Darwinism to Face Scrutiny in Ohio and Minnesota

family ^ | 02.26.04

[VadeRetro]

I'm working on getting a link to a source for you (that you will trust).

I'm leaving for the afternoon, but will provide it for you as soon as I can.

Look at post 80 and ask yourself if you aren't making arguments that have already been crushed.

[keats5]

So everyone who questions anything about Darwinism is a creationist fanatic? Darwin cannot be questioned, ever, no matter what?

Who's the fanatic?

[VadeRetro]

So everyone who questions anything about Darwinism is a creationist fanatic? Darwin cannot be questioned, ever, no matter what?

Raising questions is one thing, but when you've raised 786 questions, gone 0-for-786 as far as making any objection stick, and are still demanding time be devoted in the classroom to your religious-horror "anything but THAT!" non-theories, then fanaticism looks like a reasonable explanation for what's going on.

[balrog666]

Let me quote a scientist for you:

We can't be absolutely certain. Science doesn't purvey absolute truth. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It's a system of testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match. This works not just for ordinary aspects of science, but for all of life.

My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist too. Now they may say that I believe evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don't want everyone to believe that evolution is true, I want them to study what we say about evolution and decide for themselves. Fundamentalists say they want to treat creationism on an equal basis. But they can't. It's not a science.

So, please, feel free to question evolution all you want, just back it up your objections with a few facts, evidence, and logic.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[qam1]

One such park is Dinosaur National Monument. (If you have not been there, go. It's a remarkable place). There is a massive pile of dinosaur bones imbedded in the side of a hill, piled many feet up. The 'explanation' was a local flood. There is NO way in the world that a local flood could have done what happened there, but a massive universal flood could. There is another scientifically valid explanation that is ignored.

Really than how come that "Massive Universal" flood didn't also pile dinosaur (or any other) bones in the Adirondack Mountains in New York?

That's one of many cruxs of the Noah's Flood Myth, Fossils are so rare. If Noah's flood really did happen and caused fossils than you wouldn't be able to walk two feet anywhere on earth without tripping over one.

[keats5]

I'm well aware of what's going on in Ohio. They are indeed backing up their criticism of Evolution with scientific evidence and logic. But no matter what scientific evidence is introduced, people claim it's "disguised creationism". My question is whether you would accept any criticism against evolution, without labeling it thusly.

What exactly do you claim is being introduced into the Ohio science curriculum that is not based on facts and logic?

[Junior]

Of course it's just your opinion. You have no empirical evidence to back your claim that life without God is meaningless, therefore don't be surprised that your claim will be summarily dismissed by the more rational among us.

[Joe Bonforte]

So everyone who questions anything about Darwinism is a creationist fanatic?

No. People who try to smear the perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry called evolution by referring to it as "Darwinism" are the fanatics. They would rather use prejortive terms than actually confront scientific evidence.

Yeah, yeah, evolution has some holes. Not surprising, since the serious study of it is only about 100 years old. But it is a solid explanation for the variety of life on earth, explaining evidence from such disparate areas as comparative anatomy, molecular biology (DNA and protein sequences), bacterial drug resistance, and many others. Those who stick their head in the sand and shout "Darwinism!" as if that refuted the evidence are the fanatics. Those who pretend that "intelligent design" is science (when all it really says is "I don't see how it could have happened without a creator, therefore it didn't") are the fanatics. Those who would place an allegorical creation myth ahead of evidence they can touch and feel are the fanatics.

Those who understand and attempt to explain evolution are the realists - prepared to look the world in the eye as it is. In some cases, prepared to be humble enough to know that we cannot possibly completely understand how God might have decided to build a world, but we'll do our best with the evidence He set before us.

The fanatics are the ones that arrogantly decide that they understand the mind and will of God so well that they are prepared to dump inconvenient facts to fit their preconceived notions. And then, of course, try to pin the "fanatic" label on those who point out their foolishness.

[Junior]

Based upon what evidence? You make a claim, but then you fail to back it up. You claim that it's "logical" but you fail to show why. I gave you evidence on the lack of nihilism among atheists of my acquaintance and the "don't look to the future 'cause God's coming and it won't do you any good to start something" attitude of Apocolyptic Christians. Others have shown you that the number of atheists in prison is far smaller than their percentage of the population, indicating atheists are not prone to criminal behavior (which one would expect based upon your contention). Either show us evidence to support your views or admit you haven't got a dog in this fight.

[Junior]

One such park is Dinosaur National Monument. (If you have not been there, go. It's a remarkable place). There is a massive pile of dinosaur bones imbedded in the side of a hill, piled many feet up. The 'explanation' was a local flood. There is NO way in the world that a local flood could have done what happened there, but a massive universal flood could. There is another scientifically valid explanation that is ignored.

