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

Skip to comments.

Gould Strikes Back At Creationists
Indepedent.co.uk ^ | 4-09-2002

Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-384 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
One I can think of off-hand was Forrest Mims, who was sacked from his column-writing job at Scientific American for his anti-Darwinian beliefs. Here is a good account by Mims: http://yarchive.net/env/fmims.html

I have heard of others, although I would be hard pressed to come up with a dozen.
341 posted on 04/12/2002 4:13:02 AM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
There's nothing in the articles to show that anyone was forced to write something. This seems to be just something you just made up.

Very dishonest of you. I gave links to the articles where the absurdity of the ankle bones is to be found. You can also find plenty of articles by just looking up Eosimias saying the same thing - that a pair of miniscule ankle bones is proof of evolution. Fact of the matter is that paleontologists, science writers, newspapers, magazines and tv regularly prostitute themselves for the sake of evolution.

342 posted on 04/12/2002 5:57:35 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Lying doggo...
343 posted on 04/12/2002 6:02:35 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7,RadioAstronomer
Take a good astronomy class at college. You will see that many applications & discoveries have been made based on the assumption that the universe is billions of years old. For example, the shape of our galaxy was able to be mapped (and it came out looking like other galaxies) based on the assumption that hydrogen atoms flipped every few million years... perhaps RadioAstronomer can explain better, it's been a while since that class.

Many creationists are old-universe while being young-earth, though. I recommend a class in geology and/or taking a high-level biology course (above the 100s)...

High school science education or just general entry-level biology college classes will NOT give a convincing evolution, and that is the kind of education the vast majority of the population has.

It's like... you go to the webpages that say man hasn't landed on the moon. Those websites are very convincing... unless your education tells you better. Same thing with creationism. They come up with a lot of statements and such that appear make logical sense, but they work on very little actual scientific base.

I can tell you that I was a very unyielding creationist until I went to college & found out that all the "proof" the creationists offer in all their books were honest distortions or misrepresentations and work from very little scientific basis. (One example is that they -all- confuse hypothesis with theory, which tells me they don't have much of a higher science education in first place...)

Good luck in all your endeavors, and despite what many will tell you, I do not think there is a conflict with taking Genesis as an allegory. Genesis means so much more than you'd think, especially when taking its historical context, but that's a subject for another day. :-)

344 posted on 04/12/2002 6:33:14 AM PDT by Nataku X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
general entry-level biology college classes will NOT give a convincing evolution,

Amend that to "general entry-level biology college classes will NOT give a convincing case for evolution"

345 posted on 04/12/2002 6:35:05 AM PDT by Nataku X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
Many creationists are old-universe while being young-earth, though. I recommend a class in geology and/or taking a high-level biology course (above the 100s)...

It's not the age of the universe, or even the Earth, that I'm questioning.

What I am doubting is the belief that all life evolved from a common one-cell ancestor. This has never been proved. Some insist it has been. This emotional instance more than anything that has made me skeptical of it.

Actually, evolution has arguably been disproved if Gore3K's information is correct concerning the rate of observed mutations. If the time -- even assuming old Earth, old universe -- is not available to mathematically account for the development of life as we now see it, it seems it would be better science to doubt evolution.

Quick question: is time an absolute or relative method of measurement.

346 posted on 04/12/2002 6:49:12 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
I went to college & found out that all the "proof" the creationists offer in all their books were honest distortions or misrepresentations and work from very little scientific basis.

I agree that neither Genesis nor the Bible should be used as a science book.

347 posted on 04/12/2002 6:58:36 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Well, since I believe God was actively involved in the evolutionary process, someone more naturalistic might want to answer those very good questions... but evolution is very well demonstrated between many groups of species (for example, polychaetes to velvet worms to arthropods). Putting all these together, it is not unreasonable to assume by induction that they might have a common bacteria ancestor.

There's a difference between absolute time and relative time. Geologists work mostly by relative time. They can determine very accurately that one rock layer is so-and-so millions of years older than the sill or dyke within it.

348 posted on 04/12/2002 7:33:53 AM PDT by Nataku X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The thing about the rigid adherence to evolution is that all of these guys -- Gould included -- earned their doctorates and built their careers on the assumption that evolution is true. Their defense of evolution is less because of solid scientific evidence, and more because they're fighting for their lives to validate their entire professional careers.

In some cases they defend evoltutionary theory because it's also their religion. Sometimes for both reasons.

349 posted on 04/12/2002 7:39:46 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
>i> Darwin was a liar, an advocate of Eugenics, an advocate of sterilization, an advocate of wars to destroy inferior species, a racist and a lot of other totally despicable and unChristian attitudes and beliefs. Anyone who supports evolution either does not know evolution or does not know Christianity.

This is a load of crap. You can believe whatever you want to believe and so can the rest of us. Darwin was a naturalist. Where did you get all that other stuff?

350 posted on 04/12/2002 8:14:10 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

Comment #351 Removed by Moderator

Comment #352 Removed by Moderator

Comment #353 Removed by Moderator

Comment #354 Removed by Moderator

To: gore3000
Your links do not agree with your posts. Very dishonest of you.
355 posted on 04/12/2002 10:06:29 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
but evolution is very well demonstrated between many groups of species (for example, polychaetes to velvet worms to arthropods)

But that's what this discussion is about. The evolution isn't demonstrated. We can't show that a polychaete became a velvet worm. We can't even show that a salamander became a gekko.

I'm not saying that it is unfair to speculate that these things have occurred. It is unfair to declare that these things have occurred.

356 posted on 04/12/2002 2:00:11 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

Comment #357 Removed by Moderator

To: Junior
Placemarker bump.
358 posted on 04/12/2002 4:29:47 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; hunble
Your little exchange makes my earlier point very well: evolutionary ideologues (who use Darwinism as an argument-from-no-design to bash theism) need the randomness to be of the character of that in Diamond's parody for their arguments to fly.

The success of "genetic programming" in which a stochastic search of a designedly limited range of possibilities with a pre-designed standard of fitness suggests by analogy that a stochastic search of a law-constrained system of possibilities could well be the right form for a theory. Of course, that won't do to bainsh the law-maker as some would like. It would, however, be very good science.

359 posted on 04/12/2002 4:35:58 PM PDT by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
What a racist idea. Sounds like you think black folks are less intelligent than white folks...Or maybe I am misreading you and perhaps you think Asians and East Indians are more intelligent than "white" people...

Everyone knows that the most intelligent people eat Chicago-style hot dogs.

360 posted on 04/12/2002 4:55:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-384 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