Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Seeks a Place in Utah Schools - ("creationism" not same as "intel. design")
CHRISTIAN POST.COM ^
| JUNE 6, 2005
| Susan Wang
Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 next last
To: narby
I ask for evidence of vertical evolution in the fossil record and in observeable form today and you show me another theory based on retro-viruses? Fossils please. Animals turning into other animals today please. How about non-living turning into living?
41
posted on
06/06/2005 6:52:54 PM PDT
by
pby
To: malakhi
...just give your direct evidence from the fossil record or observeable evidence today. Natural history museums around the world will want it, if you can provide it.
42
posted on
06/06/2005 6:56:41 PM PDT
by
pby
To: Dimensio
Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution and macroevolution are all taught in public school science classes with pure naturalistic explanations, which is philosophical not scientific. The National Center for Science Education defends a "fully naturalistic" explanation for evolution.
43
posted on
06/06/2005 7:07:23 PM PDT
by
pby
To: pby; Ichneumon
...just give your direct evidence from the fossil record or observeable evidence today. Natural history museums around the world will want it, if you can provide it. Such evidence has been posted on these threads repeatedly. Perhaps Ichneumon can accommodate you.
44
posted on
06/06/2005 7:15:41 PM PDT
by
malakhi
To: narby
Remember what Dr. Crick did years after he won the Noble Prize for his co-discovery of DNA? He theorized that life on earth came from aliens via rocket ships...the theory of directed panspermia.
BTW, just what naturalistic process produced all that genetic information?
45
posted on
06/06/2005 7:21:00 PM PDT
by
pby
To: malakhi
retro-viruses again? Don't you have your own answer?
46
posted on
06/06/2005 7:22:58 PM PDT
by
pby
To: narby
The only problem is that there's no proof that God exists.So nice of the proponents of evolution to demand proof of God's existence while denying science the capacity to "prove" anything.
To: pby
Ichneumon has posted some highly detailed compilation of such information. No need to try to duplicate his efforts. If you go to PatrickHenry's profile page, you can find plenty of links to peruse.
48
posted on
06/06/2005 7:25:23 PM PDT
by
malakhi
To: pby
Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution and macroevolution
You've been reading too much Hovind, Chick or both. The theory of evolution covers biological systems. That's it. It does not delve into cosmology.
49
posted on
06/06/2005 7:55:34 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: malakhi
I went to the links as you proposed...And you have to be kidding right? Have you looked at them for evidence of vertical evolution from the fossil record?
Archaeopteryx is listed as a transitional fossil on a University of Ill. website. Archaeopteryx was determined to be an extinct bird by Stephen Jay Gould and a sinificant portion of the scientific community some time ago!
The rest of the fossils are explained with verbiage like "may" or "probably".
The quotes I liked best were "traces are so fragmentary that actual ancestors can't be identified" and "few or none of the speciation events are present."
Again, please provide direct and accepted evidence of vertical evolution from the fossil record.
50
posted on
06/06/2005 8:06:10 PM PDT
by
pby
To: Dimensio
I am aware of what the theory covers...Are you saying that public school science classes do not present the topics that I mentioned at all and from a purely naturalistic perspective?
And the NCSE does defend a "fully naturalistic" evolutionary theory...It can be found on their website.
51
posted on
06/06/2005 8:12:17 PM PDT
by
pby
To: narby
Actually, Hyperion drives his chariot across the sky to cause the day. Teach the controversy! (Cf. P.D.Q Bach: "Iphigenia in Brooklyn.")
52
posted on
06/06/2005 8:18:41 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: pby
Archaeopteryx was determined to be an extinct bird by Stephen Jay Gould and a sinificant portion of the scientific community some time ago! You of course have no reference for this assertion.
Scientists like to classify things. Long before Stephen Jay Gould, it was decided that a bird was "a vertenrate animal with feathers".
By this definition Archaeopteryx was a bird. this does not mean it was not transitional.
And now it seems that some dinosaurs are also birds, by the definition. This is only a problem for Creationists who still class Dinosaurs as Reptiles.
53
posted on
06/06/2005 8:48:50 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(Creationsts consider evolution an affrort to their god, the Lord of Lies)
To: PatrickHenry
To: JCEccles
You have confused evolution with abiogenesis. Don't feel bad; it's a common misunderstanding.
55
posted on
06/06/2005 11:21:37 PM PDT
by
aNYCguy
To: pby
Too late...Public school "science" classes already dove into the realm of philosophy when they taught evolutionary theory as purely naturalistic and completely Godless.
Do you judge them just as harshly for teaching gravitational theory as purely naturalistic? Are you aware that science seeks only naturalistic explanations for observations?
And the creation itself is "proof" that God exists.
"Things exist, therefore God exists."
I think you'll need to add a couple intermediate steps to this argument. As it stands I find it lacking.
56
posted on
06/06/2005 11:26:39 PM PDT
by
aNYCguy
To: pby
isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?
You seem to have unfounded feelings of persecution. Just because a science lesson does not mention your particular god does not mean the writer of the lesson is denying your religious beliefs. Science deals in the natural and does not mention supernatural forces in one way or another. Scientists will say that the earth orbits the sun due to gravity, a natural force. You are free to believe in any supernatural forces as the ultimate causes of these natural forces. Teaching kids about gravity is not the same as teaching them that "God is not all around us."
Scripture interprets Scripture.
I wasn't aware that books were particular interested in interpreting themselves. I figured people had to do it. If you believe in religion being taught in state-sponsored schools, please explain how the religion and sect (that is, interpretation of holy books) would be decided upon. Majority rules, decided by district?
57
posted on
06/06/2005 11:40:17 PM PDT
by
aNYCguy
To: pby
isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?
You seem to have unfounded feelings of persecution. Just because a science lesson does not mention your particular god does not mean the writer of the lesson is denying your religious beliefs. Science deals in the natural and does not mention supernatural forces in one way or another. Scientists will say that the earth orbits the sun due to gravity, a natural force. You are free to believe in any supernatural forces as the ultimate causes of these natural forces. Teaching kids about gravity is not the same as teaching them that "God is not all around us."
Scripture interprets Scripture.
I wasn't aware that books were particular interested in interpreting themselves. I figured people had to do it, and people disagree. If you believe in religion being taught in state-sponsored schools, please explain how the religion and sect (that is, interpretation of holy books) would be decided upon. Majority rules, decided by district?
58
posted on
06/06/2005 11:41:58 PM PDT
by
aNYCguy
To: pby
How about non-living turning into living?You want to see a non-living fossil turn into a living fossil?
To: Oztrich Boy
In 1993, evolutionary orintholigist Allan Feduccia wrote in
Science, "I conclude that Archaeoptyrex was arboreal and volant, considereably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to some degree. Archaeoptyrex was...in the modern sense a bird." In 1984 an international Archaeoptyrex conference was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria to evaluate the official status of the fossil. The consensus of the evolutionary scientists present was that Archaeoptyrex was a bird that could fly, but not necassrily the ancestor for modern birds.
In addition, fully formed bird fossils 75 miilion years older than Archaeoptyrex have been found... Protavis Texenis .
60
posted on
06/07/2005 3:58:49 AM PDT
by
pby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-209 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson