The new $27 million Creation Museum near Cincinnati has lots of glitz and high-tech animatronic displays.
But is it science? No.
The evangelical group that built the museum says science backs its claims that biblical stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark are literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs are shown co-existing with humans.
The founders have every right to create a museum extolling their beliefs, which are shared by many Americans. What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
444 Comments
$27 million for a recreation of a Flintstone’s cartoon? You’d think with that money they could do some scientific research to actually support their position. But hey, why have facts when you can just provide propaganda?
I hadn’t heard the $27 million price-tag, but it makes sense now. Admittance to the “museum” has been publicized as $27 a person. There are probably a million people who will show up just for the goof factor alone.
If (God forbid) I happened to end up in Cincinnati with a couple of hours to kill, I’d probably go.
Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
“Guess what, kids! We can afford a vacation this year!”
“Yeah! Are we goin’ to DisneyWorld?!”
“No.”
“Are we goin’ to 6 Flags!?”
“No.”
“Are we goin’ to the ocean?!”
“No, we’re going to the Creation Museum!!”
“Uhm. Could we go see the big ball of twine instead?”
At least the big ball of twine is real.
What would happen if those people actually took over our government, like they WANT to do??
You think they dont?? Hey, look em up some time on Google… They are in there, and they want power, and control!!
Watch this; it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen, and fits perfectly hand-in-glove with this article.
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39212b940680112b9bf31dd000d
You have to be kidding me. Gawd, just when you think the cons cannot outdo themselves with foolishness! I wonder of the “museum” has a section called “The Earth Really Is Flat” in it.
why not, you fell for the “evolution theory “. that was backed by stupidity.
why not, you fell for the “evolution theory “. that was backed by stupidity.
And why do you care what an American does with his own property?
Kent, why don’t you back up your ascertion that “evolution theory is backed by stupidity”?
We have heard over here in UK that 50% of Americans believe in creationism so this sort of museum would attract plenty of customers for sure. What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children? When will common sense prevail?
Kent, don’t try to get all Kirk Cameron on us and claim you can use REASON to back up creationist beliefs.
If you think evolution is illogical, then that’s fine, but creationism is even less logical (which is ok, because it’s not supposed to be about logic– it’s about faith despite inconsistent facts). But don’t go claiming the intellectual/rational superiority of creationism over anything, because it’s just going to make YOU look stupid.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sally…………………………what do you mean exactly by “What is wrong with the US education system to allow the bible bashers to brainwash children?”
Here in the US, we have this document called the “Constitution”. The 1st amendment to our Constitution contains a something commonly known as the “Establishment Clause”; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….” Many Court rulings here have made in very clear that teaching “creationism” in a public school equates with endorsing, or establishing a specific religious doctrine. Recently, the “Kitzmiller v. Dover” {http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf} case established that the current creationist iteration, “Intelligent Design”, is in fact creationism as well.Therefore Sally, “common sense” has prevailed here in the states. Real Science is taught in our public schools and faith-based creationism is NOT.
Sorry about the triple post……….IE crashed shortly afterwards.
Reminds me of touring the Mormon Temple a few years back..lots of animation illustrating the Mormon bible (did you know that Jesus sailed to the Americas?) and even a great big talking Jesus. They’ve scaled it down some since then…maybe too many people left laughing, which is what’s bound to happen with this “museum”.
I think Sally refers to the fact that the Bible-Bashers, a.k.a., Literalists, have been very successful to infiltrate local school boards and dictate the curricula, e.g., the “Wedge Document” sort of approach. The brainwashing may not exactly happen in classrooms, but more from the outside settings, parents and religious leaders mostly.
On the other hand, science is not about common sense, notably when it comes to extreme physical conditions, e.g., close to Planck scales. Even the common saying “what goes up must come down” is no longer universal following Newton’s Mechanics.
This is great! This will be a must see stop should I ever be in the Cincinnati area. The thought of dinosaurs on the ark with Noah is hilarious. I wonder if our own Senator Sam will sign the quest book.
I don’t see nothing wrong with the Creation Museum. As one person posted, why should anybody care what they do with their own property.
If people want to go to it and believe, that’s on them. It isn’t any different from a UFO museum or freak show. People will check it out and it will probably be very successful. Getting $27 million to build the museum seemed pretty easy for them to achieve, which is quite the feat in itself.
Randy,
Evolutionary theory doesn’t hold the rights to the term science.
Creationists can use it too.
If we’d done a decent job of teaching science all along, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We who are not creationists need to stick to what we know and not worry about what the others are doing. Anyone who understands the scientific method, and how to evaluate results (vs. anecdotal evidence) would see through that museum, and all the other creationist crap, in the blink of an eye. The schools need to just dig in their heels and teach, teach, teach. Kids need a good foundation in science, and they need critical thinking skills. With that in place, the rest will take care of itself.
How long did they display the evolution of the horse display in museums across the country?
How many still do?
Yet is was based more on drawings and the imagination than any form of “scientific evidence.”
The syndicated piece published in the Eagle is lame. Here’s a much more informative article on the museum in the liberal press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html
The Times piece portrays the Creation Museum as a fascinating, thought-provoking place, which the captioned photo of one of the exhibits affirms. This museum hired some very gifted people.
Anti-creationist Larry Krauss was among a group of protesters lining up outside the museum. He and his friends are anti-science boobs.
If they were interested in learning, not biological science, but achieving general enlightenment per se they would have paid their admission and found out what the museum was. They could have exited, saying, “We strongly disagree with the museum’s interpretations of natural history, which we think are crap, but we do commend them for exquisitely-crafted model dinosaurs, and impressive edutainment technology.
They weren’t interested in that. They just wanted to publicize their doctrinaire prejudices, and get media attention as 60’s-reminiscent banner-carrying anti-war college students. Adolescent behavior.
“What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.”
Hate to be picky here, but they have a “right” to advocate any damn thing they please (short of overt violence, of course), with their own money. And they can call it anything they like.
And you have a “right” to criticize to your heart’s content, and a “right” to go or not go, as you choose.
That’s the beauty of a free country.
Great, Wichita has the bible thumpin theme park and now they have a megachurch museum.
Hey, if Mary can create a baby out of nothing, then I can believe that the earth banged and was.
Ah, I am still waiting for the “scientific evidence” of Creationism.
If Creationists want to have their “theory” considered a real science, then they need to produce the evidence, not just criticism of evolution or Darwin.
I agree, private citizen can erect a museum to any topic that they choose – but they shouldn’t expect a pass on negative commentary. They chose to bring their belief system into the public square, making themselves fair game.
This does give a whole new meaning to “the Mistake by the Lake”!
I have been to museums that had pictures of things that didn’t exist. I have been to museums that had sculptures of things that didn’t exist. Now we have a museum of timelines that didn’t exist. What is so new about that?
What’s the “bible thumpin theme park”?
To those who wonder why anyone cares what they do with their money:
They have spent their money to make an open-to-all public entity. Its very publicness implies either a public service agenda or an attempt to make money. This museum may be both, but it is putting forth an agenda that, as pointed out here, many believe to be false.
I personally have the same issue with the Museum of World Treasures: it is not accredited, does not provide documentation proving the legitimacy of its artifacts, and does not adhere to many other standards of professionalism regarding archiving and documentation. But it trades on the assumed cultural legitimacy of the word “museum” to dupe its patrons into believing that MWT is on par with the Smithsonian, the Cosmosphere, and other reputable institutions.
By using the word “science” in its name, the museum in Cincinatti pulls the same sort of snake-oil trick. The definition of science includes that theories be testable and therefore provable, neither of which have anything to do with creationism (in fact, the very nature of faith is to believe despite what the observable facts say, right? Faith-based systems of knowledge resist– in fact are opposed–to scientific analysis).
So the reason we care about the Creation Museum despite its private funding is that it exists in the public realm with a dubious agenda: legitimizing creationism as science, to the public.
I have to wonder if Jesus would have spent $27 million for some creation museum or if he would have used the money to ease the suffering of the people he was trying to minister to?
This museum seems more like a monument to the evangelicals that built it than than a testimony of their faith.
Delsol,
Simply because a museum is accredited doesn’t stop it from displaying many things which have been shown to be false.
i.e. The Evolution of the Horse.
How many museums have the same type of imaginative artists renderings of what something would have looked like?
What Evolution does with artists renderings is no better than the things you sit here accusing the Creation Musuem of doing.
The Theory of Evolution is full of many black sheep which it’s loyal believers pretend don’t exist.
Nathan confuses “mistaken, later corrected” with “false.”
Dogma is never mistaken. Never corrected. It is as it is, as it always has been, and always shall be. Dogma is exactly not like science.
I think it might be a good idea to point out that a whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened, and that God suspended the speed of light, so we could see stars, many of whose light took longer than 6,000 years to get here. LOL
And besides, the Creationists totally dismiss the SECOND Creation story in Genesis… the one where MAN is created BEFORE anything is put in the garden… See, if you add that story in, the whole “Six Days” argument falls apart for being FACTUAL…
Sometimes having a theologian around can come in handy.
Ah, waiting on the “scientific evidence……”
Ummm Clark… There aint any!!
Chas,
You are purposefully being deceitful in your comments.
“…whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened.”
Where on earth did you get that from? I would like to see or I am calling you a liar.
“and that God suspended the speed of light”
If you accept the premise that God created everything then you believe everything was created as is. You don’t have to suspend the speed of light to believe in Creation.
Just something else you can try to make up about Christians.
Chas, there is no second creation story in genesis. It is a summary of what happened during creation, not ANOTHER creation story.
That is such an old argument I am surprised you are still trying to use it.
I don’t know what theologian you have around, but I suggest you get another one!
Chas….. a self proclaimed minister, pastor, whatever. So what religion is it that you claim?
Nathan, your analogy is so swiss-cheese-esque that there’s nowhere to even start in a forum like this.
Have you ever taken a science class? What do you actually know about evolution–anything at all? Do you even understand the processes of deriving its information, and the concept of testability and how it has been applied to evolution? Do tell, because your comment above is the estimation of an observer far removed from science itself.
I think there may be a faction trying to open the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) museum here in Wichita if the space occupied by the KS Sports Hall of Fame becomes available.
Nathan, I am sure you are aware that Creationism believes the Earth is no older than 6,000 years… When they are questioned by others about the light from the stars that took longer than 6,000 years to reach earth, they normally answer that God suspended the speed of light at the time of Creation.
There are many Creationist groups around the country and in the world that refuse to believe that the Holocaust happened… If you dont believe me, Google it… It’s sad, but unfortunately, true…
Sol — I am pastor in a main line denomination… ordained nearly 29 years… I hold degrees in Sociology, Theology/Ministry, and Adult Education.
By the way, Joseph Campbell is one of the leading experts on the stories and meanings of Creation Myths in many religions of the world… His books are terriffic.
Nathan, I am NOT saying that ALL Creationist groups deny the Holocaust… or that all Holocaust denying groups are Creationist… There is just a correlation between some of them…
Chas,
In the context of your statement you clearly meant to label Creationist types as holocaust deniers.
I have yet to meet a Christian who denies that the holocaust happened.
What Christian groups are you talking about, because I bet they are so far removed from the mainstream they are not even thought of as Christians.
Your comment brought nothing to this conversation other than slander.
Does your ‘main line denomination’ preach from the King James Bible?
Is it a Christian faith? Why are you ashamed of it?
Del Sol,
“Have you ever taken a science class?”
Yes, many of them. I have studied biology, sociology, and chemistry all at the college level.
I have also studied mathmatics up to differential equations different statistics classes and physics.
I love to study science!
“What do you actually know about evolution–anything at all?”
10 times more than most people who say they believe in it.
“Do you even understand the processes of deriving its information, and the concept of testability and how it has been applied to evolution?”
And most often lack thereof? Yes.
“Do tell, because your comment above is the estimation of an observer far removed from science itself.”
Um, then why do museums and did museums continue to display something which was proven to be false?
Ah, waiting on the “scientific evidence……”
I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution. There are some pretty nasty gaps in your theory as well. Evolution is a more a religion than theory in my opinion.Oh well. You do your thing I’ll do mine.
Chas – Nathan does not believe anyone is ‘Christian’ unless he/she believes exactly the same way that he does.
It does not matter how many theology degrees you hold or that you are a pastor – Nathan refuses to believe anything that he deems ‘unchristian’. Logic will never change a mind that is so closed.
Chas,
Simply, there are many things Christians could speculate on in regards to light and creation.
I have held that God created things as they are.
Let me explain logically:
When God created Adam and Eve as adults how old were they?
They were 0 years old yet both were adults. Both we could estimate to be at least mid 20’s if not more.
Yet they were 0 years old.
The same thing can easily be applied to the stars. When God created them they were created as they are with light already in place.
The light would take millions of years to travel, but was already in place when God created it that way.
Regardless of any of that, we are talking about an omnipotent God creating the universe and you are nit picking his alleged violation of the speed of light?
Chas, I appreciate your comments. They are thoughtful, educational and respectful. I usually google something after reading you because you mentioned something I want more info about. Thanks!
Have fun discussing with Nathan. Every time I read his posts I always think of that line, “depends on the meaning of what “is” is.” The irony of Nathan and Bill using the same tactic always provides me a good laugh.
We’ll wait forever for the creationist’s “scientific evidence”………….becuase there is NO EVIDENCE to support their claims.
Cat,
I base what I view to be a Christian from what the Bible says.
It is a standard that is not based on me.
If you disagree then it is very easy to engage in a logical well thought out discussion on what the Bible says.
“I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit”
Those that claim Creationism as science need to provide the scientific evidence of same, not just criticism of evolution.
All I see and hear from that side of the equation is just yada, yada, yada, evolution – never evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, or evidence that the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old.
This should be pretty easy – if ID/Creationism is science – where is the scientific evidence?
WSClark………….you see, the creationists don’t really need any stinkin’ evidence. Because they “believe” is enough for them and allegedly it should be the same for every other person in the world as well.
Well,
Since the claim is that there is no evidence…
Geologists used to mainly view the Earth from a catastrophic flood event up to I think the 1800’s.
This was replaced by the small changes over large amounts of time view which is predominately held today.
However, you can look to placed like the Eruption of Mt St Helens to see that sedimentary layers can easily be formed from one large event and don’t take small changes over large amounts of time.
Look at the canyon formed from the river during Mt St Helens which would seem to indicate by todays geological standards a river flowing for thousands of years slowly carving out the canyon. Yet is was formed very shortly.
It is not that there is no evidence for creation. Many times it is the same evidence for Evolution interpreted differently by two opposing view points.
When studying evolution many go into it with the preconceived notion that Evolution happened so we must look at it this way.
It is the exact opposite for Creation. We look at it from the preconceived notion of Creation so it must have happened this way.
There is 1 thing for you to chew on.
Andy,”I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution.”
So where’s your “emperical evidence” supporting Creation?
Who said that they expected a pass on negative commentary. But negative commentary is not the same as harassing people who want to go in. Krauss and company (public school science teachers among the protester crowd?) showed not criticism, but intolerance, using physical means. That’s out of order.
Most of you have never done formal science, although, through living, doing things, particularlarly new things and observing results, all of you have informally been scientists.
Science is not reading textbooks. It is about making conjectures, testing them yourself, and observing what happens. Evolutionism is science to those who do field surveys, and personally see the evidence. It is not science in the classroom, where students cannot themselves test the propositions, obtaining and evaluating physical evidence.
Our schools are incapable of teaching science, with occasional exceptions, for many reasons, primarily related to the facts that people who run schools of education that train teachers do not know science, yet harbor the conceit that they are qualified to design math-and-science-teacher-training, unionist policies that hold PE teachers should be paid as much as math and science teachers, and the refusal by administrators to allocate sufficient funds for extensive hands-on science experiences for kids to learn science the only way it can be done, by doing it.
This isn’t my peculiar view. It has been documented in international studies, such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, and its successor, Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (both same acronym TIMSS).
nces.ed.gov/timss/results03.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIMSS
An international study of problem-solving and math abilities conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operative Development (OECD) has also shown U.S. kids to be lagging behind Asian nations that 50 years ago were Third World agrarian societies.
http://www.oecd.org/document/55/0,2340,en_ 32252351_32236173_33917303_1_1_1_1,00.html
Last year the Intel Science Search named 40 finalists from 19 states including smaller states such as Utah, Louisiana, Idaho, and Oregon(2 actually). Kansas didn’t have any.
In 2005, a New Mexico student won a 4th-place $25,000 scholarship.
In 2004, students from Iowa, Oregon (2), Vermont, and Minnesota were ITS finalists.
This year, a student from next-door-to-Kansas Oklahoma won the first-place $100,000 scholarship prize. A student from Oregon placed third ($50,000). A student from neighboring Colorado earned ninth place and a $20,000 scholarship. A student from North Dakota placed sixth ($25,000).
In Math, student who placed first in Kansas in the American Invitational Mathematics Exam scored a 7 on a 15 question test. The top national scores were 13-15. After our top student, the highest score, earned by 2 students, was a 6. To put this in context, a student in next-door Oklahoma scored a 14–twice as many questions answered correctly as Kansas’s top student.
Texas has 9 times Kansas’s population. So how do we explain 33 times as many 7+ scorers in Texas, as in Kansas? On a population-adjusted ratio, that’s a 3 to 1 rout.
There are people here who say that Kansas schools are excellent in teaching math and science. These people are math-and-science ignorati and con artists. Evaluations of high-level math and science performance of our best-taught students totally belie this moo-state jackdaw BS.
That’s not evidence Nathan.
Chas,
Does your ‘main line denomination’ preach from the King James Bible?
Is it a Christian faith? Why are you ashamed of it?
Now Doc Schooley, be nice……..
I disagree with little of what you posted, except of course the “union” jab.
If you remember correctley Doc, last summer YOU were advocating the introduction of ID into the classroom as well. It’s kind of hard for one support LAB based science and support ID.
Apophis,
If looking at the seidmentary layers of the earth viewing them as happening over short amount of time as oppposed to millions and billions of years isn’t evidence, then I am not sure what is.
Pleae let me know the standards you seek so this is not a guessing game for me.
Nathan, you have repeated criticisms of evolution and so-called “evidence” that creation “could be possible.”
Neither point provides scientific evidence of ID/Creationism.
“Many times it is the same evidence for Evolution interpreted differently by two opposing view points.”
Unfortunately, Nathan, that is not true. The scientific evidence shows that the Earth is millions of years old, and the Universe is 13.5 billion years old.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. There have been no archaeological findings that uncovered human and dinosaurs bones in the same strata.
The point is, ID/Creationism proponents want their theory treated as science as evolution is, but all they have to offer is criticism of evolution and claims that “creation could have happened.”
That is hardly scientific evidence.
SOL — We havent used the good ol’ King James Bible for YEARS!!
In fact, I dont even OWN one…
And Nathan, you just used the very form of circular reasoning I mentioned… God suspended the speed of light at Creation, so it didnt take longer to get here…
Come on, do you expect anybody to actually believe that in order to be a Christian???
Chas,
Is the God you believe in an omnipotent God or is he limited by physics as we understand it?
Please note… I expressly stated that not ALL Creationists are holocaust deniers… And not all holocaust deniers are Creationists… I merely said that there is come correlation in some groups… That is ALL I said… And, I also said Google it if you dont believe me…
Chas,
You are still avoiding answering the question.
What is your faith? What is the name of your church?
Chas,Are you Christian? Which book do you preach from? What does that book say about the beginning of the world?
Nathan, I didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday… I am NOT going to fall for your small spattering of physics, to allow you to get me to say that of course I believe God is Omnipotent… AND eternal… AND without beginning or ending… AND, to quote Luther, “God is in all things and everywhere present.”
Now, that being said, what WE understand now as physics, is SCIENCE… What I just said about GOD is religion/theology… The two do NOT need, nor do they necessarily go together in the same discussion…
For that matter, Physics has evolved so much today, that Newton might not even recognize much of the newer Quantum theories…
So, what’s your point??
Got some business to take care of for now… be back later — You all have a good day!!
Chas,
I believe that there could be Creationists who are holocaust deniers.
I believe there are probably some holocaust deniers in almost any classification of a group you want to name.
Your lumping that in with all the other things was a blatant attempt at little more than trying to discredit and slander Creationists as holocaust deniers.
Here is an easy question for you:
Why did you include that in your statement?
