Evolution...

**Gotch** · May 26th, 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

Wouldn't Anthony Flew count toward the group not part of Discovery?

Yes

Didn't even think of that.

**Gotch** · May 26th, 2009, 10:26 PM

Actually part of the problem in compiling a large list is the criteria.

It appears that The Discovery Institute takes most any work which they approve of and make it a available on their site. Then if you run a title or author through their search engine it kicks out a hit. But did that work really have any connection the the Institute?

Of course at this point we are moving forward (ever so slowly) with other issues.

I don't want Jason's question to be forgotten for instance.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Adding on to this post in order to Keep Jason's question in the most recent post.

"William A. Dembski - Discovery Institute..might I add, I wouldn't source him as crdible."

May be a bit "eccentric" but....Ph.D. in mathematics, Ph.D in philosophy, M.S. in statistics, postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics and also in history and philosophy of science, postdoctral work in physics, and computer science. I'd say he is more credible than either you or me.

"Phillip E. Johnson - Co-founder Discovery Institute...also denies HIV cause AIDS might I add. Another looney."

Actually he claims that HIV is not the sole cause of aids to be correct. Doesn't have a strong background in science. Probably not real credible.

**R13** · May 27th, 2009, 09:50 PM

I just googled the main authors of the list he had. I picked the ones with publishing's on that list, looked all their bios up(a few I already knew with Discovery though.) and saw which ones who were members(fellows) of DI . Didn't go to their site and find them through their work. Again, there's no real peer-reviewed journals from the IDers there...goes to lack of evidence and fact.

**Gotch** · May 27th, 2009, 10:20 PM

This isn't a real strong area for me, but, I believe the following have peer-reviewed work published

Behe
Dembski
Charles Thaxton
Jonathan Wells
Walt Bradley
Roger Olsen
All of whom may or may not be associated with Di, I don't know, you seem to be the expert there, doesn't really matter to me.
Doug Axe
Albert Voie
Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig
Saedler
Sewell
Gonzalez
Abel
Trevors
Marks
Dunston
David Chiu
All of whom I believe? are indepent of ID, not sure though, but on this issue it doesn't matter.

Care to answer Jason's question?

**R13** · May 28th, 2009, 12:32 AM

An ID peer-reviewed publishing? I mean it could be by any of those guys. From what I've read, there's none ^^^ and the ones that have, have been rejected. Furthers my belief that they have no evidence, which I already know...since it can't be experimented on.

I didn't want to go and look up all about the evolution of the woodpecker, but I did some. From what I read, a different food supply would debunk whatever he said...the woodpecker has a huge tongue and would have been quite easy to find sources from the ground or may be loose bark.

It didn't debunk Evolution, so I didn't want to get into it. But there's what I got, IMO he should look into it a little more(an "open-minded" look). and then he'll know that Evolutionists don't think we came from monkeys.

**Gotch** · May 28th, 2009, 07:37 AM

All Of the ones I listed above (and many more) have had Peer-reviewed work published.

"I didn't want to go and look up all about the evolution of the woodpecker..."

Well, it's the most pertinent question to your original post question asked so far.

"From what I read, a different food supply would debunk whatever he said..."

So, you are saying it developed the necessary cushion for surviving the impact with the tree while not impacting the tree? Well, anyway, you did give the only answer that can be given, and the only one I've ever received.

" woodpecker has a huge tongue...."

Interesting that you brought that up. The Woodpeckers tongue extends 6 to 10 inches beyond the end of it's beak, has barbs on the tongue for spearing insects, and is tipped with a small glue supply (glue like substance) that the woodpecker produces. The woodpecker also produces a solvent for the glue.

So which adaptation (mutation) occurred first the glue or the solvent or were they simultaneous?

**Gotch** · May 28th, 2009, 07:52 AM

Once you get this out of the way we will go back to the Big Bang and the matter / anti-matter problems, followed by the origins of life without the correct gases existing to even produce the amino acids and then make the jump to life, then on to single cell issues and some mathematical problems, and work our way back towards the woodpecker and related issues.

**Jason** · May 28th, 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Burton13

Well that's not evolution or the idea of evolution. We don't think humans came from monkeys, that's the assumption from ones who know nothing about it.

Then tell me where you think we came from?

**Jason** · May 28th, 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Burton13

An ID peer-reviewed publishing? I mean it could be by any of those guys. From what I've read, there's none ^^^ and the ones that have, have been rejected. Furthers my belief that they have no evidence, which I already know...since it can't be experimented on.

I didn't want to go and look up all about the evolution of the woodpecker, but I did some. From what I read, a different food supply would debunk whatever he said...the woodpecker has a huge tongue and would have been quite easy to find sources from the ground or may be loose bark.

It didn't debunk Evolution, so I didn't want to get into it. But there's what I got, IMO he should look into it a little more(an "open-minded" look). and then he'll know that Evolutionists don't think we came from monkeys.

I have been very open minded about evolution in the past when I had the same mind set as you about God and if there was a God then why does he let bad things happen. Evolution has always been rediculous to me. The whole sense of someting evolving to fit its surroundings just seems magical. Like the woodpecker. If it did have a source of food then why did it have to magically evolve the cusion to to be able to peck against trees to find a food source? Maybe you need to open your mind to the other possibilities out there. I went through the same phase as you and was open to any explanation. But once I really looked into Evolution it just seemed too crazy to be real. But alot of people say the same for my belief too. I even thought it untill I got down and really prayed and as my faith increased the more prayers I had were answered. I dont see it as being coincidense either. Have you ever tried to pray and I mean really pray hard?

**SkoalSpitter** · May 28th, 2009, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

Then tell me where you think we came from?

A lot of us came from Vagina's

True story.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in god. The god that is in the bible. I don't have a problem believing that he is quite capable of creating things that can evolve.