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 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 2,061-2,064 next last
To: ColdWater

Historically, much of science HAS been incorrect.


541 posted on 09/16/2008 6:04:50 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

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

No, but one can see that you get your talking points there.

542 posted on 09/16/2008 6:06:10 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Gosh, what a grouch!

The first line is borrowed from George Carlin, I believe.

I don’t know who wrote the second line.

Keep smiling, there, Sloth! :)


543 posted on 09/16/2008 6:06:56 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Americans never quit!" Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

//If we evolved from lower animals, why do they still exist?

I’m no Darwinist, but this is a really, really dumb question. //

Based upon the theory, not really.

The theory (as this part of it was taught back in my day) was that the new species being more effective than the one it just ‘descended from’ therefore would out-compete for the same resources and push the old species into extinction.


544 posted on 09/16/2008 6:09:26 AM PDT by valkyry1 (McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Historically Science has increased its accuracy in measurement and prediction, and accumulated evidentary support for scientific theories.

Science is the most productive means for gaining reliable and accurate information about the physical world ever invented by mankind.

545 posted on 09/16/2008 6:09:52 AM PDT by allmendream (Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! Sa-RAH! RAH RAH RAH! McCain/Palin2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Historically, much of science HAS been incorrect.

Creationally, all of science is wrong.

546 posted on 09/16/2008 6:11:37 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The theory (as this part of it was taught back in my day) was that the new species being more effective than the one it just ‘descended from’ therefore would out-compete for the same resources and push the old species into extinction.

If all species competed for the same resources, that would make sense.

547 posted on 09/16/2008 6:14:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The theory (as this part of it was taught back in my day) was that the new species being more effective than the one it just ‘descended from’ therefore would out-compete for the same resources and push the old species into extinction.

If you knew anything about evolution you would know that our ancestors ARE all extinct.

548 posted on 09/16/2008 6:17:41 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Rather ignorant statement,

as the basis of science is that the universe has orderly, reasonble, and discoverable rules - taken from the Judaeo-Christian view of creation.

Historically, also, scientists have not only used Christian assumptions as the basis of their discoveries, but have matched their discoveries back to the Christian view of creation.

Sounds like you’re one of those that I was talking about that has the “reject God” chip on his shoulder.


549 posted on 09/16/2008 6:20:18 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I know plenty about the theory of evo, and my ancestors are perished not extinct than you.


550 posted on 09/16/2008 6:21:02 AM PDT by valkyry1 (McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
The theory (as this part of it was taught back in my day) was that the new species being more effective than the one it just ‘descended from’ therefore would out-compete for the same resources and push the old species into extinction.

Then you were taught it poorly.

551 posted on 09/16/2008 6:23:14 AM PDT by Sloth (Pontius Pilate voted 'present'; Barrabas was community organizer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

It goes back to Darwin himself IIRC.


552 posted on 09/16/2008 6:24:58 AM PDT by valkyry1 (McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: MrB
as the basis of science is that the universe has orderly, reasonble, and discoverable rules - taken from the Judaeo-Christian view of creation.

Science must assume that there is some order. If there were not some order, you could not even depend on the sun rising each morning. False argument.

Historically, also, scientists have not only used Christian assumptions as the basis of their discoveries, but have matched their discoveries back to the Christian view of creation.

Maybe that is why you said "Historically, much of science has been wrong"?

Sounds like you’re one of those that I was talking about that has the “reject God” chip on his shoulder.

Sounds like you are one of those that I was talking about that has the "reject science" chip on his shoulder.

553 posted on 09/16/2008 6:28:43 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; MrB

He is correct in what he says, historically most of science has been and will be shown to be wrong.

Examples such as the Pythagorean thereom and Newts law of gravitational acceleration (on earth) are the exceptions that make the rule.


554 posted on 09/16/2008 6:40:33 AM PDT by valkyry1 (McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Ignorance of scientific history on display.

And arrogance in the assumption of my “rejecting science”.

Obviously, no one with a God centered worldview could have any use for science, could they, Mr Science?

Liberal/leftist = arrogance + ignorance

Good day.


555 posted on 09/16/2008 6:40:46 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
He is correct in what he says, historically most of science has been and will be shown to be wrong.

Most of science is just our attempt to model reality. As our knowledge grows, our models improve, through trial and error. With science we continue to expand our horizons! Those that are scared of understanding who we are try to force us to not explore but to remain locked in a cave.

556 posted on 09/16/2008 6:54:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: MrB

And arrogance in the assumption of my “rejecting science”.

No. Just in your statements rejecting science.

557 posted on 09/16/2008 6:56:36 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Obviously, no one with a God centered worldview could have any use for science, could they, Mr Science?

I wonder when I am shown textbooks that state that any science that contradicts the good book is wrong and must be dismissed.

558 posted on 09/16/2008 6:58:15 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Newts law of gravitational acceleration

has already been replaced ...

559 posted on 09/16/2008 6:59:13 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
Newts law of gravitational acceleration

You are about 92 years behind in your studies ...

560 posted on 09/16/2008 7:02:52 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 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