Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed From GA HS Books.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Seems some religious zealots in the Peach state were trying to purvey their own agenda in one school system.

-------------------------------------------------
By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers in its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
"By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put in the books by school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."

Doug Goodwin, a spokesman for Cobb County schools, had no immediate comment.

The schools added the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life. Six parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state.

At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.

"Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

The case is one of several battles waged in recent years in the Bible Belt over what role evolution should play in science books.

Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." That plan was dropped amid protests by teachers.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_re_us/evolution_stickers


Another article along the same lines.........
The New Monkey Trial (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/)

[orangeatheist]

Bravo!

Evolution is a fact and a theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

[TheDave]

:devil: Oh boy... here we go again :devil:

[W*GS]

Ya know, why don't these Bible freak parents take their kids out of the public schools and send to Christian schools? There is a market for educating one's kids.

Sheesh.

[alkemical]

wags what do you think about abolishing the 10th plank of socialism?

[TheDave]

wags what do you think about abolishing the 10th plank of socialism?

Though i fear this is something i should know... what the hell is the 10th plank of socialism?

[Rascal]

call me an idiot I don't care but the evolutionary theory is a theory...hence the name. And to present it as fact is just as wrong as presenting creationalism as fact.

[Phantom]

Macro-evolution is theory, conjecture, unproven ....
Micro-evolution is factual, observable, able to be reproduced in a lab, etc.

If Creationism is not allow in the classroom , then neither should Macro-evolution. To use Beerslugs terminology - those Non-bible thumping freaks - should understand this.

Thousands of parents have a problem with the book - so the sticker was added. A handful of parents have a problem with the sticker, so it is removed and you assume the 'good guys' win again?

[alkemical]

Though i fear this is something i should know... what the hell is the 10th plank of socialism?

state run schools.

[TheDave]

Macro-evolution is theory, conjecture, unproven ....
Micro-evolution is factual, observable, able to be reproduced in a lab, etc.



Sorry but a scientific theory is a long way from conjecture / unproven...just helping to keep the terms straight

Theory - is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

[TheDave]

state run schools.

Thanks - not that you were asking me the question but NO - (I'm looking to keep my job)

[alkemical]

Thanks - not that you were asking me the question but NO - (I'm looking to keep my job)

Ahso.

I'm torn on it dave -

Part of me thinks that state schools are needed, but would getting rid of them and running charter schools do better -

but then it creates a haves-have nots situation -

[Rascal]

Macro-evolution is theory, conjecture, unproven ....
Micro-evolution is factual, observable, able to be reproduced in a lab, etc.

If Creationism is not allow in the classroom , then neither should Macro-evolution. To use Beerslugs terminology - those Non-bible thumping freaks - should understand this.

Thousands of parents have a problem with the book - so the sticker was added. A handful of parents have a problem with the sticker, so it is removed and you assume the 'good guys' win again?

exactly.

I don't dismiss or reject micro-evolution but macro...hell yeah.

[Phantom]

It's simple - Creationism and Macro-Evolution are not science. Both are religious in nature as they use theories to explain the origin of life. Neither should be taught in public schools.

[Phantom]

Sorry but a scientific theory is a long way from conjecture / unproven...just helping to keep the terms straight

Theory - is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Still not fact.

Plus Creationism - if you are really interested - also uses scentific theroies to prove it's claims and is verified by members of the scentific community.

Both are very interesting hypothesis, but cannot be reproduced in a lab, are not fact and should not be taught as such.

[Spider]

As someone that is going through a horror story about schools , I will add this , as I see it Religion has a place , it is called sunday school , wednesday night Bible study , if a student wants to venture futher into Religion , that is his or hers choice , Ames , State ran schools are a great Idea and have their merit , while I agree the one size fits all approach does not apply to individual needs , it is better then alot of the alternitives I have encountered..Some of these private schools cost as much as college , then you get into the medical aspect , for example State ran schools are required to have a Nurse , that can administer first aid , and general medical services ,Kids + playgrounds = injuries .

[Rascal]

Don't get me wrong I want Religion and State seperated. But what they are teaching in MACRO-evolution and Big Bang are theories and should not be taught as fact. There are other theories out there and one happens to be creationalism.

[TheDave]

Still not fact.

Plus Creationism - if you are really interested - also uses scentific theroies to prove it's claims and is verified by members of the scentific community.

Both are very interesting hypothesis, but cannot be reproduced in a lab, are not fact and should not be taught as such.

There are alot of scientific theories (not laws but theories) being taught in schools, should we get rid of all of them or just the ones that clash with peoples religious beliefs?

[Rascal]

There are alot of scientific theories (not laws but theories) being taught in schools, should we get rid of all of them or just the ones that clash with peoples religious beliefs?

Name one.

[Mile High Shack]

I am NOT even getting into this again...everyone knows where I stand

[TheDave]

Name one.


Einstiens theory of relativity

[TheDave]

I am NOT even getting into this again...everyone knows where I stand

I partly with you shack... i'm trying real hard to skirt the nasty stuff..

[Rascal]

Einstiens theory of relativity

I had that taught in a physics class, although it might have been mentioned in passing, as an elective course not something required. And I would say yes that Einsteins theory should not be taught in required courses. General science classes shouldn't be presenting theories IMO, now specific science classes...physics for example...then that's fine but still both sides of the argument should be presented.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Still not fact.

Plus Creationism - if you are really interested - also uses scentific theroies to prove it's claims and is verified by members of the scentific community.

Both are very interesting hypothesis, but cannot be reproduced in a lab, are not fact and should not be taught as such.
I was wondering what scientists have verified creationism theories? Is there a site that shows who those scientists are?

[Rascal]

scientists thought the world was flat, but until there is hard core evidence it is still a theory no matter how many scientists put their eggs into it.

[Rascal]

I am NOT even getting into this again...everyone knows where I stand

as long as the discussion stays on teaching of the respective theories then I'm game, but if it regresses to a debate on the merits of each then I'm out. But are scientifically unproven....therefore coming to a conclusion based on tangible things is impossible.

[TheDave]

I had that taught in a physics class, although it might have been mentioned in passing, as an elective course not something required. And I would say yes that Einsteins theory should not be taught in required courses. General science classes shouldn't be presenting theories IMO, now specific science classes...physics for example...then that's fine but still both sides of the argument should be presented.

Sorry boss but if we stop teaching the therories most of the other stuff goes with it! There is just too many important theories out there, you won't make it past the 3rd quarter in chem classes today without using the newer theories involving electron paths and orbits (for example)!

You say we should present both sides... what happens if 98%+ of the scientific community disagrees with a particular theory? How could we possibly teach these classes if all we did was bring up any thought that anyone had, no matter how far off base it is.

[Rascal]

Sorry boss but if we stop teaching the therories most of the other stuff goes with it! There is just too many important theories out there, you won't make it past the 3rd quarter in chem classes today without using the newer theories involving electron paths and orbits (for example)!

I don't think so, and electron paths is not a theory.

[TheDave]

I don't think so, and electron paths is not a theory.

Trust me it is!

[Rascal]

Trust me it is!

why?

[TheDave]

why?

Cause i teach the stuff (should be starting my ph'd next semester, depends on scheduling)

[Rascal]

well I have a best friend who has his phd in atomic energy and he would strongly disagree with you.

[Mile High Shack]

I just think the original point of the article is stupid........

if your kid doesn't know how you think by then, then he/she never will and ultimately, it's up to the invididual on what path they chose, they can't have their parents values their whole lives

.....but that being said, evolution is still a theory ;)

[Mile High Shack]

"I try to get out but they keep PULLING ME BACK IN!!!!"

http://www.jgeoff.com/godfather/pkphotos/gfiii2.jpg

[TheDave]

well I have a best friend who has his phd in atomic energy and he would strongly disagree with you.

No he wouldn't... rascal, your grasping at straws, do a simple search on electron orbitals and you will notice that little word "theory" next to most of them

[TheDave]

"I try to get out but they keep PULLING ME BACK IN!!!!"


You can't stay away any more than i can... :stuck:

[Mile High Shack]

No he wouldn't... rascal, your grasping at straws, do a simple search on electron orbitals and you will notice that little word "theory" next to most of them

well I'll be honest now

you guys have lost me officially

I'm just a simple caveman, your ways frighten me.........

[TheDave]

well I'll be honest now

you guys have lost me officially

I'm just a simple caveman, your ways frighten me.........

I still luv ya man ... even if you do think the earth is flat ;)

[TheDave]

Honestly guys get enough scientists behind the old creationist stuff and i would have no problem teaching it, but until that happens were all stuck with this "flawed" theory of evolution!

[Rascal]

No he wouldn't... rascal, your grasping at straws, do a simple search on electron orbitals and you will notice that little word "theory" next to most of them

We'll I called him and asked and he said I was full of ****, so there ya go.

[Rascal]

Honestly guys get enough scientists behind the old creationist stuff and i would have no problem teaching it, but until that happens were all stuck with this "flawed" theory of evolution!

honest opinion, I can appreciate that. As long as they present the theory of evolution as a theory and flawed then I guess that would calm my greatest annoyancies (sp?) but it is often taught as fact.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

honest opinion, I can appreciate that. As long as they present the theory of evolution as a theory and flawed then I guess that would calm my greatest annoyancies (sp?) but it is often taught as fact.
I don't think it is taught much differently now than when I went to school.
All my biology teachers always used something like *from what most scientists believe now* or something similar when addressing evolution.

[Conquistadita]

Facts are useless. What's important is learning what to do with them. That's why theories are important. Fact is seeing objects being magically attracted toward other objects. Theory is concluding that space-time curvature is the cause of this attraction. You test the theory against the facts, and that's why the evolutionary theory of modern synthesis is, indeed, a theory. It's a true one, too, just so you know.

We'll I called him and asked and he said I was full of ****, so there ya go.

Electron orbitals are little more than mathematical equations of probability. I'd be surprised if those are any more "fact" or "reality" than they are ghost stories. Yes, they work as a model of reality, but that's what they are, mathematical models. In fact, I haven't met a single person who can actually tell me what an electron is, much less explain why they absolutely have to be real.

That said, there are electrons and they do orbit via probabilistic functions. Bizarre, isn't it?

[TheDave]

Facts are useless. What's important is learning what to do with them. That's why theories are important. Fact is seeing objects being magically attracted toward other objects. Theory is concluding that space-time curvature is the cause of this attraction.

or just plain old london forces...:woowoo:

[W*GS]

state run schools.

Yep.

As Twain said, "I've never let my schooling interfere with my education".

[orangeatheist]

call me an idiot I don't care but the evolutionary theory is a theory...hence the name. And to present it as fact is just as wrong as presenting creationalism as fact.

I didn't put that link in to get my jollies off. Evolution is a fact and a theory. There's none of this "macro" vs. "micro" evolution crap. Evolution is evolution. From the article, if anyone had the audacity to try and read it:

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

Those of you that advocate the existence of "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" would you mind telling the mechanism that allows species to evolve within themselves but not into a differing breeding population? What biological barrier is there that allows evolution up to a particular point and then no further?

[Conquistadita]

Those of you that advocate the existence of "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" would you mind telling the mechanism that allows species to evolve within themselves but not into a differing breeding population? What biological barrier is there that allows evolution up to a particular point and then no further?

My personal favorite is the "humans can't come out of nothing because that violates the second law of thermodynamics" one, as if we could survive without massive amounts of entropy being furthered by the sun.

[orangeatheist]

We know that atoms attract one another. Gravity is a fact. No question about that.

The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood and so there are theories developed to try and explain the fact of gravity.

Same with evolution. Evolution is a fact. It is observable and is recorded in the fossil record as well as currently being mapped in genetic research.

How evolution work still has to be worked out and there are competing theories.

Should we not discuss gravity in basic physic courses because no one knows exactly how or why atoms attract one another? Of course not! By the same token, just because there are theories for how evolution works that is no reason to deny the teaching of evolution in basic biology courses. All of modern biology rests upon evolution. To deny it is to deny the field!

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

[Rascal]

Read it and I still don't agree with it. We've discussed this before and I've had my fill for a while. This was about having it in schools, not discussing its validity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seems some religious zealots in the Peach state were trying to purvey their own agenda in one school system.

Their failure is America's success.

This story is just another example of the "fair and balanced" fallacy bequeathed to us by the right-wing media machine.

The fallacy is expressed in the idea that "fairness" and "balance" require equal consideration of both sides of an argument - even when the claims of one side have virtually no basis in fact. For example, if someone claims the earth is flat, the headline reads "opinions re: the earth's geometry differ."

Why should public schools accommodate and accept the pronouncements of some goofballs who want to claim that the earth is only 4,000 years old, or some such nonsense?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://objective.jesussave.us/kidzart-fakedinomuseum.png

[W*GS]

This story is just another example of the "fair and balanced" fallacy bequeathed to us by the right-wing media machine.

The fallacy is expressed in the idea that "fairness" and "balance" require equal consideration of both sides of an argument - even when the claims of one side have virtually no basis in fact.

Do you apply the same rigor to those who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of OBL, and those who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by agents of the Bush administration?

[RunByDesign]

call me an idiot I don't care but the evolutionary theory is a theory...hence the name. And to present it as fact is just as wrong as presenting creationalism as fact.

Excerpt:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

I think that when you consider it in this context, it is less mundane, in terms of understanding.

[RunByDesign]

Sorry if that was redundant.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you apply the same rigor to those who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of OBL, and those who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by agents of the Bush administration?

:threadjac

Of course I do.

The facts suggest that the truth about 9/11 resides somewhere between the two possibilities you described.

Did Bush and his cronies "engineer" 9/11 all by themselves? Doubtful.

Did they know 9/11 was coming and stand back and let it happen for political gain? You betcha.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/victorysticker.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Something that goes unmentioned....

"The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The relevent part is italicized. Evolution is NOT a theory regarding the origin of living things - it's the scientific explanation for how living organisms CHANGE over time. The investigation of the origin of life is best left to biochemists, geologists maybe, or those in the relatively new field of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life at all.

Can people who have had the benefit of one of the best education systems in the world (ours) really be this ignorant?

Freepers no like evolution...want to know why they were left behind
http://www.trekshare.com/members/aineandphilip/images/tjimage46730.jpg
"Uh, what's my next talking point again? Line, please, Mr. Limbaugh? Oh, right, 'activist judges!' Yeep! Yeep! Yeep!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/user_files/10750.jpg

[Rascal]

Something that goes unmentioned....

"The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The relevent part is italicized. Evolution is NOT a theory regarding the origin of living things - it's the scientific explanation for how living organisms CHANGE over time. The investigation of the origin of life is best left to biochemists, geologists maybe, or those in the relatively new field of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life at all.

Can people who have had the benefit of one of the best education systems in the world (ours) really be this ignorant?



Go ahead and start your usual tribble of insulting people. Same pathetic BS as usual coming from you.

Yes it is a theory. THEORY of evolution is the name if I am not mistaken. And it may explain some scientific facts but it is still a theory. When they thought the world was flat that theory explained some scientific facts, but obviously they were wrong. I am not debating micro evolution, I am debating macro...that we evolved from single cell organisms...and there was a big bang. This debate is falling back into the old thread over evolution and I am not going to participate in it again.

I think Dave summed it up very well in his post and IMO concluded the debate.

[Old Dude]

So if schools teach, in history classes, for example, that humanity has been around for longer than, say 6,000 years, would that just be a theory since it conflicts with some religious doctrine? Should we put stickers on the history books?

What about plate tectonics? That certainly conflicts with the idea that mighty Neptune causes earthquakes. Sticker or no?

Maybe we should just put up a big banner on every school that says that the "the facts and theories taught in this school are the facts and theories taught in this school, and we don't guarantee that every single one of them is 100% correct."

Would that satisfy everyone?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Go ahead and start your usual tribble of insulting people. Same pathetic BS as usual coming from you.

Yes it is a theory. THEORY of evolution is the name if I am not mistaken. And it may explain some scientific facts but it is still a theory. When they thought the world was flat that theory explained some scientific facts, but obviously they were wrong. I am not debating micro evolution, I am debating macro...that we evolved from single cell organisms...and there was a big bang. This debate is falling back into the old thread over evolution and I am not going to participate in it again.

I think Dave summed it up very well in his post and IMO concluded the debate.
To get back to the subject at hand here, Like I said, I don't think it's being taught any differently than I went to school. I never once had a biology teacher tell me that these are the facts and there are no other facts only these. All of my classes were taught the same way. Evolution was presented as *this is what most scientists believe*. Trying to cast away science (little stickers in books) without facts, evidence or generally accepted scientific theories is hoodoo voodoo.

[Rascal]

To get back to the subject at hand here, Like I said, I don't think it's being taught any differently than I went to school. I never once had a biology teacher tell me that these are the facts and there are no other facts only these. All of my classes were taught the same way. Evolution was presented as *this is what most scientists believe*. Trying to cast away science (little stickers in books) without facts, evidence or generally accepted scientific theories is hoodoo voodoo.

Well my physics teacher was a die hard athiests and said that if you didn't believe this as fact then you were a complete moron. Funny, he later converted. As long as they say that it is what it is...an attempt to explain some of the scientific findings and thereby a theory, then that's fine by me.

I don't think they should teach religious beliefs, and yes creationalism is one, but to present the big bang and such as facts is wrong IMO. But yes I agree trying to cast away science, even theories, by a sticker is silly. And to even complain about it is also silly. The sticker was fine IMO, because it makes to indication about religious beliefs, and shows that the theory is what it is. But as several others pointed out, are you going to have a sticker for every thing then?

[orangeatheist]

Read it and I still don't agree with it.

There are people who read about the Holocaust and disagree that it happened. There are people who read about the moon landing and disagree that it happened.
There are people who read about the shape of the earth and still maintain that it is flat.

