Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation
http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2706 ^

Posted on 12/05/2004 1:16:27 AM PST by OnlyinAmerica

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last
To: Michael_Michaelangelo

come back to me when you actually have evidence for your CLAIMS


101 posted on 12/17/2004 9:18:17 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rhetor

"NCSE is not interested in scientific truth; they are (according to the "mission statement") interested in defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom."

Well over 500 Steves have signed that. Even if only 5 of them genuinely meant it, its still far more scientists than doubt evolution.

"You're misrepresenting the NCSE's agenda. They want the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and NO OTHER VIEWPOINTS"
Too right, because there are not other current SCIENTIFIC viewpoints to teach in a SCIENCE class.

"And indeed it is. I doubt if most of those scientists would really accept that the fossil record really proves neo-Darwinism"
Your ignorance of science is not my problem. Read this: Science does not "prove" things. The fossil record strongly supports common descent.

"I know for a fact that most embryologists are deeply troubled by the theory, since their knowledge of how embryos develop mostly contradicts it"
Name 10 embryologists who are deeply troubled by it then. I notice they were not on your list. Funny that.

Please consider that what you are espousing is just pseudo-science. I cannot put it any nicer than that.

"The NCSE's bigotry (as well as yours) comes out when it assumes that the serious questioning of Darwinism implies the serious acceptance of creationism or intelligent design"
Loads of incorrect words. Firstly Darwinism is pre-1940's. If you meant to use this to refer generally to the theory of evolution then fine, but then there is no evidence to bring in to doubt the theory of evoltuion. Any serious questioning is about how evolution happened, not whether it happened.

"Yep. That's exactly the mentality. As for your own position, you haven't advanced a single cogent argument either in favor of Darwinism, or against intelligent design; which leads me to believe that you accept the theory on faith."
I don't have to teach EVOLUTION (not darwinism) to you. If you really bothered you could go learn it yourself. I don't wish to waste my time if I don't have to. The burden is upon you if you think evolution is wrong.

"Too bad. That's the nature of scientific debate; it's SUPPOSED to go "on and on.""
Behe didn't submit his work to scientific debate. He instead chose to publish it as a popular book.

"What makes a belief 'scientific' is precisely the fact that it can, at least in principle, be REFUTED"
Go on then explain how Intelligent Design can be refuted.

"Wrong. What ALL computer models show is that they require a programmer to input the relevant criteria for selection. These criteria are then labeled "random," when in fact they were pre-SELECTED BY A DESIGNER -- the damn programmer!"
You have no clue. Genetic Algorithms use a random number generator for the random mutation. This is basic stuff in this field, your talk about cosmic rays and programmer input is nonsense. Read again: the mutation in the program is random.

"Berlinski is very good at pointing out the fallacies in all such models. Read his essay in Commentary titled "A Scientific Scandal.""
I don't need to. Genetic algorithms have been used to design efficient circuit layouts and have created designs that the programmer of the GA could not forsee. This latter case I have observed with my own eyes as I programmed such a GA. This is one area I have a problem with antievolutionists because in this area they always refute these programs as "intelligent input". But I know they are very wrong on this so to me it made me initially wonder "hmm what else are they wrong about?". And as I see it is a lot.

"It is Darwinism that posits miracles explained by "random mutations" and ignores the hardcore fact that 99.9999999% point-mutations are harmful to the organism"
Rubbish, you clearly just made that number up by pressing 9 a lot of times. How pathetic, you could at least have tried using 8,7 and 6. It might have been more convincing.

"In a large population, point mutations (as proved, ironically, by popluation genetics) generally get lost in the statistical "noise" of the rest of the population and don't influence either the geno/pheno type at all"
Uhhh no. Assuming the population remains stable then all individuals will reproduce, including the mutated varient. As this continues the beneficial mutation has more and more chance of spreading in subsequent generations. It only would turn out as you say if few offspring were created compared to the parents.





102 posted on 12/17/2004 9:40:34 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Dembski is on fire!

I thought that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibited such things.

ROTFL!
103 posted on 12/18/2004 1:17:56 AM PST by jennyp (Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Then you failed.

Just because YOU said so?

104 posted on 12/18/2004 1:51:47 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
IC demystified.

Excellent. Now added to the ever-growing List-O-Links.

105 posted on 12/18/2004 4:33:08 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Still touting the lie that Antony Flew "rejected evolution"?"

Never heard of him. Never mentioned him. All I stated is the evolutionary hypothesis is the work of Lucifer.

We were created in His image. My God, is not an "ape". If you wish to believe you are a descendant of an "ape" you are free to do so. Never mind that your dating methods are flawed or that there is NO evidence to support this blatant lie.
106 posted on 12/18/2004 8:08:42 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Still touting the lie that Antony Flew "rejected evolution"?"

Never heard of him. Never mentioned him. All I stated is the evolutionary hypothesis is the work of Lucifer.

We were created in His image. My God, is not an "ape". If you wish to believe you are a descendant of an "ape" you are free to do so. Never mind that your dating methods are flawed or that there is NO evidence to support this blatant lie.
107 posted on 12/18/2004 8:08:54 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

"I personally don't see any societal interest in the question of whether you believe in creation or evolution."

Believing in creation does not make it so. Believing in Evolution does not make it so. Believing in one or the other does not make God exist or not exist.

Having said that, I believe, I know, that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God, the God, a superior being who exists in a timeless realm. I do not have to know all of the intricate details of everything to believe that. Hearing pseudo-science explain that we "evolved" out of the cosmos and that each species, including homo-... or whatever tag the pseudo-scientists want to put on the 'various pre-homo sapien versions" does not effect my belief, my knowing, and hearing the explanations does not make their pseudo science a fact.


