Darwin's evolution theory?

[Melethiel]

this isn't the darwinian theory of evolution, however, which states that everything formed from nothing with a big bang.

Couldn't resist....no it doesn't. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two completely different things.

 

[GraceInHim]

hey you know what is a great discovery - possibly the first Christian church found in Israel - ther thread has the pics - and a piece of pottery with the name Goliath on it was found also today - now that is a discovery

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

Couldn't resist....no it doesn't. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two completely different things.

furthermore the Big Bang theory doesnt sate that everything fromed from nothing due to a big bang
what it says is
Every thing formed from a unexplained explosion of a unexplained clump of mass

 

[invisible trousers]

how do i keep lying??? that was only my second post in this thread!!!

"evolution claims that xxxx"
"no, evolution does not claim xxxx, but instead yyyy. see this link for more info"
"what! "evolution claims that xxxx"

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

i don't take your resources seriously because they are completely unscientific and outright lies or distortions.

well my resource was the Holy Bible so i guess if its unscientific then im not much of a person for science

rich! why don't you just go ahead and call me unchristian? obviously one can only be a true christian™ if they believe in a literal creation. any christian who believes otherwise must be wicked and a tool of the devil.

Rich! why dont you just go ahead and stick words in his mouth!

 

[53Isaiah]

In addition to evolution and ID, there is also the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). FSMism is a broadly-believed faith that is gaining respect in the scientific community and among the scientifically literate.

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...es/2005/10/02/the_timeless_truth_of_creation/

FSM was so 3 weeks ago

 

[A. believer]

Absolutely maddening. I suggest you all read "Inherit the Wind" for a bit of perspective on this subject. Amazing that the same "monkey" argument is still being tossed around 80 years later. If you are adverse to reading any literature other the KJV Bible, you can always rent the movie version (1960, with Spencer Tracey).

Great idea! And while you're at the library, you should brush up on church history by reading Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

 

[Donkeytron]

furthermore the Big Bang theory doesnt sate that everything fromed from nothing due to a big bang
what it says is
Every thing formed from a unexplained explosion of a unexplained clump of mass

It wasn't actually an explosion from a clump of mass but you know what- its not worth the time.

 

[A. believer]

The vast majority of the scientific community has basically shrugged off the ID "controversy." Personally I'd perfer to see them oppose it more but whatever. Trust me, they're not threatened by it.

Yeah, sure.

As was said before, the Dover trial has shown that once again creationism/ID has no basis in reality.

How has it done that, again?

 

[Donkeytron]

Yeah, sure.



How has it done that, again?

Read my post on ID. ID was totally owned at the trial. Especially their star witness, Behe. Between the astrology and the textbook corrections, they're finished.

Post 271, for reference.

 

[A. believer]

It is a fundy strategy. Check out the funding of the Discovery Institute.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/fred_barton_int.html

Hmm.most of it from ultra conservative fundamentalists, whaddya know.

Check out the wedge document.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Sounds like good science to me!

I'm not denying that there's a concerted effort to force the debate by exposing what's behind the smoke and mirrors of the evolutionist establishment. What I'm mocking is the way the dogmatic evolutionists are trying so desperately to discredit the movement by try to convince the public the people behind the movement are a bunch of anti-science ignoramuses.

Ask why Behe, Dembski, and the other credentialed (the former more than the latter) scientists stick to writing pop-sci books and don't publish in scholarly journals. The journals are biased? Then where are the biased refusal letters that should come with every rejected paper?

I have a better idea. Why don't you ask yourself why the dogmatic evolutionists would have such an interest in propagating that lie.

From Evolution News and Views

Krauss then goes on to make a claim that is just plain, factually, wrong.

“The Discovery Institute in Seattle supports the work of several Ph.D.'s who then write books (and op-ed articles) decrying the fallacy of evolution. They don't write scientific articles, however, because the claims they make - either that cellular structures are too complex to have evolved or that evolution itself is improbable - have either failed to stand up to detailed scrutiny or involve no falsifiable predictions.”​

Hmmm. No scientific articles at all. I will have to spend some time getting the exact numbers of articles by Discovery Fellows and posting them here later, but our “several” Fellows (near 40 PhD’s for this year alone) have between them published hundreds of articles in scientific journals.




But let’s just take one at random and see what we find.

Dr. Henry Schaefer received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.​

Here’s the interesting part.

He is the author of more than 1000 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society. ... A total of 300 scientists from 35 countries gathered in Gyeongju, Korea for a six-day conference in February, 2004 with the title "Theory and Applications of Computational Chemistry: A Celebration of 1000 Papers of Professor Henry F. Schaefer III."​

Did I miss something? An entire conference was held to celebrate the papers of a Discovery Institute scientist who according to Krauss doesn’t ”write scientific articles.”