What's your point? So you don't agree with it. Doesn't make your point valid in the least. This isn't a popularity contest. This isn't the age of the Holy Roman Catholic Church when a man provides a theory that the solar system is heliocentric and there are some who don't agree with him. Facts are facts and evolution is a fact. Just because you "read it and still don't agree with it" doesn't make it go away.

Evolution is the foundation of all modern biology. To ignore it or suppress it or to label it "just a theory" is to do great violence to the entirety of the science. If you throw out evolution you might as well throw out biology in general. Forget gene research. Forget trying to understand how living organisms work. Forget all the science that you rely on daily to maintain a healthy life. Do you disagree with that?


We've discussed this before and I've had my fill for a while. This was about having it in schools, not discussing its validity.

Right. It's validity isn't in question. It is valid. Therefore, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone objects to having it in school. No one objects to teaching kids the earth is round but this fact flatly contradicts what is taught by some religious systems (including the Bible). What benefit is there to kids for learning the correct shape of the earth? Does it advance them in their future careers? Does it help them be better people? Or, is it simply a fact of life --a fact of the natural world-- that is interesting but not readily apparent? Look around you. The world doesn't look round. It looks quite flat. But it isn't. Telling kids the truth helps them orient themselves and perhaps sparks an interest in science. Things aren't always what they appear.

Same thing with evolution. Do you see species evolving everyday? No. The fact of evolution isn't readily apparent. We certainly don't look or act like our relatives, the great apes, at first glance. But learn the biology of the two species, learn their evoutionary relationship, and suddenly our differences seem less acute. Our similarities come into focus. A spark of interest in the science of biology is made and the connection of all life on this planet is made apparent. Perhaps a kid in this biology class will be inspired to be the next gene researcher who figures out the mechanism that drives evolution. Perhaps in their studies they discover the genetic cure for AIDS.

Squelching segments of science for religious sensibilities is asinine. I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this.

[orangeatheist]

Well my physics teacher was a die hard athiests and said that if you didn't believe this as fact then you were a complete moron.

If what he was saying that if you didn't believe evolution was a fact you're a moron, he's correct. And it has nothing to do with being an atheist. Plenty of theists know evolution is a fact, too.


Funny, he later converted.

And did his opinion change?

[Rascal]

If what he was saying that if you didn't believe evolution was a fact you're a moron, he's correct. And it has nothing to do with being an atheist. Plenty of theists know evolution is a fact, too.



And did his opinion change?

about macro yes, micro no. And thanks for calling me a moron. It isn't a fact.

[Rascal]

Just to stir the pot a bit. Just because it's a fact or theory, should it be taught. For example, should stripping or prostitution be presented as possible careers?

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
Eighth-Graders Told Stripping Can Be Rewarding
Friday, January 14, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO — School officials in Palo Alto are reconsidering their use of a popular speaker for an annual career day after he advised middle school students that they could earn a good living as strip dancers.

William Fried (search) told eighth-graders at Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School (search) that stripping and exotic dancing could be lucrative career moves for girls, offering as much as $250,000 or more per year, depending on their bust size.

"It's sick, but it's true," Fried, president of Foster City's Precision Selling (search), a management consulting firm, told The Associated Press. "The truth of the matter is you can earn a tremendous amount of money as an exotic dancer, if that's your desire."

The school has asked Fried to give his 55-minute presentation, "The Secret of a Happy Life," for the past three years.

A tip sheet he distributes to students includes a list of 140 potential careers and areas of interest they can consider pursuing. Along with professions as accounting and nursing, the list offers such nontraditional suggestions as exotic dancing, stripping and acting as a spiritual medium.

He counsels students to experiment with a variety of interests until they discover their "life's purpose," something they love and excel in. The presentation and handout have been praised by students, school principal Joseph Di Salvo and others said.


Fried's presentation "helped me realize that my career choice should not be influenced by money," one student wrote in a thank-you letter. "It should be influenced by what we like and are good at."

But on Tuesday, some students asked Fried to expand on why he included "exotic dancing" on the list.

Fried spent about a minute answering questions, defining strippers and exotic dancers synonymously. He told students, "For every two inches up there, you should get another $50,000 on your salary," student Jason Garcia, 14, said.

"A couple of students egged him and he took it hook, line and sinker," said Di Salvo, who also said the students took advantage of a substitute teacher overseeing the session.

Di Salvo heard about the exchange when the mother of a student called him the next morning. She said she was outraged when her son announced that he was forgoing college for a career in a field he truly loves — fishing — and said she found Fried's handout even more disconcerting.

Di Salvo, who has since heard from another parent, said Fried's overall presentation is a positive one. The mention of exotic dancing and Fried's off-the-cuff remarks, however, have prompted him to consider barring the speaker from next year's career day.

The principal said he would send letters of apology home with students.

"It's totally inappropriate," Di Salvo said. "It's not OK by me. I would want my presenters to kind of understand that coming into a career day for eighth-graders."

School board member Mandy Lowell didn't expect Fried's comment to cause lasting damage but said the speaker didn't adhere to the message of achievement the district is trying to promote.

"I don't think that your natural or implant-inflated bust size is what our schools aim to nurture," she said. "My aspiration is not to have children in this district become exotic dancers."

District superintendent Mary Frances Callan did not immediately return two telephone calls seeking comment.

Despite the uproar, many students said Fried was the most inspiring speaker in a lineup that included a pilot, an attorney, a classical pianist and a journalist.

"He really focused on finding what you really love to do," said Mariah Cannon, 13.

Cannon also said she wouldn't want exotic dancing taken off Fried's list. Although parents might find it hard to hear, it's a legitimate career choice, she said.

Student Tom Marks, 13, said he found some of Fried's comments "weird and unnecessary" but still thinks he should return next year.

"I don't think he should have gone into all the details," he said. "I just got upset that he talked about it so much."

Fried, 64, said he does not think he offended anyone.

"Eighth-grade kids are not dumb," he said. "They are pretty worldly."

[orangeatheist]

about macro yes, micro no. And thanks for calling me a moron. It isn't a fact.


Why do you keep saying "it isn't a fact"?

Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains. See: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

And, would you mind asking your converted professor what biological mechanism allows evolutionary change within a species but does not allow for speciation? Before you or he answsers, you might want to avail yourself of the article Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

And you're not a moron. You're willfully ignorant. And before you take offense at that statement, realize that by "willful" I mean exactly "said or done on purpose; deliberate;" and by "ignorant" I mean "lacking education or knowledge; unaware or uninformed" in biological science as defined by the dictionary. In otherwords, you are deliberately remaining uninformed as to the merits and facts of evoutionary theory for whatever personal reason you have.

From the link above, "It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change." Because "scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner, Evolution, in this context, is [therefore] both a fact and a theory."

Disagree with it all you want. But that doesn't change anything.

[orangeatheist]

Just to stir the pot a bit. Just because it's a fact or theory, should it be taught. For example, should stripping or prostitution be presented as possible careers?



This is a complete non sequitur. This isn't about "career choices." This is about teaching the fundamental structures of biological science in order to appease certain religious sensitivities.

[W*GS]

Did they know 9/11 was coming and stand back and let it happen for political gain? You betcha.

Based on what evidence?

[Rascal]

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?
Or -- None of the Above?
By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation
[No. 4 in a series]

I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because, after all, it's "only a theory." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we really don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a Bible believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. So in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how this natural occurrence works; and, a scientific law is a mathematical description of this natural occurrence.

Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. We call these tests of a theory experiments. Experimental science, better known as empirical science, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our life.

The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, like say the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any explanations we might propose for observable and repeatable phenomena must be testable. By this we mean that we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for a phenomenon in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong or inappropriate, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed to be a scientific "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, J. Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook titled _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declared that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.

The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.

In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. In the months ahead, we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of nature.

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

[RaiderH8r]

:threadjac

Of course I do.

The facts suggest that the truth about 9/11 resides somewhere between the two possibilities you described.

Did Bush and his cronies "engineer" 9/11 all by themselves? Doubtful.

Did they know 9/11 was coming and stand back and let it happen for political gain? You betcha.
Did you get a wax with your brainwash?

[orangeatheist]

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, or a Law?
Or -- None of the Above?
By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation
[No. 4 in a series]



This whole article is so raped with inaccuracies that it’s criminal. The guy starts out ok but then makes the same creationist blunders as he tries to conclude his case.

He states,
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.
Here’s that “micro vs macro evolution” nonsense again. Please explain the difference on a biologically relevant level! The same mechanisms that cause “micro” evolution are the same mechanisms that cause “macro” evolution. That is, change in the genetic make-up. In other words, changes in a dog’s genes make one have long black hair and another short gray hair. But the two can interbreed. The changes in the genetic make-up between one species of bird that makes it flightless and another that allows it to cruise on desert thermals also have genetic changes that disallow interbreeding. They are both birds, but they are different species, hence “macro evolution.” Now, the same genetic drift that separates bird species also separates birds from reptiles and reptiles from mammals.

The question these “micro vs macro evolution” creationists fail to answer is: What is the mechanism that allows dogs to vary their hair color, size, shape, voices, but not to evolve into a reproductively separate species?

And then there’s that old canard of "Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. See "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Now, admittedly, your source asserts that,

The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.

But this is flatly untrue. See the article Observed Instances of Speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I know it’s difficult, rascal. Most science is. It takes a commitment to actually read through the articles and attempt to understand what they are talking about. It isn’t as easy as a one page denial of the evidence.

Then your source wrongly claims,

Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data, not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion.Creationists would love to “level the playing field” and get everyone to believe evolution is “just another religion” like their own creationism, but this isn’t true. As the National Center for Science Education states regarding the teaching of evolution in school:

Evolution should be taught for the same reason that other factual information should be taught. It is the best, most accurate explanation we have for the variety we see in the living world, resulting from the research and experimentation of thousands of scientists for over a century.
And, it is important. Children may not need to know what time of day George Washington was born, but they need to know he was our first president. In the same way, they may not need to know every detail of cell division, but they need to know about evolution because it is a key to understanding every aspect of the biological sciences, from genetics to animal behavior.

[Rascal]

This whole article is so raped with inaccuracies that it’s criminal. The guy starts out ok but then makes the same creationist blunders as he tries to conclude his case.

He states,

Here’s that “micro vs macro evolution” nonsense again. Please explain the difference on a biologically relevant level! The same mechanisms that cause “micro” evolution are the same mechanisms that cause “macro” evolution. That is, change in the genetic make-up. In other words, changes in a dog’s genes make one have long black hair and another short gray hair. But the two can interbreed. The changes in the genetic make-up between one species of bird that makes it flightless and another that allows it to cruise on desert thermals also have genetic changes that disallow interbreeding. They are both birds, but they are different species, hence “macro evolution.” Now, the same genetic drift that separates bird species also separates birds from reptiles and reptiles from mammals.

The question these “micro vs macro evolution” creationists fail to answer is: What is the mechanism that allows dogs to vary their hair color, size, shape, voices, but not to evolve into a reproductively separate species?

And then there’s that old canard of "Evolution has never been observed."



Now, admittedly, your source asserts that,



But this is flatly untrue. See the article Observed Instances of Speciation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I know it’s difficult, rascal. Most science is. It takes a commitment to actually read through the articles and attempt to understand what they are talking about. It isn’t as easy as a one page denial of the evidence.

Then your source wrongly claims,



Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data, not a system of metaphysical beliefs or a religion.Creationists would love to “level the playing field” and get everyone to believe evolution is “just another religion” like their own creationism, but this isn’t true. As the National Center for Science Education states regarding the teaching of evolution in school:

macro...going from a single cell to us. micro...the first created dog to the different breads today. Simple enough?

And it is a theory, you just said so yourself "Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data"

It is a theory that is based on scientific data, but there is no way to prove it as fact.

sorry but the chances of a big bang happening, the earth and universe to be created, all this evolution to occur, humans to evolve to be so much more advanced then all other species on earth is so unlikely I view it the same way you view me as believing that God created this....none.

You know it's difficult...now you are condescending me. Thanks a lot. Look, I have a background in science and I've read a lot more about science then you more then likely so get off.

This conversation has slipped back into the traditional argument, and I'm not going to do that again plus you are starting your condescending insulting crap so I'm outta here.

[alkemical]

more divide and conquor.

[Rascal]

I said scientist(S)... we need more than 1 guy to over turn the countless hours of work performed by thousands of other Evolutionary Scientists worldwide.

I know. I posted it just as kind of a "AHAHAHA!!" type thing. Just to illustrate that there are scientists who disagree out there.

[TheDave]

I know. I posted it just as kind of a "AHAHAHA!!" type thing. Just to illustrate that there are scientists who disagree out there.

I kind of figured that after my post... so i just deleted it, just not quick enough...oh well.

[Rascal]

I kind of figured that after my post... so i just deleted it, just not quick enough...oh well.

sorry.

I do appreciate your comments though and refraining from insulting or condescending me dispite not agreeing.

But one thing though.

Do you honestly think it is a theory or fact?

[TheDave]

Hey rascal, honest question... everytime this type of thread gets started we end up mentioning and/or discussing the "Big Bang" theory. Is that one of the things that creationists have a big problem with? More to the point - exactly what part of evolutionary theory is it that creationists have a problem with....

An example - are you OK with us saying that we evolved from neanderthal?

Is it the evolving from Ape thing (god created man in his own image) that is the biggest problem?

Just trying to focus in on where our differences are...

[TheDave]

sorry.

I do appreciate your comments though and refraining from insulting or condescending me dispite not agreeing.

But one thing though.

Do you honestly think it is a theory or fact?

That's tough - technically it is a theory, so yes i would label it more theory than fact. On the other hand i'm very familiar with scientific method so i treat most theories as facts... probably not a great answer but an honest one!

The big problem here is that the words theory and fact are not comparable in scientific method... Is evolution a law - NO. But it is an accepted theory... in the same way that electron orbitals are theories.

[Rascal]

Hey rascal, honest question... everytime this type of thread gets started we end up mentioning and/or discussing the "Big Bang" theory. Is that one of the things that creationists have a big problem with? More to the point - exactly what part of evolutionary theory is it that creationists have a problem with....

An example - are you OK with us saying that we evolved from neanderthal?

Is it the evolving from Ape thing (god created man in his own image) that is the biggest problem?

Just trying to focus in on where our differences are...

Good question.

Yes evolving from an ape is probably my biggest problem.

If God choose to create the earth through a big bang or whatever...fine far be it me to disagree...but evolving from a monkey is such a contradiction to the Bible that it by itself throws us into a screaming outrage. ~Popps~

Having a somewhat scientific background myself...I'm a mechanical engineer...I also have a problem with the unbelievable chances that all of this evolution occured to get us to the point we are today.

Now I don't have a problem with humans having evolving after all these years, in fact I think we have. All you have to do is look at the change in height and size for that to be obvious.

[Rascal]

That's tough - technically it is a theory, so yes i would label it more theory than fact. On the other hand i'm very familiar with scientific method so i treat most theories as facts... probably not a great answer but an honest one!

The big problem here is that the words theory and fact are not comparable in scientific method... Is evolution a law - NO. But it is an accepted theory... in the same way that electron orbitals are theories.

I can understand and appreciate that position. An accepted theory is what it is IMO, I just don't happen to agree with it. That was why I wasn't arguing with OA because I don't think he seemed to understand the difference between the actual words in terms of scientific method.

It isn't a law, therefore the possibility exists (however small) that it could be as worthless as the chiefs defense or Roc Alexander trying to guard Reggie Wayne.

[alkemical]

I think we were seeded here, and then evolution has taken its course.

[Rascal]

what aliens or God planted a single cell and then this all happened?

[alkemical]

Sort of. I think that there's a few different 'POV's" i can really buy into.

I think either humans have been around much longer than thought, or there were other civilizations and they 'broke' us. Or we got altered a bit 'missing link' style and just left to see what would happen.

[Rascal]

Sort of. I think that there's a few different 'POV's" i can really buy into.

I think either humans have been around much longer than thought, or there were other civilizations and they 'broke' us. Or we got altered a bit 'missing link' style and just left to see what would happen.

okay, then where did we come from or our POV's?

[TheDave]

It isn't a law, therefore the possibility exists (however small) that it could be as worthless as the chiefs defense or Roc Alexander trying to guard <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235256" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235256" target="_blank">Reggie Wayne</a></a>.

side note... After Sunday - Creationism's odds are much better than Roc's...


See this is what makes this so damn difficult, you and MHS (him and i have done this before) take a fairly level headed modern aproach to this. Though we differ in our beliefs there is easily enogh common ground for us to simply agree to disagree on the finer points. Your position doesn't bother me much though i do believe we ultimately came from primates - in all fairness their is no "missing link" fossil record so until there is one, as a teacher i would have no problem stating that this is the point where people differ in opinions.

Where the problem arises for me is the slippery slope that compromise creates. I have, on more than one occation, met people that because of their interpretation of genesis do not believe in dinosaurs, age of the earth, or anything else that remotely contradicts the Adam & Eve story. If we as a scientific community/ science teachers bend a little to alow for other thoughts of how things are percieved at what point do we draw the line. The fact is Dinosaurs did exist, the Earth is Billions of years old, Man, not aliens built the pyramids (sorry Taco). How do we tote the line between teaching the best science available while not trampling all over the bible?

[Falconer]

Now I don't have a problem with humans having evolving after all these years, in fact I think we have. All you have to do is look at the change in height and size for that to be obvious.

Actually the change in height and weight has a lot more to do with dietary changes than anything else.

[Old Dude]

... Man, not aliens built the pyramids...

Oh no. Say it ain't so.

Next, you'll be telling me there's no Bigfoot.

I don't know if I could live with that.

[orangeatheist]

macro...going from a single cell to us. micro...the first created dog to the different breads today. Simple enough?

But that isn't the definition, rascal. Microevolution, as defined in the article you quoted, is "a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs." You got that part right. However, your article defines "macro evolution" as "a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people."

