This guy, Whitehead, is preaching to the already convinced, and it is important to them because if homosexuality is genetically determined, then God (and his/her followers) cannot condemn homosexuals since they were made that way. OTOH, if homosexuality is a matter of choice, then one might well be expected to bear the consequences of a "bad" choice. So...what evidence is there one way or the other. We have Whitehead's reports, none of which are published in credible scientific journals. We also have several studies of monozygotic (identical) twins that shows at least a 50% concordance on homosexuality, true of separated monozygotic twins as well as those raised in the same household. OTOH, the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, as well as in fraternal twins, is 1/5th of that. This indicates a strong genetic component, with an overlay of as yet undetermined postnatal factors, some of which may also play out through genetic mechanisms. Science vs. what you want/have to believe.

Not the first instance of diety-induced mass terrorism: just ask Noah.

Time to put on those "critical analysis" glasses and examine this claim. The erosion rate of Niagra falls does indeed indicate that erosion has been going on for perhaps 10,000 years. However, it would be a serious mistake to assume that that in any way relates to the age of the earth, only of that particular waterfall. There is a waterfall near my house that began 15 years ago - does that mean that the earth is only 15 years old. Clean those critical analysis glasses, please, before making nonsensical claims.

You don't deny evolution, but deny that new species have developed? Either you don't understand evolution, or you are ignoring the evidence (or both). The fossil record shows the complete absence of many species early, then their appearance in a later stratum - for example, our favorite species, homo sapiens. Either this species appeared de novo, or it evolved.

Whew...that's a pretty broad misunderstanding of science. Can you see gravity? So I guess you had better hold on tight to the ground. How about radio waves? There goes communication, including cell phones. Don't even get me started on electrons, neutrons and positrons...there goes matter.

There is no point in debating this if we are speaking different languages that have different definitions of religion. Please define "religion" as you use the term.

No, Rac. Bergman is not worth refuting because he is inherently an unreliable source. I don't listen to homeless guys in Manhatten when they try to expound on their economic theories, so I won't waste my time listening to a discredited junior college instructor pontificate. OTOH, I will listen to Mike Behe, for example, since he does posses some actual scientific credentials. He just happens to be wrong, but he is worth listening to. As was already said in this thread, check the source before giving it credence. If an non-creditable source agrees with you, maybe that says something about your opinions.

And yet...



Do you not see the contradiction?

No, I have a very strong aversion to people making up facts to be presented as scientific fact. You made an assertion that I doubt, and responded to my respectful request for substantiation with an "ad hominem" response. Let's see the information behind your claim. I am open-minded, but not so open that my mind falls out onto the floor.

"evilutionists" deny that we are evolved from chimps for the same reason that geneticists deny that you are descended from your cousin when the t***h is that you share many familial traits because you and your cousin are descended from some common ancestor, your grandparents.

I've been away for a few days, so have fallen behind on this thread, but I felt that Rac's statement, above, needed factual rebuttal.

Your error, Rac, lies in your not understanding biological systematics. When we say that coelocanths are an extinct organism, the statement is based on the failure to find any members of the coelocanthiformes, which is a group of t***sitional species between fish and tetrapods. Notice, please, the plural of species in the previous sentence. There are at least 14 species of coelocanths (coelocanthiformes)known, but there are only 2 surviving today. The others went extinct. We do not find samples of the extant species in the fossil record, meaning that they might have made their appearance relatively recently as the group changed over many missions of years, that is, they evolved.

Your comments about Tiktalik also warrant rebuttal. Your assertions are made up of holed-cloth that you (or someone you choose to believe) have fabricated. There has been no scientific rebuttal of the putative role of Tiktalik as an example of a t***sitional form, and saying so is simply not true. If I have somehow missed scientific reports of this "fact" in my 40 years of teaching about evolution, please send me the references and I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion.

I don't expect you to change your mind in response to my comments - you are too deeply committed to a non-scientific world-view, and choose to believe non-scientists such as Kent Hovind over data and evidence. However, if your wild claims are allowed to remain unrebutted, others with more open minds might conclude that you are correct when, in fact, you are not.

The number of t***sitional forms is enormous, and informative. For example, "Tiktalik" is a t***sitional form between fish and tetrapods, and was found by following the predictions of evolutionary theory. There are too many t***sitional forms to discuss all of them here. The evidence is overwhelming, unless you simply close your eyes and declare that there are no such forms in sight.

The putative loss of the sun's mass is dependent on two assumptions. First, is the assumption that any shrinkage would occur at a uniform rate, a concept known as "uniformalism", which is exactly the assumption that creationists lambaste scientists for using to assume that atomic decay occurs at a constant rate. Second, is the assumption that the sun is shrinking, which is based on an unreliable set of data published in 1980. Current (as opposed to 35 year old reports) indicate that the diameter of the sun is cyclical, and there is no evidence of true shrinking.

Many strata are not dated from fossil ages, but by absolute measures such as radiometric dating. No circular reasoning here.
This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
See my comment for item 4, above.
[/quote]

Idaholover - try something new: Go to the Federal Register and CFR 120 and read these, then compare them to what the NRA said. At best, the NRA is making stuff up to generate a non-existent crisis.

Does anyone have the citation to this "recent" paper by Behe. The most recent I can find in QRB is several years old. Am I missing something, or is this just a case of pretending that there is something new in very old stuff?