108 posted on 12/18/2004 8:31:44 AM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nmh
All I stated is the evolutionary hypothesis is the work of Lucifer.

Sometimes the 'ol Devil goes by the name of "Mr. Flew".

109 posted on 12/18/2004 8:53:25 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"Showcase" placemarker.


110 posted on 12/18/2004 9:41:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Never heard of him. Never mentioned him.

Actually, you did. Or are you admitting that you weren't even paying attention to that to which you were responding? In any case, I pointed out your error, and I did mention his last name, so you did hear of him then at least. You then said "Read the article. He rejects it." and finally I quoted from the article which read "He accepts Darwinian evolution".

You never bothered replying after that. Apparently you couldn't handle having it shown that you are a decrepit liar.
111 posted on 12/18/2004 9:54:41 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
Hearing pseudo-science explain that we "evolved" out of the cosmos

Oh, and now you demonstrate your ignorance. No theory says that we "evolved out of the cosmos".

If you don't understand the science behind it, then you're not qualified to speak credibly on why it is false. Your "knowing" that it is not true doesn't make it so.
112 posted on 12/18/2004 9:55:51 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; nmh
Whoops, I didn't completely follow the chain of replies. You did actually respond to my "He accepts Darwinian evolution", but you didn't concede the point. Instead, you completely ignored my quoting of the article that flatly contradicted your lie and instead launched an ad hominem against me, telling me to "Take a deep breath and read the article again ... . " (ironic now that it seems that you didn't read the article at all).

I was right in having the last word, however, as I responded again bringing up the full quote wherein it was stated flat-out that Antony Flew accepts Darwinian evolution. I even went so far as to address a potential objection to my analysis of the quote, but you weren't even smart enough to try attacking it on the hypothetical angle that I suggested.

So, to recap:

You claimed that Antony Flew had "abandon[ed] their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."

I point out that the article makes no such claim.

You reiterate your initial claim, telling me to "Read the article. He rejects it."

I do re-read the article. Once again, I see "He accepts Darwinian evolution." So now I have demonstrated without any doubt that the article does not make the claim that you said that it makes. Rather than acknowledging your error, you restate your initial claim. As such, I can now only conclude that you are nothing but a shameless liar, you don't care about truth at all, and nothing that you say can be trusted. Apparently your faith in your religion is so weak that you have to outright deny reality and tell lies to other people to prop it up.

Feel free to counter explaining exactly how you weren't lying before, though I doubt that you will do anything but launch in another ad hominem and/or a dishonest evasion of the issue.
113 posted on 12/18/2004 10:03:40 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: armordog99

I am surprised that 13% said God was not involved at all. The numbers I have seen for atheist/agnostic show them to be only about 3-4% of the population. Alot of those "no religious preference people" must be atheist but don't want the label.

Maybe those who think visiting aliens planted life on earth (or gave it one or more big nudges) make up some of the difference.

114 posted on 12/18/2004 10:31:53 AM PST by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No theory says that we "evolved out of the cosmos".

Ah, but any theory that totally negates creation says we did evolve out of the cosmos. Where did the earth come from, where did the sun, moon, stars, galaxys come from? Those who would negate creation would say that these beginnings, an "evolution" of "worlds" came out of the cosmos. And it goes on from there...

As for my ""knowing" that it is not true doesn't make it so..." - if you would read my post, you would see that I already said that.

The whole business of the left getting so up in arms about teaching anything relating to "creation" is because "creation" requires a God, a supreme being. Why is it so difficult for the left to allow any kind of teaching that would suggest "creation"? The left is doing everything they damnably can to undermine such a thought. I believe it takes more "faith" to believe evolution than it does to believe creation. Faith in what? Faith that there is no God. God is all around us, yet he would be denied.


115 posted on 12/18/2004 11:06:12 AM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
Ah, but any theory that totally negates creation says we did evolve out of the cosmos.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Ah, but any theory that totally negates creation says we did evolve out of the cosmos. Where did the earth come from, where did the sun, moon, stars, galaxys come from?

Irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Those who would negate creation would say that these beginnings, an "evolution" of "worlds" came out of the cosmos. And it goes on from there...

No. The process by which planets form is not a part of the theory of evolution.

The whole business of the left getting so up in arms about teaching anything relating to "creation" is because "creation" requires a God, a supreme being.

The people getting up in arms about teaching "creation" do so because it is not science. Even if it is true, it is not science.

I believe it takes more "faith" to believe evolution than it does to believe creation.

Yes, it takes more faith to accept scientific observations and research (that you admit to not researching) than it does to invent a supernatural origin ex nhilo.

Faith that there is no God.

You'll need to define your letter string 'God' before it can have meaning. Do you have faith that there is not flwtzrts?
116 posted on 12/18/2004 11:41:03 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
Oh, I see, great minds drink alike, eh ;)

Well, when one is informed of the available facts, it is easy to reach the right conclusion. ;^)

117 posted on 12/18/2004 11:57:31 AM PST by balrog666 (The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I have seen no presentation of fact(s) in your rebuttals.


118 posted on 12/18/2004 12:12:28 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea
I have seen no presentation of fact(s) in your rebuttals.

I guess that's one way to cowardly duck the issue. Claim that your opponent didn't actually say anything, even though I pointed out (among things) your use of a logical fallacy and your blatant lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
119 posted on 12/18/2004 12:53:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser

I am an old Earth ID believer.....it is obvious the Earth is old. Carbon dating can sometimes be wrong, but for the date of the Earth to be wrong, every single carbon dating would have to be off by millions of years.....and all be wrong by around the same time period.

Simply preposterous.

The idea that people can age the Earth based on Scripture is truly one for morons.


120 posted on 12/18/2004 1:03:25 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson