Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New...

Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

There are 3459 comments on the www.nytimes.com story from Jun 4, 2008, titled Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy. In it, www.nytimes.com reports that:

Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.nytimes.com.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#86 Jun 4, 2008
The Iggy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that it is against the separation of church & state. IF creationism WERE to have a basis in SCIENCE then I would have no issues with it being taught, unfortunately it is merely a bunch of literary books combined in one large book by MAN to deliver the "message" (control) to the masses.:)
Peace!
Yep! Creationist using legislation to get ID taught is kinda like if Oprah's book club started passing laws that "A Million Little Pieces" (or some crappy book) should be taught in english class because they like it, over the objections of actual literary professors and critics.

“Poke the bear at your own risk”

Since: Sep 07

Broomfield, CO

#87 Jun 4, 2008
Lester Phinney wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how there is no actual proof; just the typica “all scientists can’t be wrong” bull. Where can macroevolution be observed in the laboratory? Cite an example that clearly shows evolution. All you, the evolutionist, can cite are bacteria evolving into other forms of bacteria or a salamander evolving into a different kind of salamander. You cannot show one animal evolving into another animal. You cannot even cite a single instance of evolution appearing in the fossil record, yet I am the one lacking the intellectual capacity to understand evolution. The reason I disagree with evolution is because I don’t understand it. Such an amazing argument! You lack the skill to further your point so you question the intellect of your opponent. Sheer genius! Bravo!
Hello?!?! McFLY?!?! "All you, the evolutionist, can cite are bacteria evolving into other forms of bacteria or a salamander evolving into a different kind of salamander." THIS is EVOLUTION, PROVEN to you!

Dude, may I suggest going & getting an education? You really won't look so stupid if you were to LEARN a few things like the definition of evolution for starters: ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Evolution

Start with that, get back to us when you figure out how to argue intellegently

“Some people call me Maurice...”

Since: Jan 08

United States

#88 Jun 4, 2008
Kerdy 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they cant. Already tried it and it failed.
How so? There are billions of data points showing that once people die they never return from the dead three days later.
CreationistDude

South Africa

#89 Jun 4, 2008
SupaAFC wrote:
A summary of creation's arguments:
1) Attack evolution with nonsense.
2) Ignore logical, proven responses by people who know the theory far better than us. Repeat 1)
3) Present creation model: God did it.
4) Repeat steps 1) and 3)
5) Appeal court decisions; don't touch a laboratory to prove model.
6) Repeat steps 1), 3) and 5).
Again, the sources you have found most likely show previously answered Creationist questions posted on a pro-evolution site.
To find the questions that Evolutionists have not answered, you need to view the Creationist sites I've given above.
CreationistDude

South Africa

#90 Jun 4, 2008
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
ID is creationism in a pee-stained lab coat. Why is it all creationists seem to provide as "proof" of creationism is a list of names of crocks who believe in the same nonsense as themselves?
List of names /= proof.
I'd say much the same for many Evolutionists.
EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#91 Jun 4, 2008
Lester Phinney wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how there is no actual proof; just the typica “all scientists can’t be wrong” bull. Where can macroevolution be observed in the laboratory? Cite an example that clearly shows evolution. All you, the evolutionist, can cite are bacteria evolving into other forms of bacteria or a salamander evolving into a different kind of salamander. You cannot show one animal evolving into another animal. You cannot even cite a single instance of evolution appearing in the fossil record, yet I am the one lacking the intellectual capacity to understand evolution. The reason I disagree with evolution is because I don’t understand it. Such an amazing argument! You lack the skill to further your point so you question the intellect of your opponent. Sheer genius! Bravo!
So you believe murderers/rapists/etc convicted on forensic evidence should be released given the evidence might not have been directly observed by anyone? Additionally, what is the limitation that restricts small changes from adding up to large changes in a form?

The Theory of Evolution predicts geologic time scales to see the changes between forms that you insist upon. That we have not seen these changes happening faster is actually an argument against ID/creationism, both of which posit "overnight" appearances. However, what has been observed is novel functionality of mutations at the molecular level resulting in dramatic bodyplan modifications and the isolation of species, both of which are first "giant step" towards your requirement of observed "macroevolution". Contrast this to absolute vacuous nature of ID/creationism "research" which produces no supporting data, merely criticisms of other's actual scientific research.

The ToE explains the fossil record and biodiversity today. No other valid scientific explanation has been offered and the only other "alternatives" invoke magic (clearly not scientific). Perhaps you would care to offer the non-magical and non-evolutionary explanation for the superfluous telomeres and centromere in our chromosome 2? Why is God trying so hard to trick us into believing we are genetically related via a common ancestor to modern chimps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_ (human)

There will always be gaps in our knowledge of how biodiversity came to be but our current understanding guided by the ToE has been validated time and time again. How many pharmaceutical companies are using "ID/creationism" models to develop new drugs?
EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#92 Jun 4, 2008
CreationistDude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hear Hear!
However, Creationists DO have proof. Check our Dr Hovind for more info.
Isn't he still in prison?
CreationistDude

South Africa

#93 Jun 4, 2008
However, the underlying reason many folk believe in Evolution is that they do not wish to be accountable to God (or 'a' God) for anything they do on this Earth.

Since: Apr 08

Walla Walla, WA

#94 Jun 4, 2008
Lester Phinney wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how there is no actual proof; just the typica “all scientists can’t be wrong” bull. Where can macroevolution be observed in the laboratory? Cite an example that clearly shows evolution. All you, the evolutionist, can cite are bacteria evolving into other forms of bacteria or a salamander evolving into a different kind of salamander. You cannot show one animal evolving into another animal. You cannot even cite a single instance of evolution appearing in the fossil record, yet I am the one lacking the intellectual capacity to understand evolution. The reason I disagree with evolution is because I don’t understand it. Such an amazing argument! You lack the skill to further your point so you question the intellect of your opponent. Sheer genius! Bravo!
Actually, you are proposing that there has been a vast world-wide conspiracy ongoing for the past 150 years. Maybe in your deluded mind, but not in reality.

The folks on the science side of this fight have posted answers to your questions literally tens of thousands of times. You, and those like you, choose to ignore our answers.

For example, you requested examples of speciation. I'll answer - Culex molestans evolved from Culex pipiens, a new species, in under 150 years in the London subway system. Also try googling ring species.

Every species that is not extinct is a transitional species. You guys keep wanting to see a "half man, have banana, with wings and gills". You also think that evolution is linear. A straight line from Species A that suddenly tuns into Species B. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, I truly believe that the reason folks like you do not "believe" in evolution is because you do not even understand the basics of what it is you argue against. This is evidence by your statements. Often this is because folks purposefully choose to be ignorant.

“Poke the bear at your own risk”

Since: Sep 07

Broomfield, CO

#95 Jun 4, 2008
The_Captain wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! Creationist using legislation to get ID taught is kinda like if Oprah's book club started passing laws that "A Million Little Pieces" (or some crappy book) should be taught in english class because they like it, over the objections of actual literary professors and critics.
Aye, I agree.:)

Since: Jan 08

AOL

#96 Jun 4, 2008
“While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats.”

Look forward not behind ...

EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#97 Jun 4, 2008
CreationistDude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say much the same for many Evolutionists.
Most of the supporters of the ToE refer to the data generated by authors of peer-reviewed scientific research, not the authors of opinion driven apologetics.

Couple of quick questions: How many oil companies are using "flood geology" to search for new reserves? What new technology has been generated by "creation research", e.g. antibiotics, chemotherapies, etc? How many patents have been filed through the work conducted at AIG?

Why do you think this is?
EADGBE

Bozeman, MT

#98 Jun 4, 2008
CreationistDude wrote:
However, the underlying reason many folk believe in Evolution is that they do not wish to be accountable to God (or 'a' God) for anything they do on this Earth.
Many people of faith accept the physical evidence for the ToE, e.g. Drs. Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Belief in God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, i.e. Theistic Evolutionists. What is mutually exclusive is biblical literalism and physical reality.
Inigo Montoya

Phoenix, AZ

#99 Jun 4, 2008
Da Truth wrote:
evolutionist think their MOM's a Hairy Baboon!!!!
Yeah, but we bought her a Norelco for Christmas and make her cover her arse.

“Dor sho gha!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Iowa City, IA

#100 Jun 4, 2008
CreationistDude wrote:
However, the underlying reason many folk believe in Evolution is that they do not wish to be accountable to God (or 'a' God) for anything they do on this Earth.
Epic. Fail.
CreationistDude

South Africa

#101 Jun 4, 2008
The Iggy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello?!?! McFLY?!?! "All you, the evolutionist, can cite are bacteria evolving into other forms of bacteria or a salamander evolving into a different kind of salamander." THIS is EVOLUTION, PROVEN to you!
Dude, may I suggest going & getting an education? You really won't look so stupid if you were to LEARN a few things like the definition of evolution for starters: ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Evolution
Start with that, get back to us when you figure out how to argue intellegently
My friend, they have no record of Salamander Evolving. They began their research with the sole intent of discovering proof of mutations.
They wanted to see this, so their minds corrupted their findings- a few genetic differences they regarded as mutations instead.

Since: Jun 08

Crittenden, NY

#102 Jun 4, 2008
regaurdless of religion, people need to know how their world came about and how things happened. it is fine to have a religious and a scientific explanation, but the oppportunity to obtain both real, proven facts AND faith-based facts must be out there
Heath

United States

#103 Jun 4, 2008
Know the Truth

www.roysecitycoc.org
CreationistDude

South Africa

#104 Jun 4, 2008
EADGBE wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't he still in prison?
Unfortunately yes,:D
However, it was for tax legislation charges that were entirely unfairly done - see the Conservative Voice's article.
His son continues his work.
He also has free video if you wish to view his seminars - this is available on his site.

Since: Apr 08

Walla Walla, WA

#105 Jun 4, 2008
CreationistDude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Creationists arre of the mind that Creation really did happen and that Evolution had nothing to do with it.
They go by the Bible, and use startling evidence to show that Evolution is for Dummies.
It's actually surprising that people like YOU have not seen this.
So what is the scientific theory of creationism? What is the scientific evidence in support of creationism?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min Genesis Enigma 157,357
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min IB DaMann 51,360
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 24,641
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,716
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 8 hr Dogen 90
More from around the web