The misconception here is that a reptile will lay an egg and it will hatch a bird; or that an ape will give birth to a fully formed human. Evolution NEVER states that. The same processes and mechanisms that change one dog breed from another dog breed are the same processes and mechanisms --with some additions-- that change apes into men. It is a long and gradual process but it is undeniable.

Take a look at this picture. Tell me which skulls are ape and which are human:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Just sort them by letter. Where is the cut-off?


And it is a theory, you just said so yourself "Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory dealing with scientific data"

It is a theory that is based on scientific data, but there is no way to prove it as fact.

You haven't followed or read a single link I've given you. If you have, you've deliberately not understood what was said. Evolution is a fact and a theory.


sorry but the chances of a big bang happening, the earth and universe to be created, all this evolution to occur, humans to evolve to be so much more advanced then all other species on earth is so unlikely I view it the same way you view me as believing that God created this....none.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. For all anyone knows, God created the first self-replicating chemical reaction that eventually led to life but there is no denying that evolution took over after that event. Evolution happens. It's a well documented and evidenced fact.

Just because the events that led up to you as an "advanced species" seem unlikely to you, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. The odds of the Broncos winning a Super Bowl with Elway seemed extremely remote as well but it nonetheless happened: twice! :)


You know it's difficult...now you are condescending me. Thanks a lot. Look, I have a background in science and I've read a lot more about science then you more then likely so get off.

I didn't mean it to be condescending. All I was saying is that my links have a lot of information on them and it takes quite a bit of reading to understand even the basics. I know, because I used to be woefully ignorant about the subject as well and I still have eons to go to understand it fully.

My secondary point was that the evidence for evolution requires a great deal of space but, it has been my experience, that most creationists brush off all that evidence with misconceptions ("micro evolution happens but macro doesn't"), incredulity ("I just can't believe it happened") and one page write-offs that don't even deal with the data.

I didn't mean to offend.


This conversation has slipped back into the traditional argument, and I'm not going to do that again plus you are starting your condescending insulting crap so I'm outta here.

You said that before but you keep coming back! ;) Like I said, I didn't mean to be condescending.

But the bottom line is you have presented nothing to counter the argument that evolution is a fact other than your own credulity. You simply don't want to believe it. I noticed that you answered The Dave's question regarding your biggest gripe with the theory and it's the problem you have with men evolving from a common ancestor with modern apes. That's a personal bias and you're free to have it but it does'nt address the actual facts that are in the fossil and genetic record. We are related to modern apes through a common ancestor --that's a fact-- and all your distaste over the matter doesn't change it!

[TheDave]

Oh no. Say it ain't so.

Next, you'll be telling me there's no Bigfoot.

I don't know if I could live with that.

Sorry no big foot either... but if it makes you feel any better, ther might be Yeti's...

[Rascal]

side note... After Sunday - Creationism's odds are much better than Roc's...


See this is what makes this so damn difficult, you and MHS (him and i have done this before) take a fairly level headed modern aproach to this. Though we differ in our beliefs there is easily enogh common ground for us to simply agree to disagree on the finer points. Your position doesn't bother me much though i do believe we ultimately came from primates - in all fairness their is no "missing link" fossil record so until there is one, as a teacher i would have no problem stating that this is the point where people differ in opinions.

Where the problem arises for me is the slippery slope that compromise creates. I have, on more than one occation, met people that because of their interpretation of genesis do not believe in dinosaurs, age of the earth, or anything else that remotely contradicts the Adam & Eve story. If we as a scientific community/ science teachers bend a little to alow for other thoughts of how things are percieved at what point do we draw the line. The fact is Dinosaurs did exist, the Earth is Billions of years old, Man, not aliens built the pyramids (sorry Taco). How do we tote the line between teaching the best science available while not trampling all over the bible?

Well, to those people all I can say that is just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't make it so. The writers of the Bible didn't include everything. The Bible didn't say the earth was round, does that make it wrong to say so...obviously not.

I've actually done some paleontology (sorry my spelling sucks) myself near Canon City Colorado. There are, were, a lot of good sites up there with a lot of dinosaur bones.

I think as long as you do what you do, saying this is where opinions begin to differ, then I'm happy. I understand that for some believing in what I believe is completely moronic to them, but that doesn't make it right for them to insult and condescend my opinion or belief. Until there is that single proof that you mentioned (one way or the other), each of these beliefs in theories or God can be considered moronic by those of opposite beliefs.

Regarding as to where the line should be drawn...some of my fellow believers may disagree with this but...I think teachers should present the science as it is...a theory based on scientific observations (which does not make it absolute like gravity) and there are those who disagree with it.

On whether or not creationalism should be taught in conjuction with evolutional theory...that's what the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on shortly. And disagree with them or not, I'll abide by whatever decision they come to.

[Rascal]

Actually the change in height and weight has a lot more to do with dietary changes than anything else.

still it's changing to our environment, that is considered to be some evolutionary change.

well it's 4 pm here, and I'm off from work...if you can consider this work. We have monday off, so I doubt that I will reply until then.

Later guys.

[alkemical]

okay, then where did we come from or our POV's?


Ok now you want to get into two different subjects.

A) Then were did we come from

How do i know for exact proof. How do you know for exact proof. If you cite the bible i can site the hindu's explanation. I think with all the crypto-archeology with all the ancient civilizations and with their technlogy (yes they didn't have cars, but why was the astronomy better, or as it seems mathematics better, or engineering) -either we humans have 'fallen', or someone gave us hints on what to do. Maybe queztecotal was not human. Maybe the giants in the bible and other civiliations were/are correct. If that's the case - why would influence from 'other' be out of the question?



B) Where did our POV's come from.

This is psycology. Your POV is founded and changed every day. Events dictate your POV. A combination of nature vs. nurture. For example. You do something and a result happens, you learn, and it effects your POV. The way your parents raised you and expierences that have happened to you create and shape your POV. For instance, i know this girl. She has serious issues with her dad, and her relationships suffer because she is needy and clingy because she's looking for that replacement. She even admits without admitting that all her relationships are extremes. They are either druggies who bail on her, or super conservatives. her dad was a party guy who then repented and now tells her that her life is full of sin and not to talk to him until she seeks salvation.

[ClevelandBronco]

Well my physics teacher was a die hard athiests and said that if you didn't believe this as fact then you were a complete moron. Funny, he later converted.

Yeah, I've seen that happen more often than agnostics becoming believers. I think it has something to do with atheism being a religion that is based in belief (belief in unbelief, but belief nonetheless).

[orangeatheist]

Ooops. I should have spotted you two of the letters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

A= Modern chimpanzee

N= Modern human

[Old Dude]

... her dad was a party guy who then repented and now tells her that her life is full of sin and not to talk to him until she seeks salvation.

I think she should seek Bigfoot.

[Rascal]

OA and Ames, I'll respond when I get back...I did read them.

Ames, I wasn't trying to disagree with your beliefs, I was just curious as I wasn't familiar with it.

OA...yes it is undenialble and Dave even understands that as he stated that their is no single proof. I'll respond later, thanks for the apology.

[orangeatheist]

Yeah, I've seen that happen more often than agnostics becoming believers. I think it has something to do with atheism being a religion that is based in belief (belief in unbelief, but belief nonetheless).


Huh? What kinda double-speak was that? "Belief in unbelief"?

[orangeatheist]

OA and Ames, I'll respond when I get back...I did read them.

Ames, I wasn't trying to disagree with your beliefs, I was just curious as I wasn't familiar with it.

OA...yes it is undenialble and Dave even understands that as he stated that their is no single proof. I'll respond later, thanks for the apology.

K...take it easy! Have a good weekend....


....but, "no single proof" of what? Of evolution in general or of the evolution of man?

And should we expect a "single proof" or a series of proofs?

[alkemical]

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

[ClevelandBronco]

Huh? What kinda double-speak was that? "Belief in unbelief"?

Another atheist in denial about his own religion.

Faith without proof, OA. Atheists are as reliant on it as are Christians.

[alkemical]

i think i understand your point cleveland bronco

[orangeatheist]

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

Still looking over that list of "anomalies" but one on the list immediately jumped out at me.

The so-called Ica Stones. Creationists have tried to use these to "prove" that dinosaurs and man once lived together (thus disproving evolution and the age of the earth as billions of years) so I'm somewhat familiar with this hoax...and a hoax is what it is:

Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba-Do (http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/strange-world.html)

[orangeatheist]

Another atheist in denial about his own religion.

Faith without proof, OA. Atheists are as reliant on it as are Christians.


Holy crap. Faith without proof of what? I need to prove that there is no god? I'm suppose to prove a negative?

How bout, while I'm at it, I prove that there are no pink T-Rex's living beneath the Indian Ocean that caused the 9.0 earthquake?

Since I'm an atheist in regard to Zeus, why don't I prove he doesn't exist, either?

Is that the burden placed upon the unbeliever? To prove the absence of something someone else believes in?

Geez.

[Conquistadita]

Just because the events that led up to you as an "advanced species" seem unlikely to you, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. The odds of the Broncos winning a Super Bowl with Elway seemed extremely remote as well but it nonetheless happened: twice! :)

Or, as I've heard it explained to me, "If someone deals you the ten of hearts, the three of spades, the six of diamonds, the four of diamonds, and the eight of clubs, in that order, you don't say, 'Wow, there's less than a one in fourteen billion chance of that happening, so it's absolutely impossible and the deck must be stacked!'"

[orangeatheist]

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm

Regarding the ancient "grooved spheres":

"...there is a complete lack of any evidence that either the nodules/spheres are artificial or that the grooves were cut prior to burial. As far as can be determined at this time, the spheres consist of pyrite nodules of metamorphic origin and goethite nodules formed by the weathering of the pyrite. Since the nodules are metamorphic in origin and, thus, formed by metamorphism while the enclosing strata were buried under kilometers of rock, the grooves, if artificial, had to have been cut after they had collected from the pyrophyllite during quarrying operations. As a result, the grooves are far less than 2.8 billions old. The nodules are clearly of natural origin and less than 2.8 billion years old."

See: The South African Spheres (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html)

[alkemical]

Still looking over that list of "anomalies" but one on the list immediately jumped out at me.

The so-called Ica Stones. Creationists have tried to use these to "prove" that dinosaurs and man once lived together (thus disproving evolution and the age of the earth as billions of years) so I'm somewhat familiar with this hoax...and a hoax is what it is:

Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba-Do (http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/strange-world.html)


Yeah i know that one was a 'hoax' but the bagdad battery and stuff was worth it.

about.com is sloppy

[orangeatheist]

Or, as I've heard it explained to me, "If someone deals you the ten of hearts, the three of spades, the six of diamonds, the four of diamonds, and the eight of clubs, in that order, you don't say, 'Wow, there's less than a one in fourteen billion chance of that happening, so it's absolutely impossible and the deck must be stacked!'"

Hee hee hee! Exactly!

[orangeatheist]

Yeah i know that one was a 'hoax' but the bagdad battery and stuff was worth it.

about.com is sloppy


Ah....I see! Sorry. Thought you were promoting the whole shebang!

I'll look over the battery part! Sounds interesting

[alkemical]

Ah....I see! Sorry. Thought you were promoting the whole shebang!

I'll look over the battery part! Sounds interesting


OA,

I don't know if you've heard or had your interests picked up on it...

but coral castle -

this old dude built this complex out of coral rock, they think he figured out how the egyptians did it.... but no one seems to know how HE did it.

[Conquistadita]

Aliens obviously helped him.

[alkemical]

I think he figured out how sound can move objects.

[Conquistadita]

I think he figured out how sound can move objects.

Of course it can. All you got to do is make this sound:

"Hello, is this Turner Construction Company? I'd like to contract you."

[orangeatheist]

Yeah i know that one was a 'hoax' but the bagdad battery and stuff was worth it.

about.com is sloppy


Found an article from the BBC regarding these batteries that concludes in a fashion with which I most heartily agree:

"How could ancient Persian science have grasped the principles of electricity and arrived at this knowledge?

Perhaps they did not. Many inventions are conceived before the underlying principles are properly understood.

The Chinese invented gunpowder long before the principles of combustion were deduced, and the rediscovery of old herbal medicines is now a common occurrence.

You do not always have to understand why something works - just that it does." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2804257.stm

[orangeatheist]

I think he figured out how sound can move objects.


When I was MUCH younger my friend and I used to love to hang out at this discotheque in San Fran where they had these HUGE bass speakers on the parameter of the dancefloor. This was back in the day of parachute pants and I used to get such a kick out of standing in front of those speakers and letting the bass blow my pants back and forth! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

That's why my hearing isn't what it used to be too....

...eh?


Oh, and by the way, I haven't heard of the coral castle. I'll look it up tho.

[alkemical]

When I was MUCH younger my friend and I used to love to hang out at this discotheque in San Fran where they had these HUGE bass speakers on the parameter of the dancefloor. This was back in the day of parachute pants and I used to get such a kick out of standing in front of those speakers and letting the bass blow my pants back and forth! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

That's why my hearing isn't what it used to be too....

...eh?


Oh, and by the way, I haven't heard of the coral castle. I'll look it up tho.


since i play music OA, something fasicnates me. that harmonics i think can alter your state of being, and i think that if you hit a harmonic range of an object, maybe you can make it 'lighter' than it seems.

[alkemical]

Found an article from the BBC regarding these batteries that concludes in a fashion with which I most heartily agree:

"How could ancient Persian science have grasped the principles of electricity and arrived at this knowledge?

Perhaps they did not. Many inventions are conceived before the underlying principles are properly understood.

The Chinese invented gunpowder long before the principles of combustion were deduced, and the rediscovery of old herbal medicines is now a common occurrence.

You do not always have to understand why something works - just that it does." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2804257.stm

Considering how much the arabs did in stuff with optics, mathematics, etc - it could be a case for discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Based on what evidence?

Based on the mountain of evidence you have chosen to ignore.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Did you get a wax with your brainwash?

This from a guy who thought bush deserved a second term?

Hilarious!

[ClevelandBronco]

Holy crap. Faith without proof of what? I need to prove that there is no god? I'm suppose to prove a negative?

How bout, while I'm at it, I prove that there are no pink T-Rex's living beneath the Indian Ocean that caused the 9.0 earthquake?

Since I'm an atheist in regard to Zeus, why don't I prove he doesn't exist, either?

Is that the burden placed upon the unbeliever? To prove the absence of something someone else believes in?

Geez.

Of course I don't expect you to be able to prove everything you take on faith (including that pink T-Rex). That would be a waste of your life. But recognize that you have a set of beliefs that are as unprovable as mine.

Don't be surprised when we Christians don't try to prove everything we believe. Like you, I don't believe in Zeus either. I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

A lack of proof shouldn't preclude an atheist from his belief that no gods exist, nor should it stop a Christian from believing that his Trinity is the one and only true God. Examine your beliefs, sure. Examine mine. But don't attempt to prove them. It's a dead end.

My original point was that atheists have a belief system and a dogma and that a conversion to Christianity seems to me more likely for someone who already embraces faith principles than it would be for an agnostic who really couldn't care less.

[Conquistadita]

http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20031029.gif

[Rock Chalk]

There are alot of scientific theories (not laws but theories) being taught in schools, should we get rid of all of them or just the ones that clash with peoples religious beliefs?

The Big Bang is a theory that is based on UNOBSERVABLE occurances. Since there was no light (according to the big bang theory) for the first billion years of the universe, then there is no way to observe what was going on.

By light I mean radiation. The only radiation that can be gathered is the background radiation of the universe left over from creation which you see as static on your TV or radio adjusted to a channel not being broadcast on.

Evolution is a theory. The idea that all life came from a single celled creature. An idea. And if you sit down and think about it, it is a preposterous idea. It is just as preposterous to Christians as Creationism is to non-believeres.

What you people fail to understand is that while you believe Evolution to be true, that is just that, a belief. A faith in a theory.

Maybe you people dont read history, but if history has shown us one thing is that theories come and go and rarely any of them stick as they were created. Even Newton was wrong, Einstein was wrong, and Hawking will be proven wrong. Newton was wrong in thnking that his laws were universal, they are not. Einstein had a whole BUNCH of "fixes" for his ideas that he KNEW were not right. Dark energy/matter...this business Hawking came up with? Its a "fix" for the ever expanding universe, a way to explain what is unknown but is based on absolutely no observable traits.

If one theory is to be presented, ALL theories should be presented. For what it is worth, my high school biology class did cover the most popular beliefs on the origin of life, from the Bible to Evolution and about four or five things in between. Since 90% of Americans claim to be religious then religious theories based on origin SHOULD be taught in school along with Science THEORIES. You cant just discount 90% of the populace just because you dont believe.

[TheDave]

The Big Bang is a theory that is based on UNOBSERVABLE occurances. Since there was no light (according to the big bang theory) for the first billion years of the universe, then there is no way to observe what was going on.

By light I mean radiation. The only radiation that can be gathered is the background radiation of the universe left over from creation which you see as static on your TV or radio adjusted to a channel not being broadcast on.

Evolution is a theory. The idea that all life came from a single celled creature. An idea. And if you sit down and think about it, it is a preposterous idea. It is just as preposterous to Christians as Creationism is to non-believeres.

What you people fail to understand is that while you believe Evolution to be true, that is just that, a belief. A faith in a theory.

Maybe you people dont read history, but if history has shown us one thing is that theories come and go and rarely any of them stick as they were created. Even Newton was wrong, Einstein was wrong, and Hawking will be proven wrong. Newton was wrong in thnking that his laws were universal, they are not. Einstein had a whole BUNCH of "fixes" for his ideas that he KNEW were not right. Dark energy/matter...this business Hawking came up with? Its a "fix" for the ever expanding universe, a way to explain what is unknown but is based on absolutely no observable traits.

If one theory is to be presented, ALL theories should be presented. For what it is worth, my high school biology class did cover the most popular beliefs on the origin of life, from the Bible to Evolution and about four or five things in between. Since 90% of Americans claim to be religious then religious theories based on origin SHOULD be taught in school along with Science THEORIES. You cant just discount 90% of the populace just because you dont believe.


