That would be an interesting ark design. Do you suggest that it looked something like this?
Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.
All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.
The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."
The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."
The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."
It seems they've found a hundred more clowns.The fact that five-hundred scientists with a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences are willing to publicly dissent from the establishment view of evolution speaks volumes about the weakness of the theory.
--PatrickHenry
The establishment view, by definition, is the view currently held by the majority. Everyone knows that. Your pointing out the fact that the majority of scientists hold the establishment view is like announcing the Pope is Catholic. Your worthless announcement along with calling the dissenters clowns is indeed a very lame response to a serious challenge to Darwinism.
Your very strained, lame and over-emotional statements are due to the fact that you see the challenge to Darwinism as an attack on your silly atheistic religious beliefs. You guys have far more blind, irrational faith in the creative power of mindless chance than any theist ever thought about having in God.
Note that the other Creationists share this joy. None will dare criticize someone for saying it.
"since there are far too many (several to a few tens of millions) to fit on the ark"...
Unless the ark were bigger on the inside than on the outside...
There were some mighty strange things about the Ark. First off, no one knows what "gopher wood" was...
I think some devolution has occurred. I.e. increased genetic disease, shorter lifespans, etc.
But I don't think Homo Erectus or Neanderthal was an apeman. They were just racial variants and in many ways they may have beenn genetically equal or may have been superior genetically to humans today.
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? . . . In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Paul didn't say, "Well, I'll just ask for forgiveness later." He exclaimed, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"
You know, I don't mind when people bash my beliefs (it happens all the time on these threads). Usually I ignore them. Once in awhile, though, I'll post an argument in support of my position. At no time, however, did I say that I would gleefully look forward to seeing an opponent burn in Hell. First off, where he or she ends up is not my decision, and I wouldn't think to second-guess the Almighty. Secondly, such thoughts smack of schadenfreude, which to me is the definition of evil ("causing harm to others for enjoyment, or deriving pleasure from another's pain").
You really might want to think long and hard on this one.
Yes, except not so nicely painted, longer than it is tall, and with a bigger door so that the elephants and dinosaurs could get in.
Not to worry: I've had the same said about me.
But when the accuser was asked to document the assertion, none was forthcoming.
I guess they, somehow, misinterpreted my tagline.
Imaginary comes to mind.
Ummm... Here is a thought. What if the great God Ugamoomba from a tribe in Western Africa is the real God? Wouldn't you feel silly standing before her trying to explain why you did not pound the ceremonial drums every morning?
I'm not arguing against evolution (and no, I haven't done any in depth reading of other texts, sorry!). My point is that if a parent is adamently opposed to their child learning about evolution, then it would be difficult for them to be in a HS biology class, period, as it is just an intrinsic part of the curriculum. Of course, I am for vouchers, but that's a whole other thread.
susie
Where did I say that?
susie
LOL --not a very scientific viewpoint. How do YOU know why people do what they do? That may be your opinion, but then, it is worth a little less than I paid to read it.
susie
Wow, sounds like whatever your job is, it's cool!
;)
susie
I guess this is what passes for debate with you. Name calling. Yup, time honored technique.
susie
Naah. The story is too cross-culturally widespread and significant to be pure fiction. My personal view (and I am not a theologian, mind you) is that the ancient world was far, far stranger than many of us suspect in terms of its physical structure, and that mankind's earliest texts are obscure because they represent the efforts of unsophisticated herdsmen to understand and express events far beyond their own experience. I think most of the events in Genesis really happened, but the Bronze Age tribesmen who witnessed them (or who were shown them by Divine revelation or whatever) were unable to describe what they were seeing in technically sophisticated terms. With nothing but Bronze Age cultural referents, the writers of the Genesis texts had no choice but to fall back upon imagery that their readers could comprehend. Thus the creation stories of apples, serpents, and sunless days -- attempts by the authors to describe nearly incomprehensible cosmic events in terms their fellows could understand. Ditto the Ark (which means something more like "container" than "ship" in the original); who knows what it really was? For all we know it was a framework of negative matter with an entire "pocket universe" inside, a universe capable of supporting the ecosystem that Noah and his family were instructed to save. Jewish legends are instructive in this regard; many contain extra data that can be interpreted to support the idea that there were some mighty odd things going on back in the really old days -- things like physical laws being different, for example.
As a Catholic, I believe the Bible is true and inspired by God, and is in no way a work of fiction. In my opinion, however, the great truths of the Pentateuch are spiritual, rather than literally historical. Adam and Eve really existed, but they and the Garden they inhabited were part and parcel of a non-entropic and metaphysical universe quite different than the fallen universe of physics and entropy we now inhabit. Adam was not "a" man; he was Man, the perfect Image of God made flesh, and whatever that entailed I don't think we are well served by continuing to imagine him as a character in a child's picture book.
God chose to reveal the story of creation to unsophisticated itenerant tribesmen of six millenia ago. One can hardly blame them for relating whatt they saw in terms an unsophisticated itenerant tribesman could understand -- a folktale. If God revealed the creation of the universe to a modern day man, I suspect that Genesis would read more like a science-fiction novel -- our modern-day folktale. Instead of trying to puzzle out the tale of our creation in medieval terms, I think we might be better served by re-examining the "mythology" of the Genesis story in the light of our culture's own myths and legends -- i.e. science-fiction. A re-examination of the Bible from an SF perspective could lead to insights we have missed.
Except it wasn't difficult to interpret this: "...but it gives me pleasure to know that you will one day suffer in hell."
(You)I don't know why you refer to me as a creo. I'm not. Of course, you started right out making assumptions about me, which were not correct. I thought you were a rational person.
(Me)I don't think I ever referred to you as a creo. You sure make a lot of statements about what I think and assume which are totally incorrect. I think you are slightly irrational.
(You)I guess this is what passes for debate with you. Name calling. Yup, time honored technique. susie
Hmmm. You first posted falsely about my reference to you as a creo and inferred I was irrational. And now you come back and chastise me? Shame.
This was your post to me. It certainly appeared that you were calling me a creo. Otherwise, why would you reference them in this post? I suspect you will now say you were not calling me one, but simply referencing them (for some reason), however, I think it would be quite logical for someone to read that post and believe that's what you were doing.
susie
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.