Okay, on top of getting your information straight from Creationist websites, it's pretty obvious you have neither cable nor satellite. The jumble of dinosaur bones of which you speak was explained quite nicely a couple of years ago on the Discovery Channel (hence, my contention you don't subscribe). Indeed, they showed a similar situation in Africa when a herd of wildebeasts attempted to cross a flood-swollen river (note, this is probably what happened to the Ceratopsians in question -- not that they were swept away by a deluge, but that they tried to cross a swollen river and drowned). I'm sure you failed to note that the dinosaur bones in question showed definite evidence of post-mortem scavenging (or did the Creationist sites not mention that? It wouldn't be the first time they've left out information in order bolster their rather saggy case). If the critters had been buried by THE FLOOD, there is not a lot of likelihood that scavengers would have found and chawed on their carcasses, is there?

[Dimensio]

It's a logical conclusion in a culture that has tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to take God out of it.

Are you referring to "god" concepts in general, or are you arrogantly asserting (without evidence) that your God is the only God to be considered, and that cultures that follow a different god (or gods) are as good as atheists?

Sorry to ask, but I would like clarification.

[Dimensio]

Many 'facts' of evolution can be explained scientifically by other means which includes a catastrophic, universal flood.

Okay. Explain similarities within the DNA record. Explain why, thus far, if a genetic trait is found in whales and cows, it is also found in hippos.

Scientists now acknowledge that the Colorado River did NOT form the Grand Canyon

Citation?

I am not saying that I KNOW what happened,

Really? You seem to have a lot of certainty as to what didn't happen, in spite of physical evidence for it.

I am saying that it is valid, and logical to believe that a Universal flood could have caused many of the things explained now by evolution

Be specific, don't just throw out "A flood did it all", explain what a flood did. Explain how, exactly, a flood would leave evidence similar to changes in alelle frequency over time, as well, because your claim that a flood -- or any gelogical event -- can cause results similar to those explained via evolution indicates that your knowledge of evolution might be lacking.

Also, how do you explain the lack of evidence for a global flood? The way many places in the world do not look as though they were ever submereged in water? The fact that many cultures have history that runs concurrent with the alleged time of the flood, whose recorded history seems to omit the fact that they were all wiped out by a massive deluge?

It's fascinating to go to Mt. St. Helens and see the canyon carved in a matter of hours there. It doesn't take millenia to form the geological strata in canyons. It just takes lots of water.

Thing is, a canyon carved in a matter of hours by lava will have specific physical traits. We don't see these traits in the Grand Canyon. That's why we don't assume that it was done in a matter of hours by a volcano.

The one thing I do know, is that we were created by a Creator, who loved us before we were even born, who formed us in our mother's wombs,

Your evidence for this?

and has every hair on our heads numbered.

The hair on my head changes in number every day. Unfortunately, it seems to be dwindling :\.

And I know that he loved us enough to send His Son, Jesus, to live among us, and to suffer and die for our sins, and to rise on the third day, and sit at the right hand of His Father in heaven.

Evidence?

I stand by my claim. You are either ignorant of the theory of evolution or you're dishonest. I'm much more likely to believe ignorance, however, given that you're not even trying to explain problems in the theory yet you seem genuinely convinced of the truth of your position. However, your personal conviction is not evidence against the theory, and your claims linking evolution with atheism further belie your lack of knowledge on the subject.

[RightWingNilla]

Funny you bring this up. There might be a biological basis for this kind of behavior:

Hyperreligiosity

[ohioWfan]

Who's the fanatic?

I just got home from seeing The Passion of the Christ, keats, and the criticisms and mockery of the fanatics here seem remarkably small and meaningless by comparison.

The one true God, Creator of the universe, willingly suffered brutality and death for MY sin.

Nothing else matters, but that I continue to yield my life to HIM, and share His love to a world in need.

[ohioWfan]

One cannot convince a skeptic of evidence when he doesn't believe in the source of that evidence.

All I can say is, read the Word of God with an open heart. The answers are there.

[ohioWfan]

I'm referring to the One true God. If you want to know about Him, seek Him out. This is not the time nor the place for me to do that.

[ohioWfan]

Anyone who believes the Biblical truths are myths cannot be convinced otherwise by a stranger on an Internet forum.

You'll have to come to the truth on your own.

Noah's flood happened.

[ohioWfan]

I don't get my evidence from the 'creationist sites' that you disdain. I get it from the Word of God.

You, and your cohorts here, have chosen not to believe what God says. That's a choice you are free to make, but you will regret that choice in time.

May God be with you all as you search for truth.

[js1138]

The Bible has stuff about Dinosaur National Park?