Good well laid out argument, completely wrong, but a good argument none the less. Creationism is not a THEORY it's a belief. At this point creationism has not passed enough tests to be considered a hypotheises, let alone a theory. Because of that it should not be taught as science. You said above that the bases for evolution was preposterous to you... that is exactly why we should not teach religous beliefs and scientific theory together. I've taken more than my share of cellular biology and organic/molecular chemistry and from my POV and the POV of the Phd's who have taught me the theories presented in evolution make perfect sense. Alec, science, especially the teaching of science is simply building a pyramid. You lay down as wide of a base as you can and continue to build upon it, layer by layer. Giving credibility to any belief that anyone one has, about the subject at hand is a recipe for disaster.

My apologies in advance to all relegous folks, but the insult here is that 1,000's upon 1,000's of people over the years have dedicated their lives studying and building on the theory of evolution. It is the best studied strongest concept we have to explain large portions of cellular biology, organic chemistry, and the biological evolutoin of the species (no one seems to have a problem with evolution, just the part that links man and monkeys). Now we are supposed to belittle these peoples work and tell kids that all the research being done, and the knowledge gained is all fake, because the book of genisis says otherwise. Sorry, but creationists are going to have to dig a little deeper than simply point to the bible to get things changed.

Look i'm an admitted agnostic, have been for the last 10+ years. But before that i was a good catholic boy. Went to church, read the bible, took classes on it, etc. Nowhere in all my years did i ever have a problem with evolution, or any other science for that matter. There are passages throught the bible that we all ignore...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - says it is ok to rape a woman as long as you pay her dad 50 silver

Leviticus 25:44-46 - tells us slavery is ok, and gives us some pointers on it.

Exodus 31:12-15 - says we should kill people who work on sundays...

No one takes these passages serious, then why is everyone so locked in to the whole Adam & Eve story. Most of you have managed to admit that Dinosaurs did roam the earth, I think everyone knows that the population begining from just 2 DNA strands would create some major deformities by the 3rd generation. Some of you with your micro evolution beliefs are fine saying that we evolved from Neaderthal. I don't think by accepting that anyone is saying that God is a neanderthal. Keep in mind the bible is a book inspired by God and written by man. Man makes mistakes, lots of them. I'll even admit we might be making one today with evolutionary science... but right now none of the evidencs is supporting Adam & Eve.

Again, to all creationists, get enough science to back up you're beliefs and it will be included in science teachings... Until then you'll have to be content with telling your version on Sunday's.

[Conquistadita]

The Big Bang is a theory that is based on UNOBSERVABLE occurances. Since there was no light (according to the big bang theory) for the first billion years of the universe, then there is no way to observe what was going on.

By light I mean radiation. The only radiation that can be gathered is the background radiation of the universe left over from creation which you see as static on your TV or radio adjusted to a channel not being broadcast on.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, assuming no creation or destruction of energy, the concentration of light would be much greater in a smaller universe, and the Big Bang theory predicts that the universe would be smaller the farther you reach back in time.

Of course a theory of unobserved occurances can be based on evidence; quantum theory even incorporates inability to make complete observations as a central tenet, but it's a highly successful theory. The problem with creationism isn't that it's unobservable, but that every formal prediction in which creationism varies from evolution favors evolution. In other words, to the most complete knowledge of scientists, evolution is correct, creationism is incorrect. You don't have to believe in the modern interpretation of evolution if you don't want to, but that would be unscientific.

Further, a theory doesn't even have to be fully correct in order for it to be useful. Atomic theory and Newtonian physics are required material in a high school science curriculum even though we know them to be at least somewhat flawed. The point is that they have practical uses.

I question your treatment of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking as "wrong". What they do is provide useful models of reality in an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Each model is an improvement on the last. Our current theories pertaining to the modes of evolution are much the same.

[enjolras]

I was wondering what scientists have verified creationism theories? Is there a site that shows who those scientists are?

Finding one peer reviewed article on science based intelligent design is almost impossible.

scientists thought the world was flat, but until there is hard core evidence it is still a theory no matter how many scientists put their eggs into it.

How funny, as those 'scientists' rejected Copernicus because it constrasted with prevailing religious theory. They argued that absence of 'physical observation' was evidence that the accepted religious convictions where true. Which is funny, because that is the fundamental argument put forth by Intelligent Design today.

[Conquistadita]

Actually, it's a misconception that religion was the only reason the geocentric model didn't spread very quickly. The Copernican model wasn't much better than the geocentric one. The prevailing mode of thought was that there was no reason to switch to a new model that was (to them) illogical without having some sort of significant reason. To the best of my knowledge, Kepler's model was the first that provided a major improvement over the heliocentric model.

[TheDave]

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, assuming no creation or destruction of energy, the concentration of light would be much greater in a smaller universe, and the Big Bang theory predicts that the universe would be smaller the farther you reach back in time.

Of course a theory of unobserved occurances can be based on evidence; quantum theory even incorporates inability to make complete observations as a central tenet, but it's a highly successful theory. The problem with creationism isn't that it's unobservable, but that every formal prediction in which creationism varies from evolution favors evolution. In other words, to the most complete knowledge of scientists, evolution is correct, creationism is incorrect. You don't have to believe in the modern interpretation of evolution if you don't want to, but that would be unscientific.

Further, a theory doesn't even have to be fully correct in order for it to be useful. Atomic theory and Newtonian physics are required material in a high school science curriculum even though we know them to be at least somewhat flawed. The point is that they have practical uses.

I question your treatment of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking as "wrong". What they do is provide useful models of reality in an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Each model is an improvement on the last. Our current theories pertaining to the modes of evolution are much the same.

You probably don't want to overload alec with too many facts... he just likes to spout off...

[orangeatheist]

Of course I don't expect you to be able to prove everything you take on faith (including that pink T-Rex). That would be a waste of your life. But recognize that you have a set of beliefs that are as unprovable as mine.

I have no set of beliefs when it comes to a divinity. That's why I'm an atheist. I have no beliefs in this department. That's what makes me an atheist.


Don't be surprised when we Christians don't try to prove everything we believe. Like you, I don't believe in Zeus either. I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Exactly. I wouldn't expect you to defend beliefs you don't hold. So why are you asking this of me? You claimed I have "faith without proof." Faith in what? Faith in unbelief? That's like saying you have faith that Zeus doesn't exist. You have no such faith.

What I do expect is for Christians like you to prove the things you do believe in.


A lack of proof shouldn't preclude an atheist from his belief that no gods exist,

It's not a belief! I am as certain there is (are) no god(s) as I am certain supernatural forces were not responsible for the Indian Ocean earthquake. You see, in order for me to have "belief" in no gods there would have to be some evidence that these gods exist and then I would have to be making a positive choice not to believe in them. For example, there are some people who deny the existence of the Holocaust. There is evidence that this event occured but these people choose to believe otherwise. That is not the same with me. There is absolutely zero evidence that a god, or gods, exist, therefore my "disbelief" in them is the same as my "disbelief" in the toothfairy.

It is exactly the lack of proof which precludes me from believing in any god.


nor should it stop a Christian from believing that his Trinity is the one and only true God.

Of course not. Lack of evidence has never stopped people from believing in a host of things, from a chariot-driven sun to star-driven destinies to a man rising from the dead. Sometimes people even believe in things when contrary evidence exists: like creationism and a world wide flood.


Examine your beliefs, sure. Examine mine. But don't attempt to prove them. It's a dead end.

What a cop-out! This whole thread is about evolution vs creationism. The evidence, when examined, supports evolution; the evidence does not support creationism. That's attempting to prove these beliefs, not simply "examine" them for academic merit. If it were not for examining and trying to prove these beliefs (Darwinian evolution vs Christian creationism) we'd never understand the natural world around us and we would never have found the tools to help harness the power to control things like life-threatening diseases. If we merely "believed" sickness was caused by demonic spirits and did not examine these beliefs for their truth or falsity (attempt to prove them), many more people would be dead today (indeed, a "dead end") than alive in hospitals with life-saving medicine.

If I hadn't examined my beliefs and tried to prove them, I'd likely still be a fundamentalist Christian content with my mere belief.


My original point was that atheists have a belief system

No we don't! We have the lack of a belief system. We no more "believe" in our lack of faith in god than you "believe" in your lack of faith in Zeus. If not, why don't you believe in Zeus, too? Why only be a Christian? Did something of Christianity convince you (have "proof") over and above that of Greek mythology? Is there more "proof", or "evidence," of your Hebrew Yahweh up against the Greek Zeus? Are you convinced Zeus does not exist? If so, why?


and a dogma and that a conversion to Christianity seems to me more likely for someone who already embraces faith principles than it would be for an agnostic who really couldn't care less.

I don't think the agnostic "couldn't care less." An agnostic simply says they "don't know" (a=not; gnosis=knowledge). They "don't know" if there is a god or not. They hold out the possiblity that there is one, but they acknowledge that they have seen little or no evidence. I know: I used to be one. But what "converted" me from agnosticism to atheism was the weak nature of agnosticism. I had no more reason to hold out the possibility for god than I did for invisible pink fairies living in the knot of my old elm tree in my backyard. Each had equal amounts of evidence and when I boiled down the reason most people believed in god was either because 1.) that's how they'd been brought up; or 2.) there were things they couldn't explain so they inserted "god" as the explanation; or 3.) the idea of their own mortality bothered them so much that they had to have a god so they could get an afterlife. Not once did anyone present a set of evidences that I could independently verify for proof that god existed. Sure, some of them gave me anecdotal stories about how they knew someone who was dying of cancer and this person was "prayed for" and the cancer got better. Or how someone was in a car accident but they'd been "talking to Jesus" right before the crash and so got out of the wreck with only a bruised right shoulder. But no one gave me the independent proof required for such belief.

[enjolras]

Actually, it's a misconception that religion was the only reason the geocentric model didn't spread very quickly. The Copernican model wasn't much better than the geocentric one. The prevailing mode of thought was that there was no reason to switch to a new model that was (to them) illogical without having some sort of significant reason. To the best of my knowledge, Kepler's model was the first that provided a major improvement over the heliocentric model.

I would be interested to see some support for this, as the Copernican model was actually quite useful, and very well supported.

As I recall (it's been a few years) the primary issues with the Copernican model was that he 1) set the planets in perfect circular orbits and 2) understimated the overall size of the solar system.

However, he correctly positioned each of the planets, showed the length of 1 orbit, predicted the spin of the earth on an axis, and showed that the earth wobbled on it's axis. His model more correctly predicted a number of behaviors. It is definitely true that Keplers addition of eliptical orbits made the model much better, however Copernicus developed a sound theory that WAS largely rejected due to religious bias.

[Conquistadita]

I would be interested to see some support for this, as the Copernican model was actually quite useful, and very well supported.

As I recall (it's been a few years) the primary issues with the Copernican model was that he 1) set the planets in perfect circular orbits and 2) understimated the overall size of the solar system.

However, he correctly positioned each of the planets, showed the length of 1 orbit, predicted the spin of the earth on an axis, and showed that the earth wobbled on it's axis. His model more correctly predicted a number of behaviors. It is definitely true that Keplers addition of eliptical orbits made the model much better, however Copernicus developed a sound theory that WAS largely rejected due to religious bias.

The problem wasn't that Copernicus wasn't closer to the truth; he was. It was that some of the biggest flaws of the contemporary geocentric models were also present in the Copernican model. Specifically, Copernicus still had epicycles in his model of planetary motion. Because they didn't actually know whether or not his predictions were true at the time, it became a question of elegance: do you prefer elegance in terms of amount of epicycles or do you prefer elegance in terms of centrality of the earth?

It took some time, but a lot of academics actually did prefer the Copernican model, if just because it was slightly more elgant in its treatment of epicycles and made a few other useful predictions (things like the fluctuating brightness of planets) that are hard to explain in a geocentric model.

Kepler was the first to obtain a truly elegant model for planetary motion by eliminating epicycles altogether, and to the best of my knowledge (and I admit I don't have a lot of knowledge about the reaction of the scientific community to Kepler's accomplishments), Kepler's model was taken pretty much in stride by those who were in a position to learn from him. By that point, more accurate cosmological measurements were available to more knowledgeable people, too, so it was easier to put his model to test.

While some people are are passing it off as evidence of the reluctance of science to change, to me, that's one of the major success stories of the scientific communities: improvement upon previous work until a more accurate and elegant model is invented for acceptance within the scientific community.

[Conquistadita]

Support:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html


Copernicus and the Need for Epicycles

There is a common misconception that the Copernican model did away with the need for epicycles. This is not true, because Copernicus was able to rid himself of the long-held notion that the Earth was the center of the Solar system, but he did not question the assumption of uniform circular motion. Thus, in the Copernican model the Sun was at the center, but the planets still executed uniform circular motion about it. As we shall see later, the orbits of the planets are not circles, they are actually ellipses. As a consequence, the Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion, still could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere without epicycles. The difference was that the Copernican system required many fewer epicycles than the Ptolemaic system because it moved the Sun to the center.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Copernicus.html
This achievement alone, however, hardly qualifies as a "revolution." Copernicus offered mathematics which were every bit as entangled as Ptolemy's (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Ptolemy.html), and because he retained circular orbits, his system required the inelegant inclusion of epicycles and their accompanying complication. To Copernicus's credit, although his description was not any simpler than Ptolemy's (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Ptolemy.html), it did require fewer basic assumptions. In addition, Copernicus's theory explained some problems, such as the reason that Mercury (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Mercury.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif and Venus (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Venus.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif are only observed close to the Sun (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Sun.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif (their orbits always kept them nearer the sun than Earth (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Earth.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif) and Mars's (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Mars.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif retrograde motion (the Earth (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Earth.html), http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif traveling in its smaller orbit, overtakes Mars (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Mars.html), http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif causing Mars (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Mars.html) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif to appear to move change direction and move backward relative to distant "fixed" stars). However, like Ptolemy (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Ptolemy.html), Copernicus could still not explain variations in the brightness of Venus (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Venus.html). http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/images/crossrefs/astronomy.gif

[ClevelandBronco]

I have no set of beliefs when it comes to a divinity. That's why I'm an atheist. I have no beliefs in this department. That's what makes me an atheist.

Webster's defines an atheist as one who BELIEVES there is no God. Your personal idea of atheism is flawed. An atheist believes.

I wouldn't expect you to defend beliefs you don't hold. So why are you asking this of me?...etc.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I specifically said that your beliefs and mine are beyond proof.

What I do expect is for Christians like you to prove the things you do believe in.

Then I'll disappoint you. As I said, my beliefs can't be proved. Neither can yours.

It's not a belief!...etc.

Sure it is.

What a cop-out!...etc.

Then here's what I'm sure you'll see as my next cop out: Arguing with folks that are in as deep a state of denial as you are about your atheist religion is another waste of my life and yours.

[TheDave]

Webster's defines an atheist as one who BELIEVES there is no God. Your personal idea of atheism is flawed. An atheist believes.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I specifically said that your beliefs and mine are beyond proof.

Then I'll disappoint you. As I said, my beliefs can't be proved. Neither can yours.

Sure it is.

Then here's what I'm sure you'll see as my next cop out: Arguing with folks that are in as deep a state of denial as you are about your atheist religion is another waste of my life and yours.


See this is another great thing about being an agnostic... everyone knows that that you don't care either way, so no one wastes much time arguing/insulting you on internet message boards.
:woowoo:

[Mile High Shack]

good lord this thread is still going???

[TheDave]

that avatar has to be one of the more disturbing images i've seen in a while

[Mile High Shack]

that avatar has to be one of the more disturbing images i've seen in a while

family guy rocks!!

[orangeatheist]

Webster's defines an atheist as one who BELIEVES there is no God. Your personal idea of atheism is flawed. An atheist believes.

Well, gee, I guess if the dictionary defines it that way, it must be true!

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Atheist as: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." One of the definitions for "disbelief" is "a rejection of belief." To reject a belief is not a belief itself! Deny means, "to refuse to recognize or acknowledge" or to "declare [as] untrue". I certainly refuse to recognize or acknowledge the existence of Yahweh, just as you likely refuse to recognize or acknowledge the existence of Zeus. I'm certain you declare the claim of Zeus' existence as "untrue," don't you? No, do you merely believe Zeus is unreal or do you know it? And if you merely "believe" his existence to be untrue, then you hold out the possibility for his existence. That's something I don't do for Yahweh. I know Yahweh doesn't exist. It is not my belief.

I find it interesting that you snipped your way through my post in order to avoid answering the direct question placed to you to demonstrate your lack of understanding over the term "atheist." I pointed out to you that atheists "have the lack of a belief system. We no more 'believe' in our lack of faith in god than you 'believe' in your lack of faith in Zeus." Then I asked you directly "If not, why don't you believe in Zeus, too? Why only be a Christian? Did something of Christianity convince you (have 'proof') over and above that of Greek mythology? Is there more 'proof,' or 'evidence,' of your Hebrew Yahweh up against the Greek Zeus? Are you convinced Zeus does not exist? If so, why?"

Rejecting belief in something is not itself a belief. It is simply the lack of belief. Do you really merely "believe" there is no toothfairy or do you simply lack belief in such a being? Do you really merely "believe" there are no pink T-Rex's in the Indian Ocean causing earthquakes or do you simply lack belief in such things?

Answer the question and don't dodge it again.


I'm not asking you to prove anything. I specifically said that your beliefs and mine are beyond proof.

My lack of belief requires no proof! Why can't you understand that? You cannot equate your belief in Yahweh (and lack of proof thereof) with my lack of belief in Yahweh (for which I need no proof). I don't need to prove there is no god any more than I need to prove there are invisible pink fairies in my backyard. It is not a matter of being beyond proof. I have nothing to prove so proof or the lack thereof doesn't even come into question.


