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 ...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is where GGG began debating ERVs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1913314/posts?page=18#18
“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.
Then it is not so, right?
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?
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.
Who are these "few"?
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.
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.
So only atheist scientists can believe a match can burn a finger?
Interesting.
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.
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?
the minority godless
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?
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.
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.
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.