Just as a little side note:

Dr. Schaefer has been invited to present plenary lectures at more than 180 national or international scientific conferences. He has delivered endowed or named lectures or lecture series at more than 35 major universities, including the 1998 Kenneth S. Pitzer Memorial Lecture at Berkeley and the 2001 Israel Pollak Distinguished Lectures at the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.. … During the comprehensive period of 1981--1997 Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world; out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited. The Science Citation Index reports that by December 31, 1999, his research had been cited more than 30,000 times.​

Ask why Behe, under oath, said that ID isn't science as science is classically defined, and the way he defines it, is no different than astrology.

Instead, why don't you ask yourself why evolutionists don't admit that evolution isn't science as science is classically defined. Both theories are paradigms, not scientific conclusions. It's just that the ID theorists are not afraid to admit that. (To be fair, there have been many evolutionists who admit it as well, but somehow that fact hasn't trickled down to you people. I wonder why that is.)

 

[Donkeytron]

"Krauss then goes on to make a claim that is just plain, factually, wrong.

“The Discovery Institute in Seattle supports the work of several Ph.D.'s who then write books (and op-ed articles) decrying the fallacy of evolution. They don't write scientific articles, however, because the claims they make - either that cellular structures are too complex to have evolved or that evolution itself is improbable - have either failed to stand up to detailed scrutiny or involve no falsifiable predictions.”​

Hmmm. No scientific articles at all. I will have to spend some time getting the exact numbers of articles by Discovery Fellows and posting them here later, but our “several” Fellows (near 40 PhD’s for this year alone) have between them published hundreds of articles in scientific journals."

Just a helpful hint: You can be a creationist/IDer/whatever and publish scholarly articles. I thought it was pretty clear that I meant they haven't published any articles ON ID or creationism in reputable journals. Thus, the quote is question dead on. Additionally, I don't know what this paradigm nonsense is supposed to mean. You can keep pretending evolution isn't science, but it is. It works. Sorry to burst your cozy bubble of denial, but evolution isn't going away.

 

[praying]

Is not God full of Light??? Monkeys are dark and hairy - spooky...

Where does that leave people of color, are they spooky?

 

[GraceInHim]

Where does that leave people of color, are they spooky?

*joking* in my post you are posting - please ask a real question please -

 

[GraceInHim]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174957,00.html

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.
It's unclear how the new standards will affect what's taught in classrooms. Those decisions will remain with 300 local school boards, and some teachers have said they won't change what they teach. However, some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

Supporters see the proposed standards as promoting academic freedom.

"It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican who supported the board's action.

The board's vote was along ideological lines.

Member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat, said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."

 

[Donkeytron]

Member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat, said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."

I'm glad! If they wanna be stupid, I say let em. Just means more jobs and college openings for the rest of us.

 

[linssue55]

Exept the data we get form the bible

The people who wrote the bible were not stupid i think god would have made them realize what to write

You are correct.. ALL of the writers of the bible were indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, a gift to them from God, so it was God the Holy Spirit that Inspired the writting. Today we call it the filling of the Holy Spirit, 1 John 1:9, without this filling we are carnal....grieving and queching the spirit, out of fellowship. God gives us this wonderful verse, as a mechanic to be constantly filled, 1 John 1:9 to be used every time we sin. This is the Righteous works that will not be burned at the last judgement. Only dead works will be burned, anything done in carnality.

 

[linssue55]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html


why do you keep on lying?

edit: by now i should have realized that trying to discuss science with people who don't even remotely understand it is a fruitless effort.

My ancestors are Adam and Eve.

 

[linssue55]

I'm a biochemist-at least I was until I had children-so now I'm a mom with an expensive education.
I remember sitting in class studying protein synthesis and thinking to myself, "There is NO way that all this just happened by itself." Every component of our bodies, every gene, every biological cycle are just so incredibly complex. Someone once said to me that if you go out into nature and find a watch just lying there, NO ONE ever says, "Wow, look how this watch evolved here. Isn't it interesting how the wind smoothed the gold over time, and how the all the gears are formed so perfectly?"

But human beings, who are incredibly more complex, just arose accidentally?

This is true of DNA too.......it is an Incredible geneo map, that scientists have claimed, it alone needs a creator.

 

[lmnop9876]

Couldn't resist....no it doesn't. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are two completely different things.

i think you've misread me. i said:

this isn't the darwinian theory of evolution, however, which states that everything formed from nothing with a big bang

i may have oversimplified the theory, but this is what it boils down to. from somewhere this mass of chemicals came into existence. through one or several explosions, these chemicals eventually formed all the galaxies and solar systems. then these inorganic materials formed into single-celled life forms, and eventually into all the life forms that now exist.
i am fully aware that evolution and the big bang are completely different things, the big bang(s) is held to be the beginning of the evolutionary process in the darwinian theory of evolution. evolution is the process of natural selection, adaptive radiation, and survival of the fittest, which molds and changes the world's existing species according to their environment to form new species. i don't deny that these are natural processes God has instituted to continue the propagation of the species. i don't believe in the darwinian theory of evolution.

"evolution claims that xxxx"
"no, evolution does not claim xxxx, but instead yyyy. see this link for more info"
"what! "evolution claims that xxxx"

i'm sorry, but i didn't post any links!!! how could i have "kept on lying" when i'd only posted twice on the thread???