Then I'll disappoint you. As I said, my beliefs can't be proved. Neither can yours.

And your inability to prove anything about your beliefs is what drives my atheism. It isn't a belief that there is no god, it is the lack of such proof. Again, if I were to assert (but claim my beliefs were beyond proof) that invisible pink fairies lived in my backyard would you be beholden to merely "believe" that these beings didn't exist or would you truely and without positive action lack such belief? And if you lacked such belief would you then be labeled a religious person with a set of dogmas that kept you in your unbelief? Nonsense.


Then here's what I'm sure you'll see as my next cop out: Arguing with folks that are in as deep a state of denial as you are about your atheist religion is another waste of my life and yours.

It's never a waste of time to clear up misconceptions and you have a whole bag full of them.

[orangeatheist]

good lord this thread is still going???

As long as I still draw breath! ~Popps~



rofl

[Mile High Shack]

As long as I still draw breath! ~Popps~



rofl

you are that one guy who keeps suing the government aren't you (who is now suing to stop the prayer during inaguaration)

;)

[TheDave]

you are that one guy who keeps suing the government aren't you (who is now suing to stop the prayer during inaguaration)

;)


Someone is suing to stop prayer at the inaguration? Pleaser tell me your joking.

[Rascal]

Someone is suing to stop prayer at the inaguration? Pleaser tell me your joking.

nope and now it goes to the Supreme Court. Pretty ridiculous and yet people wonder why the religious sector is defensive about everything.

[Mile High Shack]

Someone is suing to stop prayer at the inaguration? Pleaser tell me your joking.

no, the same guy that sued on "behalf of his daughter (even though he didn't have custody) for the pledge of allegiance

Two lower courts have already turned him down and he submitted an emergency injunction (or some other law term) to the supreme court

either A) this guy really hates everyone who believe in God
or
B) has too much time on his hands
OR
C) has too much money on his hands

or D) all of the above

the dude said it was going to cause him personal injury if a prayer was invoked at the inaguration ceremony

[TheDave]

nope and now it goes to the Supreme Court. Pretty ridiculous and yet people wonder why the religious sector is defensive about everything.

Well that guy is a complete moron, and definately does not represent my secular portion of the world. Just keep the bible out of my science and i'm happy! :)

[TheDave]

no, the same guy that sued on "behalf of his daughter (even though he didn't have custody) for the pledge of allegiance

Two lower courts have already turned him down and he submitted an emergency injunction (or some other law term) to the supreme court

either A) this guy really hates everyone who believe in God
or
B) has too much time on his hands
OR
C) has too much money on his hands

or D) all of the above

the dude said it was going to cause him personal injury if a prayer was invoked at the inaguration ceremony


Personally i go for the To much time on his hands / Worldclass attention Whore combination. The judges need to start throwing idiots like him out of the court rooms. Then send him a big ass "Stop wasteing our time" bill!

[orangeatheist]

you are that one guy who keeps suing the government aren't you (who is now suing to stop the prayer during inaguaration)

;)

shhhhhhh

[orangeatheist]

His name's Newdow. (I think that's the spelling.)

He just filed again for the removal of "Under God" from the Pledge on behalf of a bunch of other parents, I heard. Something like that.

[alkemical]

the issue of it going to the supreme court is there is pending legislation where the courts can say basically that there is a 'higher' authority, so whatever interpretation is currently 'valid' - they can do what ever they want - ala - the pope.

[Phantom]

I was wondering what scientists have verified creationism theories? Is there a site that shows who those scientists are?

Been out of town ... surprised this thread is still around.
I attempted to read the entire thread, but can't wait to jump.

I seriously invite to read some of the scentific evidence that supports creationism, a young earth, or an intelligent design. I have studied evolution, creationism and intelligent design and find it interesting.

For web sites - go to yahoo and search on Intelligent Design - you'll find pages of info ...

Here is one www.origins.org

[Phantom]

I didn't put that link in to get my jollies off. Evolution is a fact and a theory. There's none of this "macro" vs. "micro" evolution crap. Evolution is evolution. From the article, if anyone had the audacity to try and read it:



Those of you that advocate the existence of "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" would you mind telling the mechanism that allows species to evolve within themselves but not into a differing breeding population? What biological barrier is there that allows evolution up to a particular point and then no further?

Not to be offensive, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion and what I have to say won't change it, but I challenge your depth of understanding of the subject - again not to be rude....

Actually the fossil record disproves macro-evolution - where are the millions of intermediate life forms? From the beginning of the fossil records you have reptiles, mammals, fish, crustacians, etc. - same as today.

Interspecies evolution is micro-evolution - dogs can become other species of dogs. Macro-evolution is species evolving into new species (different classifications of animals) and this is purly speculation - where is there any evidence in science that one animal evolved into another?

[Phantom]

Some scientific facts that prove intelligent design - recognized by members of the scientific community. This is from memory, but I'm sure I could find a web site. Also to reiterrate - this holds as much water as macro-evolution - these are pieces, to build the entire puzzle you have to speculate - as with macro evolution.

(1) The rate of hydrogen released into the atmosphere is a constant. You can measure the amount of hygrogen in the atmoshere and it calculates to thousands of years (not millions, or billions). Evolutionary scientists explain this away by assuming some cosmic event MUST have released most of the hydrogen built up in our atmosphere over time.

(2) The rate of sedimentation released into the oceans - also a constant - if the Earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be uninhabitable because of the salinity levels.

(3) The physics theory of "event horizons" - this is used to explain how the expanding universe would have to be billions of years old, because the universe is expanding at a contant rate. By using event horizon, one can conclude that the perception of time and space is altered from the viewpoint on a moving object observing another moving object.

These are from memory and I'm sure I put something out of context, but the point is .... there are scientific theroies and members of the scientific community that believe in intelligent design. Same as macro-evolution - there are pieces that fit and others that don't. I think we all make "leaps of faith" to believe whatever orgin of man theory suits your agenda.

To the point - no 'origin of man' theory should be taught in public schools.

[Phantom]

One more and then I read what this thread has transpired into ...

Irreducible Complexity is another scentific theory used to dispute Darwinism.

How can a four chambered heart have evolved from a one chambered heart?
What organism - after millions of years of genetic mutation - having one heart, evolved into an organism that was better suited for survival and adaptabilty by being born with a 'different' heart. Perhaps it was two chambered heart - how is that possible - but any way - how did this mutated oranism with a mutated heart have an advantage over its siblings with normal one chambered hearts?

Does that make sense?

Each genetic mutation over millions of years, must have benefitted its host, so that eventually a new species was created. It is absurd - sorry, but makes no sense when you consider that this is how all species evolved.

If the reptile became a bird where are the millions of intermediate life forms between. Where are they in fossil records? You find a dinosaur that had feathers and this is it? That mathematically is impossible, not improbable, but impossible. You can go to the beggining of all fossile records and we have mammals, reptiles, birds, fish - same as today.

[enjolras]

Critics of ID attack the definition of irreducible complexity, showing numerous inconsistencies in Behe's work, its lack of mathematical precision, and the application of an assertion that one can count a number of irreducible steps as Behe claims. They also point out that Behe has backed off of examples of irreducible complexity. They argue that Behe does not accurately calculate the odds of particular changes in the genome occuring. Further they argue that ID has promulgated no theory or method which would allow them to detect possible examples of cases of human modification of the genome, which would seem to be indistinguishable from the process of interfering with the genome that Intelligent Design asserts occured.

Critics of ID also argue that the IC argument assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of cooption, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied.

The IC argument assumes that a necessary part of a system has always been necessary. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales[1] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=pubmed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;li st_uids=9678675), demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system. Evolutionary pathways have been elucidated for IC systems such as cilia, the immune system[2] (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html) and the flagellum[3] (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html). If IC is a reliable barrier to evolution, it should not be possible to construct such pathways. Computer simulations of evolution also demonstrate that IC can evolve. [4] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=127366 77&amp;dopt=Abstract)[5] (http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html)

Critics also reject the ID movement's assertion that design is recognizable, namely that if it looks designed, it must be designed.

ID advocates respond by saying that proposed models for the evolution of IC structures are not detailed enough, or cannot be tested. They also dismiss computer simulations as biologically unrealistic.

It's just easier this way:)

[Phantom]

Why do you keep saying "it isn't a fact"?



And, would you mind asking your converted professor what biological mechanism allows evolutionary change within a species but does not allow for speciation? Before you or he answsers, you might want to avail yourself of the article Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

And you're not a moron. You're willfully ignorant. And before you take offense at that statement, realize that by "willful" I mean exactly "said or done on purpose; deliberate;" and by "ignorant" I mean "lacking education or knowledge; unaware or uninformed" in biological science as defined by the dictionary. In otherwords, you are deliberately remaining uninformed as to the merits and facts of evoutionary theory for whatever personal reason you have.

From the link above, "It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change." Because "scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner, Evolution, in this context, is [therefore] both a fact and a theory."

Disagree with it all you want. But that doesn't change anything.


Again micro evolution is fact. A white rabbit survives better in the Artic.

If you can't understand where people have a problem with latching on to the idea that all life began because a random combination of proteins over a billion years formed a unicelled organism, then through millions of tiny mutations - each one allowing the host to have an advantage over its siblings, thus allowing it to survive and adapt and procreate - form another entirly separte organism, eventually led to you and I - then you have the problem. Believe what you want, but micro evolution does not prove, validate or even shed more light to that idea that the origin of life became by mere mutated random chance. And to call people morons because they don't 'see' this - wow! :kiddingme

[Conquistadita]

One more and then I read what this thread has transpired into ...

Irreducible Complexity is another scentific theory used to dispute Darwinism.

How can a four chambered heart have evolved from a one chambered heart?
What organism - after millions of years of genetic mutation - having one heart, evolved into an organism that was better suited for survival and adaptabilty by being born with a 'different' heart. Perhaps it was two chambered heart - how is that possible - but any way - how did this mutated oranism with a mutated heart have an advantage over its siblings with normal one chambered hearts?

Does that make sense?

That has nothing to do with irreducible complexity and more to do with argument out of incredulity. Either way, lack of creativity does not prove a theory false.

Right now you are saying you know of no possible way for a four-chambered heart to evolve. I don't know of one myself, but maybe someone else does. Have you considered asking a resident expert? Perhaps there really is a plausible solution already. I can't supply any technical details myself, but I remember from bio in high school that some reptiles have hearts that have three chambers, others have hearts that have four chambers, and still others have hearts that are somewhere in between. I don't see any reason why these borderline hearts can't occur in a simpler circulatory system.

Each genetic mutation over millions of years, must have benefitted its host, so that eventually a new species was created. It is absurd - sorry, but makes no sense when you consider that this is how all species evolved.

You're absolutely correct; that's implausible. That's not how evolution is understood to occur by evolutionary scientists, though. That's how creationists view evolution. Would you like me to give you a brief explanation of evolution, as I understand it? You've been taught evolutionary theory by the very people who hope to strike it down, so I'm not surprised that there are a few things that might seem fuzzy and illogical.

If the reptile became a bird where are the millions of intermediate life forms between. Where are they in fossil records? You find a dinosaur that had feathers and this is it? That mathematically is impossible, not improbable, but impossible. You can go to the beggining of all fossile records and we have mammals, reptiles, birds, fish - same as today.

Um... what? First, there are a lot of intermediate life forms in the fossil record. Second, mathematically impossible? What are you talking about? Third, fish go fairly far back (although not nearly so far as you would think), but mammals, reptiles, and birds only appear relatively recently in the fossil record. I'm no paleontologist, but I could do a little research for you. It's not hard to find references to fossil evidence. ???

[TheDave]

Does that make sense?



Sorry if this is reduntant, but the rule here is that when ever arguing anything scientific - your not allowed to you the "That doesn't make sense" argument. To most people algebra doesn't make sense, but were all pretty sure it's correct. Sorry Phantom, but you're going to have to dig a little deeper than "Does that make sense?"

By the way nice Iron Maiden Cover in the avatar

[Conquistadita]

Some scientific facts that prove intelligent design - recognized by members of the scientific community. This is from memory, but I'm sure I could find a web site. Also to reiterrate - this holds as much water as macro-evolution - these are pieces, to build the entire puzzle you have to speculate - as with macro evolution.

(1) The rate of hydrogen released into the atmosphere is a constant. You can measure the amount of hygrogen in the atmoshere and it calculates to thousands of years (not millions, or billions). Evolutionary scientists explain this away by assuming some cosmic event MUST have released most of the hydrogen built up in our atmosphere over time.

(2) The rate of sedimentation released into the oceans - also a constant - if the Earth was millions of years old, the oceans would be uninhabitable because of the salinity levels.

(3) The physics theory of "event horizons" - this is used to explain how the expanding universe would have to be billions of years old, because the universe is expanding at a contant rate. By using event horizon, one can conclude that the perception of time and space is altered from the viewpoint on a moving object observing another moving object.

These are from memory and I'm sure I put something out of context, but the point is .... there are scientific theroies and members of the scientific community that believe in intelligent design. Same as macro-evolution - there are pieces that fit and others that don't. I think we all make "leaps of faith" to believe whatever orgin of man theory suits your agenda.

To the point - no 'origin of man' theory should be taught in public schools.

The first two arguments assume constant rates for what two functions that I would assume to vary with the history of the earth. The third just makes no sense; it doesn't really prove anything. It also incorrectly defines event horizons and makes a mockery of special relativity.

[Phantom]

The first two arguments assume constant rates for what two functions that I would assume to vary with the history of the earth. The third just makes no sense; it doesn't really prove anything. It also incorrectly defines event horizons and makes a mockery of special relativity.

First there are NO scientists who believe in anything other than macro evolution. So I point out a few.

What I am saying is there are many scientific observations, facts, constants, theories that prove otherwise. These theories are discounted and discarded, why? - because they are contradictory.

The point is why even attempt to teach the origins of man in public schools?

There are simply too many holes in any theory that explains the origin of man. Sure there are plenty of facts that disprove creationism. There are plenty of facts that disprove macro-evolution as well. Everyone is using faith to fill in the blanks.

[Phantom]

Sorry if this is reduntant, but the rule here is that when ever arguing anything scientific - your not allowed to you the "That doesn't make sense" argument. To most people algebra doesn't make sense, but were all pretty sure it's correct. Sorry Phantom, but you're going to have to dig a little deeper than "Does that make sense?"

By the way nice Iron Maiden Cover in the avatar

I was waiting for someone to point out the anti-Christian Iron Maiden and trying to PUSH intelligent design. Fact is ... I don't discount Darwinism because of Christian faith. I doubt it because I've read on both subjects and I choose to believe in ID. To me it makes more sense - there I go again.

Or the argument - I am here for a purpose, or I am here because a 1 in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000 chance just so happened to occur.

[TheDave]

First there are NO scientists who believe in anything other than macro evolution. So I point out a few.

What I am saying is there are many scientific observations, facts, constants, theories that prove otherwise. These theories are discounted and discarded, why? - because they are contradictory.

The point is why even attempt to teach the origins of man in public schools?

There are simply too many holes in any theory that explains the origin of man. Sure there are plenty of facts that disprove creationism. There are plenty of facts that disprove macro-evolution as well. Everyone is using faith to fill in the blanks.

BS. Find me the Peer Reviewed and accepted scientific evidence that disputes Evolution, and we can start to discuss your opinion above. Until that happens you like other creationist need to simply bide your time until the science backs up your beliefs.

[TheDave]

I was waiting for someone to point out the anti-Christian Iron Maiden and trying to PUSH intelligent design. Fact is ... I don't discount Darwinism because of Christian faith. I doubt it because I've read on both subjects and I choose to believe in ID. To me it makes more sense - there I go again.

Or the argument - I am here for a purpose, or I am here because a 1 in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000 chance just so happened to occur.

Actually i broght up the avatar 'cause i like iron maiden, especially the power slave album (boy that word just dated me)

[orangeatheist]

Not to be offensive, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion and what I have to say won't change it, but I challenge your depth of understanding of the subject - again not to be rude....

No offense taken. Please rest assured that I mean no offense when I challenge your depth of understanding the subject if you advocate ID.


Actually the fossil record disproves macro-evolution - where are the millions of intermediate life forms?

Again, not to insult your intelligence (no pun intended) but are you serious?

So that this doesn't get out of hand, why don't define for the reading audience what qualifies as an "intermediate life form"? What would you expect to find in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution were true?

Perhaps you would like to take a stab at answering a question I posed to rascal a week ago but still remains unanswered. From the following photos of skulls, which would you classify as "ape" and which as "human"? Why?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

I'll spot you the first and last skull: A=modern chimpanzee; N=modern human.


From the beginning of the fossil records you have reptiles, mammals, fish, crustacians, etc. - same as today.

Absolutely false. Again, do you have knowledge of the subject? Do you know if fish were present prior to the Ordovician Period? In fact, what fossils do we find in the record prior to that time? In what period do we find the first mammalian fossils? (Hint: There was a movie by the same name). How much time separates these two eras?

Perhaps you would benefit from reading the article Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (http://bob.nap.edu/readingroom/books/creationism/evidence.html) from the National Academy of Sciences.


Interspecies evolution is micro-evolution - dogs can become other species of dogs. Macro-evolution is species evolving into new species (different classifications of animals) and this is purly speculation - where is there any evidence in science that one animal evolved into another?

While I tend to reject the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution (evolution is just evolution whether it occurs at or above the species level), I stand corrected that the terms are not used elsewhere. From TalkOrigins:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.

So, the question becomes: Is there any evidence of the evolution of new families, phyla or genera? And the answer is yes. See, simply, the article Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) And, remember, "speciation" simply means the evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

What I find telling is, once again, a creationist/IDer has yet to describe the mechanism that allows microevolution to occur but not macroevolution. Let me try to make the question easier to answer: What causes microevolution? What are the biological changes that allow this to happen? What are the barriers from allowing these "within species" changes from occuring on a "macro" evolutionary scale?