What function did you want your statement to serve in this discussion when you said:
“I think it might be a good idea to point out that a whole lot of folks who believe in this Creationism idea also believe that the holocaust never happened.”
My point?? To show that some folks who believe in Creationism, also believe the holocaust didnt happen… In other words, some folks wont believe anything except for what they WANT to believe… The Holocaust is pretty hard to deny… But there are a number of folks who do… And I have personally heard several different ones also believe we ought to teach Creationism in the school, AND teach the “truth” as they see it about the Holocaust…
Do you get it now???
SolDevVB,
I don’t have a problem with answering the question.
I am a Christian. I read the NASB Bible. I also use the NIV, NKJV, and KJV.
I am a member of the Assemblies of God Church.
See how easy that is?
Once he reveals a standard he uses then we can use that standard against him. He knows this. This is why he refused to answer.
Chas,
But you specifically said: “whole lot of folks”
You were purposefully doing little more than trying to lump those who support Creation in with those who deny the holocaust happened.
It was a cheap, low, dirty, underhanded thing to say.
I answered your question, Sol… I told you I dont even own a King James Bible… You asked me if I used it… Now, what further answer did you want, that you didnt ask for??? For what its worth, I use the RSV and NRSV mainly, along with the Greek New Testament… never learned Hebrew…
“What is your faith? What is the name of your church?”
It is rather inappropriate to ask Chas what Church he serves at Nathan. Obviously, if he were to answer, that would “out” him.
Outing is only voluntary – ask Republank.
I ALSO said, Nathan, if you dont believe ME, Google it, and you find it out…
Now, last time I checked, the Aryan Nations Church and the Christian Identity Movement both believe in Creationism, and deny the Holocaust… And, they would LIKE to have both things taught in the Public Schools… but since they arent taught there, many of them home school their children…
Creationists have the same mentality as holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, and people who think Britney Spears should win a Grammy. They see the evidence against their position but their ideology forces them to deny reality.
This creationist organization had $27 million to spend. They didn’t spend it supporting their position with science. Nope, they preferred propaganda instead.
In the Dover case the judge asked the creationists for evidence supporting creationism. They didn’t provide any. When the creationists claimed the scientists didn’t have any scientific evidence to counter irreducible complexity the scientists provided reams of data refuting the creationists.
It’s pretty evident Nathan. You guys have no evidence, you just have your lies and religion. Or maybe it’s just a mental disorder that prevents creationists from accepting reality. Your religion says the Garden of Eden is in Missouri, so where’s the archeological evidence for that?
Why do I bother even asking, you’ll never present anything.
Chas,Are you Christian? Which book do you preach from? What does that book say about the beginning of the world?
Chas,
So the Aryan Nations Church and the Christian Identity Movement are what you consider to be “a whole lot of folks?”
I am not arguing that there are those that do deny the holocaust.
I am arguing that the verbage you used and the placement of it was nothing more than an underhanded ploy at linking those who believe in Creation with holocaust deniers.
Are you implying that you have to believe in Creationism to be a Christian, SolDevVB?
Where is the scientific evidence to back up the young earth creationist myth? If you really believe in light that was created in transit or some major shift in the speed of light, you should be able to prove it with empirical evidence. The fact is, not a single facet of the biblical creation story is backed up with any type of real evidence.
Sol… I already TOLD you which book I use… did you not read it?? ALL religions, including Christianity, have myths about the origins of human kind… The Book of Genesis is not specifically Christian… In fact, three major world religions all use Genesis as a Creation Myth…
WS Clark,
Threatening to call someones work place is inappropriate.
Asking them what church they go to shouldn’t be. We don’t live in China where being a Christian is against the law.
Why would he be ashamed or feel that way? He is the one who introduced his faith here. I think we have every right to question him on it.
Sorry if the ugly truth hurts Nathan… If I am going to base my entire faith on some idea that has extremely little if any scientific evidence in reality, then I surely dont want to be included with a bunch of deviants who deny the holocaust, or the moon landing, or other things… THAT is what I am saying… no more, no less…
I can profess to being Christian, Nathan, without divulging which particular denomination I am a part of… I will tell you this: Our denomination, as I have stated before in WEBlog, is one of the more liberal, progressive denominations… That should satisfy your curiosity…
Scott,
There is a difference in proving that God actually created the Earth and proving that the Earth is only several thousand years old.
I don’t think we will ever be able to prove that there is a God, let alone that he created the Earth. That is why it is faith.
However, there are plenty of things pointing to a young earth.
Either way, science doesn’t have any better of an answer for the existence of the Earth or life.
Apparently according to many here we can only look at Evolution pertaining to assuming life and going from there.
So, for the purpose of discussing creation we will just assume Adam and Eve and go from there.
Deal?
Chas,
At least you finally admit to what you did instead of continuing your litte dance.
Discussing his “faith” is one thing Nathan, asking his workplace is another.
And since this was obviously directed at me, explain when I did this….
“Threatening to call someones work place is inappropriate.”
And since you are obvious a master a smoke screening, when are you going to provide scientific evidence of Creationism?
You have been asked numerous times and all you have provided is criticism of evolution and so-called evidence that Creation “could have happened.”
Tsk Tsk Tsk, but assuming Adam and Eve is assuming a WHOLE lot…
As I stated earlier, Nathan, which chapter of Genesis do you wish to base Creationism on?? Genesis 1, or the Second story?? The one where MAN is created OUTSIDE of the Garden, before ANYthing is planted… That should show you or anybody, that the people who put the book together obviously were aware of differing opinions even that long ago…
Now, if you want to assume Adam and Eve, and go from there… then we just wipe out Genesis 1, which is where the Creationists base their entire mythos…
Sigh…
To see God outside the universe as a guy who’s omnipotent, omniscient, and all the rest is to engage in philosophical sophistry that leads nowhere.
Is God all-powerful? How do you mean this? Do you mean he can do anything? Do you mean he can do anything within the bounds of logic? God cannot, by definition, calculate the last digit of a transcendental number, since it has an infinite number of them. God cannot have “written” the book on the course of everyone’s life, to the last detail, and still allow us to have free will…that’s like saying the author of a play who scripted every scene claims the actors are free to do what they want on the stage.
Was Jesus omniscient? Clearly he was not. For example, in Mk. 13:32, Jesus says of the end of the world, “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” You can make all the arguments you want about how Jesus the “man” was different from “Christ” the Savior with lots of hand-waving sophistry.
Was Jesus sinful..clearly he was by his own definition. Jesus, in essence, said that if one is tempted to a sin, then one has already committed it…adultery being the specific of the more general comment. So, Jesus was “tempted” by Satan….Satan did not “try” to “tempt” him, he “tempted” him. What is the distinction, if you’ve just eaten a large meal, an your wife brings home a pizza, she might try to tempt you with a slice, but you have no desire for it since you’re full. On the other hand, if you do consider eating a slice, then you’ve been tempted.
