itself. Spiritual axioms are dethroned and the people perish. When what is intrinsically pre-eminent is given its place, every other true instinct finds satisfaction. It was so among the Puritans. 'One overpowering sentiment had subjugated to itself pity, hatred, ambition and fear. They had their smiles and their tears, their raptures and their sorrows, but not for the things of this world. The intensity of their feeling on one subject, made them tranquil on every other."
"May God... (Truth)--be with you and me."
I would really be interested in your responses to my logic questions, because nobody seems to want to answer those.
Exactly. I decided to read the big dog of evolutionary apologetics, Richard Dawkins a few years back, and he includes the whole something from nothing argument as a seemless sleeve on his evolutionary garb.
Man he just can't stand that Gould fellow. Darned secularist who just won't spout the company line.
Rippin
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.