[Phantom]

That has nothing to do with irreducible complexity and more to do with argument out of incredulity. Either way, lack of creativity does not prove a theory false.

Right now you are saying you know of no possible way for a four-chambered heart to evolve. I don't know of one myself, but maybe someone else does. Have you considered asking a resident expert? Perhaps there really is a plausible solution already. I can't supply any technical details myself, but I remember from bio in high school that some reptiles have hearts that have three chambers, others have hearts that have four chambers, and still others have hearts that are somewhere in between. I don't see any reason why these borderline hearts can't occur in a simpler circulatory system.



You're absolutely correct; that's implausible. That's not how evolution is understood to occur by evolutionary scientists, though. That's how creationists view evolution. Would you like me to give you a brief explanation of evolution, as I understand it? You've been taught evolutionary theory by the very people who hope to strike it down, so I'm not surprised that there are a few things that might seem fuzzy and illogical.



Um... what? First, there are a lot of intermediate life forms in the fossil record. Second, mathematically impossible? What are you talking about? Third, fish go fairly far back (although not nearly so far as you would think), but mammals, reptiles, and birds only appear relatively recently in the fossil record. I'm no paleontologist, but I could do a little research for you. It's not hard to find references to fossil evidence. ???


And macro-evolution is NOT fuzzy and illogical to you. Hook line and sinker, I guess. How does an organism with a mutated heart even survive - let alone have an advantage over its siblings? This is where I believe most Darwinist turn a blind eye, because there are species with one, two, four chamber hearts, then that most mean it is possible they evolved from one another. Because you nor I can explain it - doesn't make true or false - so don't teach it to school kids is all I'm saying.

There are NOT many intermediate species in the fossil record. If you use Darwinism to explain species to species evolution, then you would have more intermidiate life forms than classifiable life forms by a factor of a million to one.

[Conquistadita]

First there are NO scientists who believe in anything other than macro evolution. So I point out a few.

What I am saying is there are many scientific observations, facts, constants, theories that prove otherwise. These theories are discounted and discarded, why? - because they are contradictory.

But it's all a frace; those statements didn't really demonstrate anything because they were working on faulty assumptions. I mean, how the hell would the rate increase of salinity be a constant? What happens when the ocean is 100% saturated? ??? It's intuitively obvious that it can't be a constant.

The hydrogen thing I just don't get (why is there supposed to be a linear growth of hydrogen in the atmosphere, and where would it all come from, and why can it not react with oxygen or escape the atmosphere?).

The final one just makes a nonsensical show of words that have to do with relativity.

The point is why even attempt to teach the origins of man in public schools?

Because that is the scientific understanding of biological origins of mankind. The origin of mankind of fairly uncontroversial in the scientific community.

There are simply too many holes in any theory that explains the origin of man. Sure there are plenty of facts that disprove creationism. There are plenty of facts that disprove macro-evolution as well. Everyone is using faith to fill in the blanks.

There really aren't any holes, though; most of the alleged holes were invented through twisted logic.

[orangeatheist]

One more and then I read what this thread has transpired into ...

Irreducible Complexity is another scentific theory used to dispute Darwinism.



More debunked nonsense. Familarize yourself with Irreducible Complexity Demystified (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html)

How can a four chambered heart have evolved from a one chambered heart?

We find almost every variation of hearts from simple to complex within living organisms today. Crocodilians for example have a heart somewhat intermediate between the three chambered 'reptilian' heart and a four chambered avian one. Also the hearts of advanced vertebrates, like mammals and birds, grows from a simple one to a more complex one during embryological development and somehow the embryos usually manage to survive the process.

Familiarize yourself with Mainframe Heart Development (http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/thorax0/heartdev/main_fra.html); Human Heart Development (http://www.luc.edu/depts/biology/dev/heart.htm); and Heart and Fetal Circulation (http://www.abcparma.it/english/nascita.htm)

[Conquistadita]

And macro-evolution is NOT fuzzy and illogical to you. Hook line and sinker, I guess. How does an organism with a mutated heart even survive - let alone have an advantage over its siblings? This is where I believe most Darwinist turn a blind eye, because there are species with one, two, four chamber hearts, then that most mean it is possible they evolved from one another. Because you nor I can explain it - doesn't make true or false - so don't teach it to school kids is all I'm saying.

Why don't you ask someone who actually knows the answer? I bet someone's already done the research on evolution of the heart. Go ask an expert.

There are NOT many intermediate species in the fossil record. If you use Darwinism to explain species to species evolution, then you would have more intermidiate life forms than classifiable life forms by a factor of a million to one.

:kiddingme

Define intermediate vs. classifiable.

If we're using the same definitions, all intermediate life forms are classifiable because we invent categories for them.

Also, where do you get this million to one thing? Completely arbitrary if you ask me.

[alkemical]

darwin said that his theory would probably need revised when science moved along to prove otherwise.

But darwin's theory was also a tool for the ruling elite to claim that they were above the serfs.

[Conquistadita]

darwin said that his theory would probably need revised when science moved along to prove otherwise.

But darwin's theory was also a tool for the ruling elite to claim that they were above the serfs.

Darwin's observations on natural selection were incorrectly used as political justifications for the ruling elite, true, but that doesn't show anything about the actual validity or lack therof of Darwin's observations. Political arguments have no place in scientific observations.

[enjolras]

Your making the fundamental mistake that natural selection is the only means by which evolution occurs. It's simply not true. There are known examples of evolutionary development by which something can be non-essential (such as a multi chambered heart), and over time evolve to BECOME essential to a system. Just as once-essential systems can become non essential (appendix anyone?). Some mutations are carried forward simply because they happened to mutate in a already strong host. Others are carried forward because the particular mutation happens to be common across a population. Evolution has been shown to not neccesarily evolve OPTIMAL organisms, but often simply different ones.

[orangeatheist]

Again micro evolution is fact. A white rabbit survives better in the Artic.

If you can't understand where people have a problem with latching on to the idea that all life began because a random combination of proteins

When lightening strikes a guy on a golf course is that random? Or were certain conditions ripe for this to occur? Was the atmospheric conditions randomly generated or were they the result of certain air masses, humidity levels, temperatures and a host of other conditions that need to be present for the event to occur?

You see, this is the problem I have: people who claim evolution is "random" and is not the result of conditions. The earliest proteins that originiated life didn't do so "randomly," but did so because conditions were present that resulted in their reactions. It wasn't any more random than nuclear reactions in our sun.


...over a billion years formed a unicelled organism, then through millions of tiny mutations - each one allowing the host to have an advantage over its siblings, thus allowing it to survive and adapt and procreate - form another entirly separte organism, eventually led to you and I - then you have the problem.

Why do I have the problem? I understand fully well why some people have difficulty accepting your (rather strained) scenario. They don't like the idea of humankind being removed from the center of "creation." Being placed within the growing, evolving chain of evolving lifeforms removes one audacity to believe they are a "special," "intelligent" creation of an omnipotent, loving being. I understand their aversion quite well, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution happened.


Believe what you want, but micro evolution does not prove, validate or even shed more light to that idea that the origin of life became by mere mutated random chance. And to call people morons because they don't 'see' this - wow! :kiddingme

Again, why can't you produce the evidence that invalidates macroevolution?

It's real simple. Explain why the arctic hare is genetically different from another species of hare with which it cannot interbreed. Then, explain from where these two hares came. What caused the arctic hare to develop certain genetic traits that allows it to survive in an environment that one of its cousins cannot. When you have described the changes involved in making the arctic hare genetically different (and reproductively separate) from another hare, explain the biological barrier that stops any organism from evolving into two reproductively separate species.

[alkemical]

Darwin's observations on natural selection were incorrectly used as political justifications for the ruling elite, true, but that doesn't show anything about the actual validity or lack therof of Darwin's observations. Political arguments have no place in scientific observations.


considering darwin was a member of the ruling elite.........


But my first comment that even darwin himself said that his theory would change as times changed was correct.

[alkemical]

Your making the fundamental mistake that natural selection is the only means by which evolution occurs. It's simply not true. There are known examples of evolutionary development by which something can be non-essential (such as a multi chambered heart), and over time evolve to BECOME essential to a system. Just as once-essential systems can become non essential (appendix anyone?). Some mutations are carried forward simply because they happened to mutate in a already strong host. Others are carried forward because the particular mutation happens to be common across a population. Evolution has been shown to not neccesarily evolve OPTIMAL organisms, but often simply different ones.


The gun is an example.... cars (car accidents) -

[orangeatheist]

Found a great link to a book available for reading online:

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/)

The entire book is on the site and is absolutely free.

[Conquistadita]

considering darwin was a member of the ruling elite.........


But my first comment that even darwin himself said that his theory would change as times changed was correct.

:kiddingme

Yes, a lot has changed since Darwin's time, but that doesn't invalidate his accomplishments any more than quantum physics invalidated Bohr's accomplishments.

[alkemical]

:kiddingme

Yes, a lot has changed since Darwin's time, but that doesn't invalidate his accomplishments any more than quantum physics invalidated Bohr's accomplishments.

i'm not saying it invalidates anything, i'm stating that any scientist knows (ones that are humble mind you) that as technology changes or changes in philosophy - things change.

Darwinism isn't 100% anyway - guns and cars are good examples.

[Phantom]

Here's an interesting interview with a Biology teacher ...

In my opinion this was the intention of the Disclaimer stickers - not to introduce religion into the classroom, but to prevent your childs biology teacher from distorting the Darwin theory of the origins of life by presenting it as irrefuted scientific fact.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-049.htm

[TheDave]

Here's an interesting interview with a Biology teacher ...

In my opinion this was the intention of the Disclaimer stickers - not to introduce religion into the classroom, but to prevent your childs biology teacher from distorting the Darwin theory of the origins of life by presenting it as irrefuted scientific fact.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-049.htm

Tell me the truth... that was just meant to stir $hit up. Trying to stay on the topic at hand, i asked this earlier, and got no response. Why is this book of Genesis so central to Christian beliefs. To me it seems that this entire argument is because science goes against current interpretation of the bible. Why is that, as i stated before there are many different parts of the old testement that people completely ignore, why is this one so central that we must take an entire sector of science and cause such a huge pissing match?

Personally i think the Creation Vs. Evolution debate is a dead end. Neither side that is entrenched is going to budge. So for my education could some of the Christians give me an idea as to why this debate seems to be so central to to their faith. Honestly since their is a chance that i could be teaching this exact field next year, i would love to understand what it is, so that i may better deal with it in the future.



Look i'm an admitted agnostic, have been for the last 10+ years. But before that i was a good catholic boy. Went to church, read the bible, took classes on it, etc. Nowhere in all my years did i ever have a problem with evolution, or any other science for that matter. There are passages throught the bible that we all ignore...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - says it is ok to rape a woman as long as you pay her dad 50 silver

Leviticus 25:44-46 - tells us slavery is ok, and gives us some pointers on it.

Exodus 31:12-15 - says we should kill people who work on sundays...

No one takes these passages serious, then why is everyone so locked in to the whole Adam & Eve story. Most of you have managed to admit that Dinosaurs did roam the earth, I think everyone knows that the population begining from just 2 DNA strands would create some major deformities by the 3rd generation. Some of you with your micro evolution beliefs are fine saying that we evolved from Neaderthal. I don't think by accepting that anyone is saying that God is a neanderthal. Keep in mind the bible is a book inspired by God and written by man. Man makes mistakes, lots of them. I'll even admit we might be making one today with evolutionary science... but right now none of the evidencs is supporting Adam & Eve.

[Rascal]

Tell me the truth... that was just meant to stir $hit up. Trying to stay on the topic at hand, i asked this earlier, and got no response. Why is this book of Genesis so central to Christian beliefs. To me it seems that this entire argument is because science goes against current interpretation of the bible. Why is that, as i stated before there are many different parts of the old testement that people completely ignore, why is this one so central that we must take an entire sector of science and cause such a huge pissing match?

Personally i think the Creation Vs. Evolution debate is a dead end. Neither side that is entrenched is going to budge. So for my education could some of the Christians give me an idea as to why this debate seems to be so central to to their faith. Honestly since their is a chance that i could be teaching this exact field next year, i would love to understand what it is, so that i may better deal with it in the future.

I agree the debate is a dead end, and believe it or not taking whichever side requires "faith".

I think I touched on it earlier when we talked about the man being created in the image of God which comes from Genesis obviously. That is probably the biggest reason. And the reason for being hung-up on Genesis...I don't know...I'm not to be honest. I think Genesis is just being used here because it is the book of the Bible which contradicts the theory of evolution the most hence the reason it appears that people are "hung up on it."

[orangeatheist]

Here's an interesting interview with a Biology teacher ...

In my opinion this was the intention of the Disclaimer stickers - not to introduce religion into the classroom, but to prevent your childs biology teacher from distorting the Darwin theory of the origins of life by presenting it as irrefuted scientific fact.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-049.htm

A link to an article from a site titled: "Institute for Creation Research:A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" I don't expect to actually find a scientifically neutral perspective on the subject. And indeed, I wasn't disappointed! This "teacher" actually stated:

"The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things."

Evolution doesn't "progress toward grander things." This is assigning some kind of teleological purpose to evolution. Certain salamander species who had perfectly functional eyes adapted to cave environments in which these eyes became useless. And, yet, the eyes still remain on the creatures, functionless. Bats have solid bones, like other terrestrial bound mammals and unlike their hollow-boned flying companions, the birds. How is that "progressing toward grander things"?

This guy's an idiot and I'm not surprised an organization like ICR would latch onto him and quote him.

I stopped reading at this point (one paragraph into the article) because of such nonsense.

[orangeatheist]

I agree the debate is a dead end, and believe it or not taking whichever side requires "faith".

As long as people keep saying that evolution requires "faith," the debate is not a dead end. This kind of misconception must be cleared up. It's just like arguing with Cleveland Bronco about atheists having "faith" that there is no god. It's double-speak and trying to force onto one camp the errors of another. Indeed creationism requires faith. Evolution does not. Here's an example:

Genesis 1:11 states, "Then Elohim said, "Let the earth put forth vegitation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit and the seed in it." Evidence of Elohim springing into existence, fully mature, plants yielding seed and fruit trees of every kind: None.

The first grass fossils appear, by contrast, in the record of the Palaeocene and early Eocene (65-50Ma) however their widespread global expansion progressed slowly until the middle Miocene (c. 20-10Ma) where grasslands and grass-dominated ecosystems became commonplace.. See: Plant Evolution: a 2.1 Billion Year Old Study (http://www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/tour/tour15.htm).

So, as long as people continue to persist in calling evolution a "faith-based religion" which requires as much "belief" as creationism, the debate is not dead. This kind of thinking needs to be corrected.

edit: Made correction to my grass comment. Found a better source.

[Rascal]

Since when does there have to be a fossil record? Having done actual paleontology work myself, I can guarantee you that the likelyhood of finding fossil's is rare and unique thing, especially for something that old and specific.

And there is nothing to correct.

[Phantom]

A link to an article from a site titled: "Institute for Creation Research:A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" I don't expect to actually find a scientifically neutral perspective on the subject. And indeed, I wasn't disappointed! This "teacher" actually stated:

"The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things."

Evolution doesn't "progress toward grander things." This is assigning some kind of teleological purpose to evolution. Certain salamander species who had perfectly functional eyes adapted to cave environments in which these eyes became useless. And, yet, the eyes still remain on the creatures, functionless. Bats have solid bones, like other terrestrial bound mammals and unlike their hollow-boned flying companions, the birds. How is that "progressing toward grander things"?

This guy's an idiot and I'm not surprised an organization like ICR would latch onto him and quote him.

I stopped reading at this point (one paragraph into the article) because of such nonsense.

That's fine - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Your Salamader example actually goes both ways. They still have eyes even though they no longer use them. Perhaps this explains the human appendix.

Organs that server no purpose either validate or invalidate the theory of Macro-evolution - which is it?

[enjolras]

Evolution doesn't "progress toward grander things." This is assigning some kind of teleological purpose to evolution. Certain salamander species who had perfectly functional eyes adapted to cave environments in which these eyes became useless. And, yet, the eyes still remain on the creatures, functionless. Bats have solid bones, like other terrestrial bound mammals and unlike their hollow-boned flying companions, the birds. How is that "progressing toward grander things"?

Evolution, in general, has been a move towards much better overall systems. The development of the human brain and our compact frames are clear indications of that to me. I think the statement 'progressing toward grander things' IS a valid one.. as we are constantly not only ADAPTING but IMPROVING through evolutionary processes.

Your citing examples like they are a finished product.. those eyes still exist, true, but that may be simply because they haven't evolved away (or into something more useful). Bats may not have hollow bones..YET.. it's an ongoing process after all.

[enjolras]

Organs that server no purpose either validate or invalidate the theory of Macro-evolution - which is it?

How would they invalidate macro evolution at all? It would seem useless organs would quite specifically contardict ID.. but are almost for sure an indication of evolutionary processes in action.

[Phantom]

Tell me the truth... that was just meant to stir $hit up. Trying to stay on the topic at hand, i asked this earlier, and got no response. Why is this book of Genesis so central to Christian beliefs. To me it seems that this entire argument is because science goes against current interpretation of the bible. Why is that, as i stated before there are many different parts of the old testement that people completely ignore, why is this one so central that we must take an entire sector of science and cause such a huge pissing match?

Personally i think the Creation Vs. Evolution debate is a dead end. Neither side that is entrenched is going to budge. So for my education could some of the Christians give me an idea as to why this debate seems to be so central to to their faith. Honestly since their is a chance that i could be teaching this exact field next year, i would love to understand what it is, so that i may better deal with it in the future.

For me, the belief in macro-evolution, thus invalidating the book of Genesis, is not the reason I choose not to believe. I simply find it highly irrational that the origin of man - from Goo to You by way of the Zoo - is less probable than the belief that life was created. It is difficult to quantify, but that's it in a nutshell.