All this being said, who gives a flying fig about all of this? If you really ARE a Christian, then you prove your love of God by having compassion for others. As St. Francis of Assissi said, “By all means, preach the Word of God. If all else fails, speak!!”
“So, for the purpose of discussing creation we will just assume Adam and Eve and go from there.
Deal?”
No.
Why would we “assume” Adam and Eve when the scientific evidence points in another direction?
Unless you want to concede that Adam and Eve were Homo habilis.
Chas,
What parts of the Bible do you think are true or do you think are myth so that we can figure out what it is you do believe.
I mean, it is odd that you can believe in a God who which is basically your “going to base my entire faith on some idea that has extremely little if any scientific evidence in reality” yet turn around and say that you are not going to believe in Creation?
LOL
So, ok to believe in a God which has absolutely no foundation in science, but not ok to believe in Creation.
I see, makes no logical sense, but whatever…
WS Clark,
So I can use the evidence or complete lack thereof pertaining to how science explains life to attack Evolution?
Oh, and by the way, there are no names “Adam” and “eve” in Hebrew. “Adam” means “mankind” and “Eve” is loosely translatable as “womanhood”. Again, this shows that the writers were speaking of man and woman not “a” man and “a” woman.
Chas,
Once again, it is an old, refuted, and quite out dated argument to say there are 2 creation stories.
For someone who is a theologian you of all people should know this.
I think you fianlly got it correct Nathan, they are both “stories”, not science.
BFAH,
Of course! So when the Bible continues to talk directly of the brother cain and lineage of Adam and Eve we will just gloss right over that…
When the Bible talks about Satan tempting Eve, that was not a person just some general term for womanhood.
You have to completely dismiss the entire book of Genesis to say that Adam and Eve were just references to “mankind” and “womankind”
The story clearly defines them as two individuals.
Ok Nathan, now you have shown me what I was looking to see… HYou see, I CAN believe in a God even though Science cannot prove God’s existence… And I CAN believe in creation…. Of course I can believe in Creation…. But, I do not believe in what YOU call Creationism….
I find it most difficult to enter a discussion with you, because you seem unable, or unwilling to enter into abstract thinking on this matter… And that is the problem here… as well as in that museum in Kentucky…
Do I believe in God?? Yes…Can I PROVE that God in a laboratory?? Of course not…
Does that make one valid, and the other not??? Not at all!!
One is called SCIENCE… the way the world works…. the way things ARE….
The other is called FAITH…
One belongs in our schools, and universities, and the other belongs in our churches, and other sacred places of gathering…
You see, for me, it is not an either/or proposition…. it is a BOTH/AND….
nuff said for now… bye all!!
“So I can use the evidence or complete lack thereof pertaining to how science explains life to attack Evolution?”
I think that this has been answered 97 times, but the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not claim to answer the question as to the origins of life on Earth.
The theory assumes life began as single cell organisms – it does not say how. It does not claim to.
You are wanting to discuss why Babe Ruth hit more home runs than Jim Brown.
They ain’t the same topics.
Nathan,
Maybe you need to reconsider. If there WERE no names Adam and Eve in Hebrew, only the words “Adam” for mankind, and “Eve” for womankind, then what you’re claiming is that, 3,500 years from now, when stories are passed down about mighty races between “Corvette” and “Mustang” that these were people…sheesh.
If the Hebrews didn’t have these names in their lexicon, how did they suddenly appear in writing….(drum roll for God “inspired” the writers..oh sorry the writer, Moses, since he wrote the Pentateuch, right, even though he was dead for some time at the end of the story).
In order to believe the genesis creation story, you have to ignore every scientific discovery since the 1800s, specifically the known speed of light and laws of physics. If you are going to discuss your personal opinion that light was created in transit in order to mimic old age or that some major shift in the speed of light occurred then you have to provide evidence to prove it. Otherwise, your whole myth of creation is based on nothing more than your personal belief. That is the whole lie of the creationist movement, there is no science in creation science. Everytime, the book of fairy tales creates a situation that contradicts known scientific facts, they pull out the same old tired supernatual excuses.
“I am curious to see if any of you non-creationsts have one bit of emperical evidence supporting evolution.”
1) Species fit into nested hierarchies which are required by an unbroken series of ancestor-descendant relationships.
2) All organisms use the same universal genetic code which is required if they descended from a common ancestor.
3) The mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow) can be observed in the lab and observed in nature.
Much more to get you started here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
WS Clark,
It seems that the root of the arguments against Creation is that we can’t prove that there was a God who created everything.
My point was that I don’t claim that we can or will ever be able to prove that God created anything.
We can show evidence pointing to a young earth which does go along with creation.
So, just like Evolution is reliant upon assuming life to begin it’s argument, Creation is based on assuming Adam and Eve to begin it’s argument.
That was my comparison.
bggeek……….first, there is NO “creation/evolution controversy”. Creationism is religion, evolution is science. When you cite creationist websites, you automatically disqualify your credibility.
“against Creation is that we can’t prove that there was a God”
No even close, Nathan, not even in the same ballpark, to continue the previous analogy.
Evolution is considered science because there is scientific proof and a body of peer-reviewed evidence to support the theory.
If ID/Creationism wants to be considered SCIENCE, then it has to meet that same standard.
I will say again, Creationism is a belief system – it is not science and should not be considered as such.
So, once again, where is the scientific evidence of ID/Creationism?
What evidence can you show that supports a young earth and/or creation? I mean real solid, provable evidence, not assumptions based on supernatural explanations.
I don’t think that you can produce a single verfiable piece of evidence that can support an earth that is only 6,000 years old anymore than you could come up with proof that the earth is flat and has a sun that revolves around it.
I think I will change my argument stance from evolution vs creation to young earth vs evolution.
“What they don’t have a right to do is claim that this has anything to do with science.
Posted by Randy Scholfield”
So I would take it then that government should intrude to stop them? That would be your general response to these situations Randy.
One of the most frustrating (and damaging items to our republic) is that newspapers only want the 1st amendment to apply to them. Not the broadcast media. Much less the rest of the unwashed masses.
They have a right to call it whatever they want. You don’t have to believe them.
Nathan,
Perhaps that’s your misconception. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about where life came from…it only addresses the issue of what happened to it once it was here. ..and it’s all backed up with science. If you throw out any part of it, then you throw out everything that we know. For example, if you don’t believe that radioactive decay can be used to date fossils, then, you cannot accept nuclear fission for the production of nuclear explosions since the identical process is operating in both cases, and o on down the line…and we all know that nuclear weapons work.
WS: Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.
Here’s more of the anti-science/pro-creationist nonsense:http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/heliocentrism-is-an-atheist-doctrine/
If just gets more stupid doesn’t it.
“WS: Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.”
Regardless, neither is science.
And evolution is just a scientific guess as to origins.
outlander……….. a judge ruled differently. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a Republican judge has ruled that ID is a form of creationism. I’ll link to wikipedia for simplicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District . I would highly suggest reading the entire 144 pages of the ruling sometime.
