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

Skip to comments.

Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?
CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2smart2fall4it; atheistagenda; creation; crevo; darwin; evolution; god; intelligentdesign; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 2,061-2,064 next last
To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Unlike you, my respect for the Constitution does not diminish when it protects people I disagree with—it goes up, in fact.


LOL....riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...which is why right now you’ll no doubt call an end to the censorship of Christians!!!

That’s a funny one, it really is!


501 posted on 09/15/2008 7:25:51 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Then you surely know that there is MUCH more to science than just a debate. Perhaps that is how you got your science grade, by debating it?


You’re going way off the rails here, but what I beleive is that science is enhanced by healthy debate, and exploration, and not silencing people because of their beliefs, religious, scientific or otherwise.

Again, I propose for you to actually read:

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

These are SCIENTISTS...who no doubt got their grades beyond mere debate...IN FACT got their degrees beyond mere debate...and like me, make a living in science beyond mere debate!

What stifles debate, knowledge, exploration is censorship by a few that believe they know the definition of “acceptable” science.

Sheesh, if only you guys would spend 1/100th the energy with the golabl warming cultists!

Yours is an indefensible position.


502 posted on 09/15/2008 7:32:26 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
You’re going way off the rails here, but what I beleive is that science is enhanced by healthy debate,

Actually, you said "Debate, PERIOD!"

and exploration, and not silencing people because of their beliefs, religious, scientific or otherwise.

Not trying to silence people because of their beliefs but counter those that regurgitate from some creationist's website.

503 posted on 09/15/2008 7:38:56 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
What stifles debate, knowledge, exploration is censorship by a few that believe they know the definition of “acceptable” science.

Oh. Acceptable science is like that creationist organization that has all their 'scientist' swear that the only true science is that which agrees with their literal interpretation of the Bible.

504 posted on 09/15/2008 7:41:07 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I really doubt that any teacher would say that if a student questions Darwin.

>>>>>I know...I was joking with a friend and she went on about these lunatics pulling crosses out of cemeteries next because pretty much neither one of us thought they’d just never ever go THAT far.

Then along came Mt. Soledad.

Trust me, what NEA programmed teachers do these days...well put it this way there’s been enough in the news about them lately that I wouldn’t rule anything out!


It is when one stands up in a science class and declares the earth is only 6000 years old because I read it on some creationist website that a teacher might say “That’s not science”.

>>>>On the other hand not only would I doubt that THAT would ever happen, but I’ve yet to read any Biblical scripture that claims the earth was created 6000 years ago.

Nope, the questions are more along the lines:

Isn’t there something, ANYTHING that better explains our existence other than a big bang, life from dirt in just the right conditions, with no purpose, no design and that of course is creation/ID.


505 posted on 09/15/2008 7:48:32 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Here is where GGG began debating ERVs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1913314/posts?page=18#18


506 posted on 09/15/2008 7:49:15 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

“Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism.”

Well, no one can explain how matter is converted to energy but we all know that a match can burn the finger.


507 posted on 09/15/2008 7:49:19 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
On the other hand not only would I doubt that THAT would ever happen, but I’ve yet to read any Biblical scripture that claims the earth was created 6000 years ago.

Then it is not so, right?

508 posted on 09/15/2008 7:50:37 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Isn’t there something, ANYTHING that better explains our existence other than a big bang, life from dirt in just the right conditions, with no purpose, no design and that of course is creation/ID.

If one wants to believe that God designed the universe and man, that does not conflict with science. It is when one tries to stop us from learning the sequence in his design that one crosses the line. What are you afraid of?

509 posted on 09/15/2008 7:54:27 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Evos just think that it does because they think that they’re right.

>>>>>Well yes, that and programming has alot to do with it too.

Now we see judges not allowing kids in colleges because they too weren’t properly programmed.

But this is their last line of defense.


510 posted on 09/15/2008 7:56:51 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
What stifles debate, knowledge, exploration is censorship by a few that believe they know the definition of “acceptable” science.

Who are these "few"?

511 posted on 09/15/2008 7:59:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You don’t need a creationist website to dissent from darwin.

IN FACT dissent from darwin occured long before the algoreacle created the internet.

I said ‘debate PERIOD’ in relation to my point, not that debate was the ONLY AVENUE to understanding science.

You seem to be going further and further off the rails.


512 posted on 09/15/2008 8:00:54 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You’re floundering...this goes back to the strawman theocracy argument.

Science can only stand up to scrutiny as enforced by courts isn’t a very strong argument to be defending...

in fact, your position is still idefensable.


513 posted on 09/15/2008 8:09:28 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

So only atheist scientists can believe a match can burn a finger?

Interesting.


514 posted on 09/15/2008 8:11:41 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

No idea myself as I wasn’t here 6000 years ago or ga-jillions of years ago.

The Bible, as far as I know, mentions parental love, but I see evidence both supporting this and not so much.


515 posted on 09/15/2008 8:14:09 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What am I afraid of???

Ummmm, last I checked I wasn’t defending the side of censorship...

as far as sequences and timelines, why do you need a judge to determine such a thing?


516 posted on 09/15/2008 8:16:26 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

the minority godless


517 posted on 09/15/2008 8:37:02 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

So how’d we get from allowing creation to be taught in schools again as it had been for decades until it was forced out by litigation, to forcing everyone to accept the whole book of Genesis as an authoritative science and history text? Hyperbole much?

Certainly no less than the “evolutionists hate God” arguments.


It certainly isn’t about the science as plainly evident in this thread.

Hmmmmmmmm...I guess it could be Christianphobia...but what else COULD it be?


518 posted on 09/15/2008 8:56:38 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
It’s been demonstrated time and again, and proably on this thread too, that the rejection of God is also based entirely on faith.

It's also been demonstrated time and again that confidence in the theory of evolution is not a rejection of God. It's insulting for you to equate the two.

Also, a tip: the more you tie teaching an alternative to evolution, to getting Christianity back in the classroom, the less success you're likely to have in court. It's a losing strategy.

519 posted on 09/15/2008 9:02:19 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And if it's not right, and not truth (as science is not about truth anyway), it might as well be in the *opinion* category cause that's about how reliable it is.

And there we see just how antiscience, or ignorant of science, you can be. According to you, the best scientific theories we have--in all fields, not just in biology--no matter how much evidence supports them and how many times they've been tested, are no better than opinions because there's always the chance they may turn out to be wrong. Way to support the advancement of knowledge there.

520 posted on 09/15/2008 9:10:16 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540 ... 2,061-2,064 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