Scientists (Cosmologists) today have ideas (assumptions) theories, about the size of our universe. It is actually mathmatically impossible that the universe (as we know it) could contain enough variations (or instances) where all the necessary factor are in place for life to begin, sustain and evolve. Just look at the odds assumed to have been attained for all the necessary factors to have "randomly" occured. The only possible scenario would be if there are millions of parallel universes - then perhaps the number of unique instances would match the mathematical probabilty that macro-evolution could have occured.

[TheDave]

As long as people keep saying that evolution requires "faith," the debate is not a dead end. This kind of misconception must be cleared up. It's just like arguing with Cleveland Bronco about atheists having "faith" that there is no god. It's double-speak and trying to force onto one camp the errors of another. Indeed creationism requires faith. Evolution does not. Here's an example:

Genesis 1:11 states, "Then Elohim said, "Let the earth put forth vegitation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit and the seed in it." Evidence of Elohim springing into existence, fully mature, plants yielding seed and fruit trees of every kind: None.

The fossil record, however, indicates that modern grass (a seed yielding plant) did not appear on the planet until the Neogene Period, some 23.0 to 1.81 million years ago. See: The Neogene Period (http://www.palaeos.com/Cenozoic/Neogene.html).

So, as long as people continue to persist in calling evolution a "faith-based religion" which requires as much "belief" as creationism, the debate is not dead. This kind of thinking needs to be corrected.

Trust OA i see where your comming from, but having been around this block a 100+ times I, right now am more interested in why it is such a sticking point. It's just strange to me, most everyone believes in "Micro" evolution, so does that mean that according to their beliefs "God created man in his own image" that they are agreeing that god is a neanderthal... i don't see it that way. The thing to me that is most perplexing is that most christians are very comfortable picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow. But when it comes to the book of genesis, it seems to be untochable. My problem is i have a hard time arguing my side when i clearly don't understand the other side of the conversation. Again thanks rascal and phantom for your POV, i would love to hear from others on this...

[TheDave]

Scientists (Cosmologists) today have ideas (assumptions) theories, about the size of our universe. It is actually mathmatically impossible that the universe (as we know it) could contain enough variations (or instances) where all the necessary factor are in place for life to begin, sustain and evolve. Just look at the odds assumed to have been attained for all the necessary factors to have "randomly" occured. The only possible scenario would be if there are millions of parallel universes - then perhaps the number of unique instances would match the mathematical probabilty that macro-evolution could have occured.

Phantom, i honestly don't know where you are getting this mathmatically impossible theory from... if it's made up, fine. If you could show me somewhere that someone has worked up the math showing it's impossibility i would be more than happy to look at it...

[orangeatheist]

That's fine - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

Look, if I said "The Holocaust didn't happen" you wouldn't be an idiot for disagreeing with me. I would be wrong in my assertion. I'd be the idiot.

When someone blatantly misrepresents the facts of an issue (e.g. "The Holocaust didn't happen;" "Evolution is continually progressing toward grander things") they are an idiot. It's really that simple. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me. Nice attempt to poison the well, tho.


Your Salamader example actually goes both ways. They still have eyes even though they no longer use them. Perhaps this explains the human appendix.

How does it go both ways? These animals have a useless organ that eats up energy the organism can use in other areas. How is having a useless organ "progressing toward grander things"?

At one time these animals had useful eyes and then they were driven, for whatever reason, into underground caves. Over time, those eyes became useless and yet the useless eyes remain. Certainly, over time, those eyes may disappear from the organism entirely. However, the fact that they had these eyes and are now in an intermediate stage in which these eyes use up some of the organism's resources for no useful purpose is hardly a progression toward greater things.


Organs that server no purpose either validate or invalidate the theory of Macro-evolution - which is it?

The point was not to "validate or invalidate the theory of macroevolution." The point was to debunk the notion that evolution is in the business of producing "grander things." Evolution simply favors those organisms that are best adapted to their environments. It has no "purpose." There is no "goal;" therefore there are no "grander things." That's a subjective opinion that the evolutionary process is completely unaware of.

But since you brought up macroevolution again I'll take this opportunity to point out that you still have not come up with the biological barrier that allows evolution at the "micro" level but not at the "macro" level. What biological changes occur in an organism that allow microevolution. Take a breed of dog, if you want, and explain what makes that particular breed of dog biologically different from a another breed of dog. I assume you agree that both breeds of dog came from a common ancestor (e.g. a German Sheperd and a St. Bernard both came from a Collie). So, what biological changes allowed one breed of dog to evolve into another breed of dog? And what biological barrier allows this change from occuring on the "macro" level of evolution?

[orangeatheist]

Since when does there have to be a fossil record? Having done actual paleontology work myself, I can guarantee you that the likelyhood of finding fossil's is rare and unique thing, especially for something that old and specific.

And there is nothing to correct.

Huh? I'm a bit confused. Who are you responding to, rascal?

There's a fossil record because organisms, given the right conditions, leave traces of their bodies behind.

I know that fossils are rare and a unique thing and this is exactly why we dont' find the "millions" of transitional fossils that someone like Phantom demands in order to convince him of evolution. But, we have enough transitional fossils in order to substanciate the theory just fine.

[orangeatheist]

Evolution, in general, has been a move towards much better overall systems. The development of the human brain and our compact frames are clear indications of that to me. I think the statement 'progressing toward grander things' IS a valid one.. as we are constantly not only ADAPTING but IMPROVING through evolutionary processes.

I don't agree. Evolution doesn't produce "grander things." The only thing evolution does is select organisms that are better suited for their environments. I guess we could get into the semantics --and in so doing I'd see your point-- but the way it was stated in that article from ICR, the teacher was indicating that evolution was a system in which they were part: a system which was continually building bigger and better things. The implication was that evolution was on some teleological track toward some golden goal and that is just flatly wrong.


Your citing examples like they are a finished product.. those eyes still exist, true, but that may be simply because they haven't evolved away (or into something more useful). Bats may not have hollow bones..YET.. it's an ongoing process after all.

Of course. But evolution is not "designing" a bat to some day have hollow bones. We don't know what will occur with bats. For all we know, evolution will take some turn in bats and actually cause the organism to fail, making the species extinct. Is that evolving toward grander things?

[orangeatheist]

Trust OA i see where your comming from, but having been around this block a 100+ times I, right now am more interested in why it is such a sticking point. It's just strange to me, most everyone believes in "Micro" evolution, so does that mean that according to their beliefs "God created man in his own image" that they are agreeing that god is a neanderthal... i don't see it that way. The thing to me that is most perplexing is that most christians are very comfortable picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow. But when it comes to the book of genesis, it seems to be untochable. My problem is i have a hard time arguing my side when i clearly don't understand the other side of the conversation. Again thanks rascal and phantom for your POV, i would love to hear from others on this...

I guess I'm a bit unclear as to what is confusing you. Having been on the "other side" and believed the Book of Genesis as historical fact against evolution, perhaps I can be of some help. What, exactly, do you want to know?

[TheDave]

I guess I'm a bit unclear as to what is confusing you. Having been on the "other side" and believed the Book of Genesis as historical fact against evolution, perhaps I can be of some help. What, exactly, do you want to know?

Honestly like i said, there are several parts of the Bible that believers choose to ignore, i quoted these earlier...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - says it is ok to rape a woman as long as you pay her dad 50 silver

Leviticus 25:44-46 - tells us slavery is ok, and gives us some pointers on it.

Exodus 31:12-15 - says we should kill people who work on sundays...

No one seems to be taking a stance that these quotes are direct words from God, and a road map of how things should be... But when it comes to Genesis every word seems to be taken literally. To the point that we are tying up the court systems with legal battles over how this is to be taught in schools. I feel that maybe if i understand their POV a little better, we could find some common ground to help advance this conversation.

[Mile High Shack]

Honestly like i said, there are several parts of the Bible that believers choose to ignore, i quoted these earlier...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - says it is ok to rape a woman as long as you pay her dad 50 silver

Leviticus 25:44-46 - tells us slavery is ok, and gives us some pointers on it.

Exodus 31:12-15 - says we should kill people who work on sundays...

No one seems to be taking a stance that these quotes are direct words from God, and a road map of how things should be... But when it comes to Genesis every word seems to be taken literally. To the point that we are tying up the court systems with legal battles over how this is to be taught in schools. I feel that maybe if i understand their POV a little better, we could find some common ground to help advance this conversation.

Deut---I don't believe that is talking about rape, but actually having sex with that virgin, then they are married and the person who is with that girl owes the father 50 shekels of silver...I don't believe this has anything to do with rape. In the above verses it does talk of rape though and what to do...it says to stone both of them if it's consensual (if woman was cheating on husband willingily)...but if she cried out, then to only stone the man.

Levit---was talking strictly about Jews in that region compared to other nations, God promised them at the time that they were not to be slaves to anyone, but other nations still could be. The Jubilee law was a guarantee that no Jew would ever again be reduced to the type of slavery that oppressed Israel in Egypt."F17 Non-Jewish persons could be reduced to slavery, and the Jubilee did not apply to them

Exodus---Two facts of the utmost importance are here revealed for the first time: (1) that the sabbath day was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel; and (2) that the profanation of it was a capital offense to be punished by the execution of all violators....this was only talking about this specific period of time if you were Jewish, it doesn't apply to now days

you are taking things way out of context with these versus that pertained to the old Jewish law.

damn you Dave, I was staying out of this

[orangeatheist]

Honestly like i said, there are several parts of the Bible that believers choose to ignore, i quoted these earlier...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - says it is ok to rape a woman as long as you pay her dad 50 silver

Leviticus 25:44-46 - tells us slavery is ok, and gives us some pointers on it.

Exodus 31:12-15 - says we should kill people who work on sundays...

No one seems to be taking a stance that these quotes are direct words from God, and a road map of how things should be... But when it comes to Genesis every word seems to be taken literally. To the point that we are tying up the court systems with legal battles over how this is to be taught in schools. I feel that maybe if i understand their POV a little better, we could find some common ground to help advance this conversation.

Shack pretty much has it. Basically, most Christians will tell you that the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus were "fulfilled" by Christ (whatever that means) and that the "new covenant" under Jesus' death "overwrite" the old laws. In otherwords, Yahweh instructed the Hebrews of the Old Testament under covenantal laws in order to try and keep them holy. When that didn't work out, Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice, to bridge the gap between man and God and the "old" laws became obsolete. When questioned by the ruling religious party of the day regarding which of all the various commandments were the most important, the gospels claim that Jesus responded that loving God with all one's heart and treating your neighbor as yourself were the two greatest. Upon these two commandemnts hung the entirety of scripture.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you wonder why Christian creationists so fervently cling to the Genesis account of creation when they seem to pick and choose what other parts of scripture to follow. I think it really boils down to this: Christians believe in the salvation of their souls through belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This death and resurrection occured only to bridge the gap between fallen humankind and a perfect, holy god. Without this salvation, humans are doomed to being forever separated from god and this, it is said, causes us great misery (whether it be the simple separation from god or the torture endured in hell).

The sacrifice of Christ occured because the ancient practice of animal sacrifice (and personal sacrifice as outlined in the Old Testament) was corrupted and misunderstood by Yahweh's "Chosen People." In order to finally "get through" to not only the Hebrews but to all mankind (we were all created in the image of Yahweh), Jesus (God) made the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind and "proved" his divinity by rising from the dead (only a god could have power over death). By believing in this sacrifice and accepting it on one's behalf, the same resurrection power that rose Jesus from the grave is extended to every mortal. It is a free gift.

But why have the sacrifice at all? Why are we separated from god and in need of a reunion? Because the "first man," Adam, disobeyed god and caused all mankind to suffer this separation. By disobeying god, Adam brought into the world "death." This chasm is only bridged by Christ's life and atoning sacrifice. Of course, the story of man's fall occurs in Eden which is part of the overall creation story in Genesis. If you remove "In the Beginning," you remove "And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden" as well as "Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'" and, finally, "Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

So, if you remove the creation story you not only bring into question every other claim made in the Bible (trivial or not; historical, scientific or theological), but you also eliminate the story about the fall from grace and therefore remove the need for Jesus' sacrifice and the entirety of the Christian system of belief. That's why ministries like Answers In Genesis advertise: "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE."

[orangeatheist]

I feel that maybe if i understand their POV a little better, we could find some common ground to help advance this conversation.

So, with my last post in mind, how do you propose to find common ground between creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and evolutionists? It simply cannot be done.

Now, there are plenty of Christians who accept evolution as the tool by which Yahweh did his creating. They assign metaphorical status to the stories of Genesis and don't believe a literal Adam ate a literal fruit of knowledge in a literal garden of Eden. So, in essence, they reject Genesis as a literal account of creation but these are not the ones pressing to have creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in our public schools. They also do not advocate removing evolution from biology courses because it is "only a theory."

[TheDave]

Thanks for the summary OA, i knew there was a problem with the way people were defending it... i just never thought of it as such an intricate piece to their religious puzzle. Having read your take, their probably is no common ground, atleast not enough to genuinely help with the discussion. For people who do read the bible that literal, i would love to hear their explanations on Dinosaurs, The age of the earth, etc. (another time, another discussion)

Having grown up catholic, i was very use to taking the bible as book of faith and not a historical document. If what you say is true (i believe you are) there probably is little to no common ground. If you believe in the book verbatim, then yes this field of science is a direct assault on your belief system. Now i see why some groups are challenging it so feverishly... Wow!

My curiosity for this has gained speed lately. Up until a few weeks ago i thought i was going to be teaching Chem next year.... Well it looks more now like i will be doing some time as an earth science/ bio teacher. Yep, TheDave might be teaching your kids this very subject...

And to think i just pissed away my 1,000th post on a bronco Forum in the old evolution debate... Go Figure.

[orangeatheist]

Thanks for the summary OA, i knew there was a problem with the way people were defending it... i just never thought of it as such an intricate piece to their religious puzzle. Having read your take, their probably is no common ground, atleast not enough to genuinely help with the discussion. For people who do read the bible that literal, i would love to hear their explanations on Dinosaurs, The age of the earth, etc. (another time, another discussion)

Having grown up catholic, i was very use to taking the bible as book of faith and not a historical document. If what you say is true (i believe you are) there probably is little to no common ground. If you believe in the book verbatim, then yes this field of science is a direct assault on your belief system. Now i see why some groups are challenging it so feverishly... Wow!

My curiosity for this has gained speed lately. Up until a few weeks ago i thought i was going to be teaching Chem next year.... Well it looks more now like i will be doing some time as an earth science/ bio teacher. Yep, TheDave might be teaching your kids this very subject...

And to think i just pissed away my 1,000th post on a bronco Forum in the old evolution debate... Go Figure.


Hey! Congrats! I would be proud to have you teach my kids!

I wouldn't be so fast to think you "pissed" your 1000th post (congrats again!) on this debate. From where I sit, this debate is crucial. We just cannot afford to have good science removed from classrooms because it bothers the sensitivities of religious folks. And, conversely, we cannot afford to have religion taught as science. I would only be too honored to have my 1000th post "wasted" on this debate! Have you seen how many views this thread has received?!

[orangeatheist]

Well it looks more now like i will be doing some time as an earth science/ bio teacher. Yep, TheDave might be teaching your kids this very subject...

Here's a link...in case you need it!

Varves (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html)

[Phantom]

Phantom, i honestly don't know where you are getting this mathmatically impossible theory from... if it's made up, fine. If you could show me somewhere that someone has worked up the math showing it's impossibility i would be more than happy to look at it...

Sure thing - it is not manufactured to push my agenda - actually the number I'm sure is far greater. I'll post a link ....

In the mean time, if you really are interested, try this website ...

www.discovery.org

It is filled with very technical scientific evidence and opposing views from ACTUAL scientists.

[Phantom]

From Discovery.org

2. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who challenge Darwinian evolution on a scientific basis?

Yes. Various tenets of Darwinian evolution, and the evidence put forth to support it, has been scientifically challenged by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. Over 300 scientists have signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwin statement since it originated in 2001. These scholars include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

-----------------
But what do these guys know!!??

[Mile High Shack]

Thanks for the summary OA, i knew there was a problem with the way people were defending it... i just never thought of it as such an intricate piece to their religious puzzle. Having read your take, their probably is no common ground, atleast not enough to genuinely help with the discussion. For people who do read the bible that literal, i would love to hear their explanations on Dinosaurs, The age of the earth, etc. (another time, another discussion)

Having grown up catholic, i was very use to taking the bible as book of faith and not a historical document. If what you say is true (i believe you are) there probably is little to no common ground. If you believe in the book verbatim, then yes this field of science is a direct assault on your belief system. Now i see why some groups are challenging it so feverishly... Wow!

My curiosity for this has gained speed lately. Up until a few weeks ago i thought i was going to be teaching Chem next year.... Well it looks more now like i will be doing some time as an earth science/ bio teacher. Yep, TheDave might be teaching your kids this very subject...

And to think i just pissed away my 1,000th post on a bronco Forum in the old evolution debate... Go Figure.

you'll find a few people who believe in the new earth, but I personally think it's hard to believe that God would purposely deceive us and "plant" dinosaur bones.

the bible is a book of faith mostly, but the old testament is historically accurate, so it is kind of a history guide.

I'm not sure if it would've served much of a purpose to explain to ancient man in detail how he created the world, probably been way over their heads.

[alkemical]

My only problem with the bible is that it omits other books that could provide much greater detail. In fact it's funny, moses is talked about more in the koran than most any body, yet its discounted by christians, just because it isn't their faith.

[Phantom]

Grab a snickers for this one, but I think it describes the probablity of life originating on its own rather well and in depth.....