Was Adam and Eve created with the broken gene that would normally code for production of vitamin C, or did that come later? All other primates have this broken gene as humans do, but God created Adam and Eve perfect so it’s just a mere coincidence that that very same gene would break down just like our closest primate relatives.
That’s why it takes a lot of faith to deny the scientific fact of evolution.
That’s easy Doug. Same Maker.
Apophis, I thought that site was a joke, until I read more into it. Those loons, er, people are crazy.
“Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine”
Those people actually believe that the universe revolves around the Earth.
And Outlander, a scientific theory is much more than a guess.
Remember, gravity is still just a theory. Do you believe in gravity, Outlander?
I was incorrect, the ruling is only 139 pages: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
“bggeek……….first, there is NO “creation/evolution controversy”. Creationism is religion, evolution is science. When you cite creationist websites, you automatically disqualify your credibility.”
Apophis,
I think you must have misread or misattributed a post to me. I was responding to Andy who asked for evidence from “non-creationists” in support of evolution. I posted three points of emperical evidence and a link to one of the best articles I’ve seen on the evidence for evolution.
Gravity can be demonstrated. Evolution can’t. Try again?
It never ceases to amaze me that those who don’t want ID or creationism taught in the school also want to run down a museum that has articles they don’t agree with.
What exactly are you so afraid of? You seem to be very insecure in your belief in evolution.
Outlander, so you are saying that humans evolved from a similar ancestor as the other modern primates? Funny, I took you for a creationist but now you agree that evolution is a scientific fact. Either that, or you didn’t understand the post.
For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights.
http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
Gravity isn’t a theory it is a law.
I also reccomend reading the expert statement for the Plantiff submitted by Dr. Ken Miller. I had the opportunity several months ago to meet Dr. Miller and discuss the case with him. Here’s the kicker to Nathan and his “holier than thou” brethren. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic. Imagine that, a man of science who is also a practicing christian!
The scientific fact of Evolution…
Which FACT does science use to explain the cambrian explosion?
Last I checked there were several ideas on that one… Which one is FACT?
sorry bggeek
No Doug. Same Maker.
“Intelligent Design is different than Creationism.”
No it’s not. A design is just a plan or a specification. A design doesn’t exist until it is created. If something exists and it was designed then it was also created.
Apophis,
My father was a Nuclear Power tech on Submarines.
He was the Senior Instructor at Nuclear Power School in the Navy.
My Mother has 6 degrees in Genetics, Chemistry, and others.
They both believe in Creation.
Not accepting Evolution is not a disbelief in science.
Okay outlander, perhaps it’s commonplace for creationists to simply say phrases over and over again but do you care to actually present something substantial?
Nathan, are you referring to the same Cambrian explosion that happened over millions of years? That refutes the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.
ks,
This is a discussion about whether ID is science or not. Who cares about the museum? It’s peripheral to the issue. Let them open it. It always amazes ME that people try to extrapolate emotions from statements of fact…where did you ever get the idea that anyone was scared by this. Mostly, it’s more like flabbergasted. I guess Hitler knew what he was talking about… a big lie is much easier to believe than a small one.
Doug,
Similarities in genetic code do not prove ancestry.
It is speculation.
For heaven’s sake, people, you’re beating a dead horse here.
Either you believe in empiricism or you believe in magical thinking.
Nathan, outlander, ksgrm, ProudMan believe in magical thinking.
Once they have made the leap off the terra firma of reason and empiricism and throw themselves into the la-la land of Harry Potter and medievalism, there’s just no talking them.
They’re in the realm of angry gods causing a dragon to eat the sun during a solar eclipse.
The rationalists are just wasting their bandwidth here . . .
so nathan…………whya can’t you accept evolution? If you come from such an intellectual home, why the regression to dark Ages thinking?
Can’t answer the question Doug?
This is great news for any young people going into scientific fields. The more people there are that don’t believe in carbon dating, the less people there will be competing for high-tech jobs. Keep up the good work. They should open these places in every city. Think of how much bargaining power we’ll have for wages when the baby boomers are retired and young people don’t believe basic scientific principals. I’ll be able to retire before I’m 40.
Evolution theory doesn’t say a thing about the origin of life. It’s testable and, despite what Mark says here, it depends directly on the scientific method.
Creationism is faith. It is not science. Because its system of rules/laws/theorems doens’t near rise to the rigor of the scientific method, its proponents dodge science whenever it must and then use the same diorama crapola that Nathan and Mark try to use to condemn evolution (Nathan condemns evolution based on museum dioramas; Mark uses diorama-science to condemn evolution’s ability to explain life origins, even though evolution theory makes no such claim). The new museum in Cincinnati is a perfect example. Hokum + selective science = a real feel-good time for Creationists, who can laugh along with the dioramas. People who believe in the scientific method laugh AT the dioramas, and feelings eeked out in purposeful order to have them hurt are, indeed, righteously hurt. Creationists use their extended and then hurt feelings to rail against science and to attract those stupid enough to rebel against the scientific method.
ID is a bridge between the two. It allows enough space in the life-origins room for Bible believers to dodge science and the scientific method and still believe in the Bible. It is a place under the bed where fearful Creationists and dreamier scientists (like Mark) can hide from the scientific method. It allows one to have one’s cake and eat it, too. It is not science.
That’s about it, really.
“Gravity isn’t a theory it is a law. by KSGrm”
Then why is it referred to as a Theory in scientific papers, Grm?
A SHIFTING THEORY OF GRAVITY
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/a_shifting_theory_of_gravity.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
Nathan, you believe it’s just wild coincidence that of all the species in the world that it’s just primates that share a similar genetic defect? So something so profound on a genetic level that connections primates to a common ancestor isn’t evidence of a common ancestor. To you it’s just evidence that your gods created life with something to convince people that evolution is true merely because they have a sense of humor.
Keep on wearing that tinfoil hat Nathan, we never landed on the moon and Elvis didn’t do any drugs.
Apophis,
The point was that it is not dark ages thinking nor a regression to not believe in Evolution.
Are we to that point in the argument where we use the personal insults?
It appears so for Capnamerica and Apophis.
Is this all the Evolution crowd has to offer is belittlement and name calling?
The more we question evolution the more you resort to 2nd grade bully tactics of name calling.
Either your precious Evolution can stand up on it’s own or it can’t.
You shouldn’t have to resort to name calling.
It’s not very scientific :)
Other scientific claim in the Bible includes the notion that the flat Earth is firmly planted on pillars. The science deniers could simply say that God uses his powers to create a dampening field around the planet to bend light to give the appearance of a spherical Earth and hide the pillars.
Why not? It’s not like the creationists ever actually rely on science as every thread on this subject has proven.
Doug,
I didn’t realize that simple comparisons were the type of solid proof science relied on in making such bold theories like Evolution.
There are many things in this world which are similar in nature, it doesn’t prove a common ancestry.