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=91

[Mile High Shack]

My only problem with the bible is that it omits other books that could provide much greater detail. In fact it's funny, moses is talked about more in the koran than most any body, yet its discounted by christians, just because it isn't their faith.

mostly b/c they discount Christ as the son of God and say he was just a lesser prophet

Christ is the center of Christianity...at least the divinity, when you reject that, you reject the entire christian faith

THAT is why people don't believe in the Koran who follow Christianity (main reason)

[orangeatheist]

Sure thing - it is not manufactured to push my agenda - actually the number I'm sure is far greater. I'll post a link ....

In the mean time, if you really are interested, try this website ...

www.discovery.org

It is filled with very technical scientific evidence and opposing views from ACTUAL scientists.


Geez...not another site with "actual" scientists that oppose evolution! ::)

The NCSE has a report regarding a publication from The Discovery Institute. Regarding that publication, the Discovery Institute claimed:

"The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins."

It listed many names of scientists who supposedly had some of these "opposing views" you speak of. But, the NCSE tracked down these scientists and asked them if they indeed oppose neo-Darwinism.

NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for "intelligent design." None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion. For example, Douglas H. Erwin, answered, "Of course not — [intelligent design] is a non sequitur, nothing but a fundamentally flawed attempt to promote creationism under a different guise. Nothing in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for 'intelligent design'. To argue that it does requires a deliberate and pernicious misreading of the papers." Several respondents even went so far as to say that their work constituted scientific evidence against "intelligent design."

See Analysis of Discovery Institute's Bibliography (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp)

The Discovery Institute is just another joke in a long line of jokes starting with Answers In Genesis and extending to the Institute for Creation Research. Your sources, Phantom, are doing nothing to add to your credibility.

Maybe a trip to TalkDesign (http://talkdesign.org/) would help you out.

ID is just creationism with words like "Genesis" and "God" whited out. It certainly isn't science.

[Conquistadita]

For me, the belief in macro-evolution, thus invalidating the book of Genesis, is not the reason I choose not to believe. I simply find it highly irrational that the origin of man - from Goo to You by way of the Zoo - is less probable than the belief that life was created. It is difficult to quantify, but that's it in a nutshell.

Scientists (Cosmologists) today have ideas (assumptions) theories, about the size of our universe. It is actually mathmatically impossible that the universe (as we know it) could contain enough variations (or instances) where all the necessary factor are in place for life to begin, sustain and evolve. Just look at the odds assumed to have been attained for all the necessary factors to have "randomly" occured. The only possible scenario would be if there are millions of parallel universes - then perhaps the number of unique instances would match the mathematical probabilty that macro-evolution could have occured.

Did you read my post on playing cards and probability? Because that's how I view the universe. What would happen if we'd been dealt a different hand? Probably not humans, sure, but maybe something even better. :)

[orangeatheist]

...the old testament is historically accurate, so it is kind of a history guide.

In total? Care to start a new thread? :brokehalo

[orangeatheist]

Grab a snickers for this one, but I think it describes the probablity of life originating on its own rather well and in depth.....

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=91


You know what really cracks me up....not a single one of these "intelligent design" argument papers have made it into a peer reviewed journal and withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community. They all appear on specialized websites without dissenting opinion. What does that tell you?

[Rascal]

Since when was being published the only precursor to being a good scientists?

Heck, our courts don't require an expert witness to be published in order to establish credibility. The only requirment is that it helps the jury determine the facts.

So if these scientists help with the facts, why should they be discredited simply because they haven't been published.

[Rascal]

You know what really cracks me up....not a single one of these "intelligent design" argument papers have made it into a peer reviewed journal and withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community. They all appear on specialized websites without dissenting opinion. What does that tell you?

Furthermore, how many of these peer reviewed journals have their own agenda of establishing evolution? They aren't unbiased you know.

[Mile High Shack]

In total? Care to start a new thread? :brokehalo

I think we already had something in the lines of what you are going to bring up, can't quite remember but it had something to do with a prophecy that didn't quite live up historically from what we have found so far. I stress....so far

[orangeatheist]

Books Phantom needs to read:

Why Intelligent Design Fails (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081353433X/qid=1106174158/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-4709924-2137767)

Unintelligent Design (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591020840/qid=1106174158/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/102-4709924-2137767)

[orangeatheist]

I think we already had something in the lines of what you are going to bring up, can't quite remember but it had something to do with a prophecy that didn't quite live up historically from what we have found so far. I stress....so far


But this wouldn't be about prophecy, it would be about the claim that the Old Testament is reliable historically. For instance, the Bible claims X-number of Hebrews exited Egypt during the exodus. Either that figure is historically accurate or it is not.

Our other discussion was the discrepancy between what was claimed to have happened in an Old Testament story as told in the OT and how that story was re-told by Jesus in one of the gospels.

[Conquistadita]

Furthermore, how many of these peer reviewed journals have their own agenda of establishing evolution? They aren't unbiased you know.

Actually they are. Well, as unbiased as possible. The editors are pretty much completely unbiased because they go on the advice of peer advisors in the field, usually at least one of which was chosen by the author of the piece. I'm sure the researchers have latent biases, but a paper that gets published in a scientific journal should have a compelling enough article to overcome any such bias; if it's not a valid argument in the eyes of a peer reviewer, then it probably isn't a valid argument in the eyes of the vast majority of scientists in that field.

[Mile High Shack]

But this wouldn't be about prophecy, it would be about the claim that the Old Testament is reliable historically. For instance, the Bible claims X-number of Hebrews exited Egypt during the exodus. Either that figure is historically accurate or it is not.

Our other discussion was the discrepancy between what was claimed to have happened in an Old Testament story as told in the OT and how that story was re-told by Jesus in one of the gospels.

now the latter we have been over and have come to a stale mate

the former, I don't see why you would dispute the number of people in Exodus, we have no way of knowing how many people did exactly, except for what the bible says.

[Mile High Shack]

Actually they are. Well, as unbiased as possible. The editors are pretty much completely unbiased because they go on the advice of peer advisors in the field, usually at least one of which was chosen by the author of the piece. I'm sure the researchers have latent biases, but a paper that gets published in a scientific journal should have a compelling enough article to overcome any such bias; if it's not a valid argument in the eyes of a peer reviewer, then it probably isn't a valid argument in the eyes of the vast majority of scientists in that field.

c'mon, evolution scientist (most of them) have their own agenda and bias as well, you are delusional if you don't think that.

[Conquistadita]

c'mon, evolution scientist (most of them) have their own agenda and bias as well, you are delusional if you don't think that.

Not in particular; for almost all scientists, the biggest motivation is the unveiling of knowledge, although some are in it for the money.

There are latent biases, of course, but a compelling argument with good facts should overcome these biases. If this were not the case, there would be no point to scientific journals because no progressive or radical pieces would pass the biases of their peer reviewers, but historically, a lot of radical pieces have been published.

[orangeatheist]

Since when was being published the only precursor to being a good scientists?

Heck, our courts don't require an expert witness to be published in order to establish credibility. The only requirment is that it helps the jury determine the facts.

So if these scientists help with the facts, why should they be discredited simply because they haven't been published.


:spit:

To use your own analogy, the "expert opinion" is the published article. The jury are the well-informed and similarly trained peers (other scientists) who read the article and put its conclusions through rigorous tests to determine its validity.

Hell, anyone can write an article. Pick up the lastest rag at the grocery store when your in the checkout lane. I'm sure you will find some great "scientific discoveries." For instance, I saw a rag last week that claimed "scientists" had found the remains of the first humans on earth. The headline claimed that it was not "Adam and Eve" but "Adam and Ed". They were homosexuals. There was even a picture of the two skeletal remains with fig leaves placed in just the right spots to "confirm" the discovery!

The reason you have articles published in peer-reviewed journals is to have your theories placed before your peers. They "check your math" and try to find holes in your presentation. There are plenty of things that a scientist can miss in his own all-too-human blindness to have his theory be true. The review makes sure he has done all the necessary work to have his ideas pass muster.

IDers and creationists routinely avoid having their articles published in major scientific journals precisely because such articles are riddled with inaccuracies. They aren't scientific. In fact, that article Phantom linked to actually used words like "atheistic universe" in it. This wasn't a scientific argument: it was a religious tract. It's nonsense and it isn't a surprise that it wasn't found in the International Journal of Modern Physics.

[orangeatheist]

now the latter we have been over and have come to a stale mate

the former, I don't see why you would dispute the number of people in Exodus, we have no way of knowing how many people did exactly, except for what the bible says.

Not a stalemate. I proved that there was a discrepancy because you did not come up with any viable alternative. You provided a "possible" solution but "possibilities" do not remove the discrepancy. As long as there is no solution, the reality of the discrepancy remains.

As for the exodus population I am more than prepared to provide iron-clad evidence that the Bible's figures are historically inaccurate. There indeed is not a way to know how many people participated in the event (which I think is legendary anyway) but there is a way to demonstrate that the Bible's figures are ficticious.

[Mile High Shack]

give it a rip, although I doubt there is any possible way to prove how many people were or were not in the Exodus

it's the same with a lot of history, there is not conclusive proof on many items we take for granted as true

[alkemical]

mostly b/c they discount Christ as the son of God and say he was just a lesser prophet

Christ is the center of Christianity...at least the divinity, when you reject that, you reject the entire christian faith

THAT is why people don't believe in the Koran who follow Christianity (main reason)


Wouldn't you value another perspective by someone who is maybe the 2nd most imporant person that walked on earth in the bible?

[orangeatheist]

give it a rip, although I doubt there is any possible way to prove how many people were or were not in the Exodus

it's the same with a lot of history, there is not conclusive proof on many items we take for granted as true

Ok. I'll start a new thread, then. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow.

[orangeatheist]

Wouldn't you value another perspective by someone who is maybe the 2nd most imporant person that walked on earth in the bible?

Not if the second contradicts the claims of the first! :)

[alkemical]

Not if the second contradicts the claims of the first! :)

rinse-repeat

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Georgia parents demand their right to raise their children as morons. Appeal court decision defending teaching of evolution in schools. 1/19

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=6&u=/ap/evolution_stickers

[Mile High Shack]

Wouldn't you value another perspective by someone who is maybe the 2nd most imporant person that walked on earth in the bible?

not when most of the book talks about killing infidels, no....and it may be good "literature", but it was written by a mad man who probably had syhpillus.

[Rascal]

Georgia parents demand their right to raise their children as morons. Appeal court decision defending teaching of evolution in schools. 1/19

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=6&u=/ap/evolution_stickers

Once again LABF comes in with his hatred with nothing important to say.

[orangeatheist]

Once again LABF comes in with his hatred with nothing important to say.

rascal, you and I may disagree on some things, but not on our mutual opinion regarding LABF. While I agree that teaching creationism is moronic, for LABF to tamper with his sources and rewrite newstories substituting his own emotionally-laden words is unforgivable in my world.

[alkemical]

not when most of the book talks about killing infidels, no....and it may be good "literature", but it was written by a mad man who probably had syhpillus.


The bible does the same very thing. Kill those who oppose.

[Mile High Shack]

The bible does the same very thing. Kill those who oppose.

not in the new testament it doesn't

Jesus is the example for modern day Christians, he took a beating while he could've wiped everyone out and didn't

turn the other cheek and what not under the new law

[Mile High Shack]

Once again LABF comes in with his hatred with nothing important to say.

why don't you have him on iggy?

[alkemical]

not in the new testament it doesn't

Jesus is the example for modern day Christians, he took a beating while he could've wiped everyone out and didn't

turn the other cheek and what not under the new law


I love how people only pick and choose what they want in an argument. You want to use the old testament for history, then then new testament for something else.

No wonder there are 500000 cults of christianity out there.

[bronco_diesel]

I love how people only pick and choose what they want in an argument. You want to use the old testament for history, then then new testament for something else.

No wonder there are 500000 cults of christianity out there.

i wouldn't call it picking and choosing - it is an entire story to be told. \

People that generally pick and choose are those that have not read the Bible in it's entirety and understood it from front to back.

OA may disagree with me, but i would expect that at this point - no offense OA.

[Mile High Shack]

I love how people only pick and choose what they want in an argument. You want to use the old testament for history, then then new testament for something else.

No wonder there are 500000 cults of christianity out there.

well you have to take in it in it's whole.......the whole bible, from beginning to end was the plan of salvation

Jews were chosen people soley, so the rest were not God's chosen, so if they were opposed they could be "smote"

then you have the Jews rejecting Jesus and with God's plan everyone has a chance to be saved not just Jews as in the OT.

it's a plan from beginning to end.........old law ended with Jesus' death, the new law in fact is harder than the old law

[Rascal]

why don't you have him on iggy?

I've considered it, I think he has me on iggy as he no longer responds to me.

I may in the future but for the mean time I'll put up with his trash.

[alkemical]

MHS & Diesel -

that's my point. It's an entire story until you want to pick and choose for an argument.

Hell i was a prodestant at one time, i have and still read the bible, but i also read it in context with other books, such as the koran, the nag hamadi library, the dead sea scrolls, etc.

[Mile High Shack]

MHS & Diesel -

that's my point. It's an entire story until you want to pick and choose for an argument.

Hell i was a prodestant at one time, i have and still read the bible, but i also read it in context with other books, such as the koran, the nag hamadi library, the dead sea scrolls, etc.

I don't see how I pick and chose

I follow the (well I try, trust me I screw up daily) new testament teachings

[alkemical]

I don't see how I pick and chose

I follow the (well I try, trust me I screw up daily) new testament teachings


well in the evolution vs. creationism - you state that it should use the old testament, then in this case you state to use the new testament.

[Mile High Shack]

well in the evolution vs. creationism - you state that it should use the old testament, then in this case you state to use the new testament.

the new testament doesn't describe how the world was made, nor does the Gensis creation account describes God's laws

[alkemical]

the new testament doesn't describe how the world was made, nor does the Gensis creation account describes God's laws

gensis was the jewish law on such.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

rascal, you and I may disagree on some things, but not on our mutual opinion regarding LABF. While I agree that teaching creationism is moronic, for LABF to tamper with his sources and rewrite newstories substituting his own emotionally-laden words is unforgivable in my world.

For OA to lie about me allegedly "tampering with sources and rewriting newstories" when, in fact, I've done little more than to replace the name "Bush" with "Smirk," etc., is a morally reprehensible act of distortion, IMO.

But what more can we expect from a person who supports the most amoral American of all?

Apparently OA jettisoned ethics about the same time he got rid of God.

[Mile High Shack]

gensis was the jewish law on such.

yeah I still don't follow you Josh, excuse my ignorance

The Jewish law is the basis for Christianity, but it indeed is an old law that was done away with at the time of Jesus' death

btw...the old law wasn't established in Genesis yet ;) there was the law of praising/worshipping God, but the Law didn't come till a few years later

[enjolras]

not in the new testament it doesn't

Jesus is the example for modern day Christians, he took a beating while he could've wiped everyone out and didn't

turn the other cheek and what not under the new law

This is something I'm always curious about. Jesus was a pacifist.. to an extreme (that is, after all, what 'turn the other cheek' means). Yet, it seems like the same people who push Christianity the hardest on this board are also the biggest supporters of aggressive actions like that in Iraq. The same ones who like to call anyone who favors restraint a 'wimp' ...

How does a modern Christian rectify those two positions?

[Rascal]

For OA to lie about me allegedly "tampering with sources and rewriting newstories" when, in fact, I've done little more than to replace the name "Bush" with "Smirk," etc., is a morally reprehensible act of distortion, IMO.

But what more can we expect from a person who supports the most amoral American of all?

Apparently OA jettisoned ethics about the same time he got rid of God.

LABF talking about ethics and morals after being caught lying before...now that is hillarious. Irony defined.

And OA didn't lie, you did alter the sources.

Now watch for the spin and deflect. Who wants to bet that Bush (or some other moronic nickname he uses to imply him) or how Bush supporters are morons is somehow mentioned in his next post?

[orangeatheist]

i wouldn't call it picking and choosing - it is an entire story to be told. \

People that generally pick and choose are those that have not read the Bible in it's entirety and understood it from front to back.

OA may disagree with me, but i would expect that at this point - no offense OA.

No, BD, I agree with you. I can understand why Shack would say the OT is historically accurate (he's wrong, of course! ;D ) but make a claim that certain tenents in the OT are now obsolete under the "new covenant" under Christ. Makes sense from that particular worldview and I don't really have a problem with it.

Surprise!

[orangeatheist]

LABF talking about ethics and morals after being caught lying before...now that is hillarious. Irony defined.

And OA didn't lie, you did alter the sources.

Now watch for the spin and deflect. Who wants to bet that Bush (or some other moronic nickname he uses to imply him) or how Bush supporters are morons is somehow mentioned in his next post?


Thanks for quoting LABF in your post, rascal. His words just further confirm why I'm so grateful that I put him on ignore. I'm not sure how you can call replacing words in sources not tampering (that's the very definition of the word!) but in his world, everything is a bit topsy turvey.

[alkemical]

yeah I still don't follow you Josh, excuse my ignorance

The Jewish law is the basis for Christianity, but it indeed is an old law that was done away with at the time of Jesus' death

btw...the old law wasn't established in Genesis yet ;) there was the law of praising/worshipping God, but the Law didn't come till a few years later

Ok, we'll get back on topic

first off - how can you claim that one source of information has all the answers while shutting off your POV to another source that has more information about a character central to your beliefs? You've offered no valid proof as to why the koran is not accurate other than your own biasedness. Then you pick and choose which part of the bible is important depending on how you want to argue it. You want to use the old testament for one thing, and the new testament for the other, excluding either, depending on how you want to argue it.

It's a pretty easy thing to pick apart. But i can't argue against blind faith.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And OA didn't lie, you did alter the sources.



If you want to call changing "Bush" to "Smirk" "altering the source," then fine.

However, it's disingenuous for you (or OA) to imply that I altered the substance of any claim made by the source.

That you fail to make this distinction comes as no surprise - after all, you support the most dishonest and disingenuous administration in American history.