You can draw a crowd……….just introduce the topic of creationism/evolution or abortion and the crowd will come. Seems to me that this topic is more than played out….its beating a dead horse(or whatever you choose)at this point.
Survival of the fittest is a form of evolution for some. Animal species adapt to the conditions around them such as climate change. I have a strong belief in science and think it should be strongly emphasized in educating our children. But as cap just demonstrated when Nathan hit him with facts he could refute the name calling started. That is why I think those who are deriding this museum are running from a subject they can’t expain and are just a little afraid that there might be some truth in ID.
Where would they be then?
Do you feel personally insulted Nathan? If you do, too damned bad! This just reinforces that your “creationism” is just another belief, creating an emotional reaction. Evolution is just plain science, totally lacking of any emotional attachment.
I’ve already provided evidence on a genetic level but you simply denied the existence of DNA Nathan. So any insult is perfectly justified.
Turning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all convictions, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity.
So, Nathan, you want to make this a discussion strictly based on merit – so, for the hundredth time…..
Where is the scientific evidence of ID or Creationism or Young Earth?
You have yet to produce anything other than criticism of evolution or evidence that Creationism “could have happened.”
So what gives – you rail against name calling etc, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim that Creationism is science.
Nathan, if evolutionary theory states that there is common ancestry then you’d expect to find similarities that aren’t found in other species. That’s the entire point. But if you weren’t so blind to science you’d see that. How else do you look for similarities without comparing two things? Your attempt to run away from the facts have just made you look more dense than ever.
Hey mike……………I can go on for hours and hours “beating this dead horse”. If we don’t continually challenge the creationists, they will not stop until THEIR belief system is the only legal belief system.
“Similarities in genetic code do not prove ancestry.”
Actually, Nathan, they do. Because it’s not just any old similarity, they are similar in a very specific way. The similarities trace out a phylogenetic tree (nested hierarchy). The same phylogenetic tree derived from other, independent, sources of data (cladistics, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, etc…)
This constitutes multiple independent lines of empirical evidence supporting evolutionary theory (specifically the theory of common descent).
Mike you are probably right. But when assertions like that last statement made by Doug are posted don’t we owe him the respect of trying to straighten out his confused mind.
“Other scientific claim in the Bible includes the notion that the flat Earth is firmly planted on pillars.”
Posted by: Doug | May 30, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Doug could you tell me scripture and verse where this is in the bible? I don’t remember seeing it but know you wouldn’t throw in something that didn’t have a source.
Thanks
Apophis, that’s why they have to use the courts, politicians and deception to get their religion taught as science. They can’t actually use their millions of dollars for scientific research because they already know their position isn’t supported by science. Creationists are deceptive liars, every one of them and their actions prove it.
If I’m wrong then any creationist is free to present scientific evidence as we’ve been asking for for years.
Doug,
So now we have the circular reasoning.
Evolution says there is a common ancestor, so similarities in DNA must confirm this!
You just proved my point earlier.
When you start with the preconceived notion of Evolution then all of your “evidence” is going to support it.
“demonstrated when Nathan hit him with facts”
What facts, Grm? I didn’t see any facts, merely speculation and conjecture.
Oh, I forgot, you have a different definition of “facts” than the rest of us.
Sorry. My bad.
Nathan…..still waiting for the scientific evidence to prove your creationist story
The Earth is flat, Isiah 40:22The Earth rests on pillars, Job 9:6, 1 Sam 2:8
Here we go…
Apparently I don’t believe in DNA because I said simple comparisons don’t prove common ancestry.
Apparently I don’t believe the Earth is round because I don’t believe in Evolution.
Apparently I am no better than Harry Potter because I believe in God.
Apparently I don’t like science because I don’t believe in Evolution.
touche’ Doug
ApophisYou think you can change the opinions of Nathan and the other neo-cons? Please feel free to try, but should you succeed you would be the first. I have only been blogging here for a few months and he is as “neo-con” as you get. Good luck my friend.
It’s good that you can now admit your stupidity Nathan
Nathan, you must believe all science relies on circular reasoning them. Congrats, you just proved yourself to be a science denier.
Darwin noticed similarities in finches during his travel on the Beagle. He wasn’t aware of DNA at the time. He postulated shared ancestry because of his observations. Later genetic studies confirmed his observations on a genetic level. It isn’t circular, it’s science.
The theory of gravity states that large masses have a stronger gravitational pull than smaller ones. We drop a pencil it falls to the ground rather than sticking to our hand. The Earth is drawn towards the sun. It all began with an observation of objects falling to the ground. To you that’s circular because you don’t accept the theory of gravity either.
Again, you have just proven to be more dense in your desperation to deny the facts.
Isiaha 40:22 (NASB)
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,Who stretches out the heavens like a curtainAnd spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Isiaha 40:22 KJV
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
I don’t see flat earth there. What version of the Bible are you using?
Circles are flat Nathan, but geometry is just a theory.
“Evolution says there is a common ancestor, so similarities in DNA must confirm this!”
Wrong. Similarities in DNA are a logical requirement of the theory of common ancestry.
If common ancestry is true then DNA must have certain specific similarities. Not just any old similarity as I’ve already said. The similarities must trace out the same phylogenetic tree as other independent methods of classification do. In other words, organisms with more similar DNA should be more closely related, and this is exactly what we find.
Your DNA is more similar to your sibling’s than to your cousin’s, and you are more closely related to your sibling than to your cousin.
Human DNA is more similar to chimpanzee DNA than to shrimp DNA and you are more closely to a chimpanzee than to a shrimp.
The theory of evolution requires these similarities to fall into the same nested hierarchy that other evidence generates. Therefore, when we find these similarities it is not circular it is empirical evidence in support of common ancestry. No other theory requires nested hierarchies.
No Mike, I know I can never change the opinions of Nathan and is warped ilk. However, I feel obliged to confront them as often as I can. They are wrong about science; evolution and global warming to name a few. They are wrong about Bush. They are wrong about the “war on terror”. They are wrong about abortion. They are wrong about gays. Hell, they are wrong about almost everything. Since the election of 2000 was stolen from Gore and given to Bush, our proud country has been in the Era of National Shame. We must confront this evil at every turn. I will always stand up to any bible-thumper who wraps themselves in the flag and expose them for the frauds that they truly are.
Job 9:6 NASB
6Who shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;
I don’t see where it says the Earth rests on pillars. pillars was a way to describe foundation. Not an edict that the Earth actually rests on pillars.
Ah, I am still waiting for the “scientific evidence” of Creationism.
Posted by: WSClark | May 30, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Still waiting……
I wonder why Doug decided to turn this into a Bible verse contest??
I’m sure he wouldn’t if he thought he were doing well on the actual subject matter.
Nathan, does a planet in the zero G of space actually shake? It does if a planet, like a structure, is built upon pillars. But astronomy is just a theory.
Outlander, it’s already been proven you and Nathan are ignorant about science, I just proved your ignorant about your theology too (as well as geometry and astronomy).
Doug,The planet or the ground? The term earth is used for both.
“6Who shakes the earth out of its place”
“For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, And he hath set the world upon them.”
It’s amazing when something is so clear the bible thumpers can’t even read their Bible.
In Doug’s defense…..
“I’m sure he wouldn’t if he thought he were doing well on the actual subject matter.”
Still waiting on that SCIENTIFIC evidence……
Doug has provided many points to consider, but there is still no scientific evidence of Creationism.
Sol, the Bible views the Earth as flat so it would be the same thing.
Once again, circular logic:
Evolution relies on DNA similarities to be true.
There are similarities in DNA so Evolution must be true.
No where in that loop of reasoning do we actually see HOW the similarity ACTUALLY proves common ancestry.
Our DNA is 70-90 percent comparable to a mouse.
I guess we also share a common ancestor with them too?
Where is the line of similarity drawn? We are “similar” in DNA to many things, it proves nothing about a common ancestor.
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (This is the KJV and it calls the earth a circle, other versions refer to it as an orb and other words meaning a cirle)
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (If you look further you will find this is further explained as when the mountains tremble as in an earthquake. This was something you took out of context. Something real scientists would never do.)
He raises the needy from the dust;from the ash heap he lifts up the poor,To seat them with noblesand make a glorious throne their heritage.He gives to the vower his vow,and blesses the sleep of the just.”For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S,and he has set the world upon them.
We begin with a bit of groundwork. It should be understood that the Hebrews, like all ANE cultures, obviously lacked the scientific terminology we use to describe things today. We should not expect descriptions of “tectonic plates” or of “molten lava”. On a lesser scale, we will find that the Hebrews lacked key words which would have been most useful in describing cosmological phenomena.
I could go deeper but am sure you don’t intend to look further at this. It goes back to what do works mean. As we have become more verbal, more words have entered our vocabulary and new definitions have emerged.
If this is what you are basing your disbelief on look further. You might have missed the point.
WSClark, I’d be more than happy to discuss the scientific evidence the creationists present. For some reason that conversation is lacking.
Already scientific evidence has been presented which the creationists haven’t refuted. And now I’ve provided evidence that the Bible isn’t an authority on scientific matters.
So what’s left for the creationists? So far they just keep on denying all evidence presented.
Doug,
It is not taught by Christians that the Earth is flat. It is not taught by Christians that the Earth ACTUALLY rests on pillars.
These view points were never a predominent part of Christianity or taught as such.
You are purposefully taking verses from the Bible and twisting them.
Once again, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand other than to continue the typical retort from those who believe in Evolution:
Make fun of those who don’t believe in Evolution call them names, but don’t actually engage in a discussion about Evolution with them.
Nathan, the thread was about a museum that purported to be a SCIENCE museum dedicated to Creationism or one of it’s variations.
Where is the SCIENCE behind Creationism? Where is the peer-reviewed documentation to support a SCIENTIFIC theory of Creationism?
If there is no evidence, it can’t be called SCIENCE.
WSClark…….they will never produce evidence because there is none. Faith seldom produces evidence.
ksgrm, Circles are flat. Basic geometry.
“For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, And he hath set the world upon them.” It specifically says the Earth resides on pillars.
So where’s the confusion?
Nathan, I know you are new to the theory of evolution because it’s been explained to you only a hundred times. Yes, we have similar ancestry with a mouse. Primates are a closer ancestor. Just like your distant cousins are related to you but your siblings are more related to you because you share more genetic similarities.
This was already explained to you, why is there a need to repeat it again? Are you experiencing some mental block?
“Evolutionary theory doesn’t hold the rights to the term science.
Creationists can use it too.
Posted by: Nathan | May 30, 2007 at 09:31 AM”
So, where is the SCIENCE?
WS: It is not called a science museum. That’s Randy’s “creation”
Nathan, you quoted the Bible so how did I take anything out of context? Are circles flat? Yes. Does the bible say the earth rests on pillars? Yes, I’ve quoted that. So just because you don’t like what it says doesn’t mean I took it out of context.
Same evidence. Different interpretation. Nathan has given examples.
Doug, what is the hebrew word for sphere?
Are spheres not also circles? Why yes, yes they are.
“Same evidence. Different interpretation. Nathan has given examples.”
The “evidence” is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is 13.5 billion years old. Nathan says that the Earth is six to ten thousand years old. He believes that the “Flood” occurred 4,400 years ago. There is no archaeological evidence to support that.
How is that a matter of interpretation?
And I have yet to see the logical, peer-reviewed scientific theory of Creationism.
I ain’t holding my breath.
Circles don’t have a z axis, spheres, like our planet does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere
I’m amazed I have to explain simple geometry to adults. This is something that was covered in grammar school. It’s no wonder you creationists avoid science, you just did poorly in school overall.
Doug,
The Bible was not providing a scientic explanation of the exact shape of the Earth.
Yet you take that one vesre and say that it proves the Bible says the Earth is flat!
You are drawing a conclusion based on nothing other than your own perverted attempt at claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat even though no one believes that.
It was a verse talking about something different. It was a figure of speech.
You seem to be the only person here who thinks that.
I don’t.
Christians don’t.
Your whole point was that Christians think the Earth is flat when we don’t.
“Doug, what is the Hebrew word for sphere?”
It’s amazing that after reading about the limits of ancient language that Doug still stands on mincing words he obviously does not understand.
So far Doug has spent more time trying to prove the Bible says the Earth is Flat than any Christian ever has :)
Nathan and Sol, circles are still flat since they are 2-D objects. If I, and the entire field of mathematics is wrong I’m sure the world would love to know about it.
As for a previous question the answer is chuwg, which means circle.http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329
Nathan, I don’t need to prove anything, I’m just repeating what your science book says. I’m just amusing myself seeing you guys go to great lengths denying facts like geometry.
Are the Creationists among us going to do anything other than avoid the question?
Where is the evidence of Creationism?
Easy, right?
The ID folks want to teach ID or Creationism or whatever in schools as SCIENCE, so where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence?
Y’all keep dancing and dancing and dancing, but never produce evidence.
You say that evolution evidence can be used to prove Creationism, if you interpret it differently.
The evolutionary evidence says that Dino lived 200 million years ago!
It says that early man showed up 60 million years ago!
How does that support a theory that says the Earth is six to ten thousand years old?
Let’s recap:Scientific evidence provided by creationists: 0
Creationists have rejected the theories of: evolution, biology, genetics, astronomy, geometry, gravity
Maybe another $27 million and you guys might come up with something to actually support your views.
Doug, are you seriously that dense? The Hebrew word for sphere is circle, you are trying to say Christians think the world is flat because the best word they had in their time was circle. Do you see how dumb this makes you look? You are basing your argument on a word you admit is the best word of their time and means circle. Get a grip.
The Bible is not and has never purported to be a science book. It is a history book. Dang, are you really this dense?
Doug,
If the only thing you can do is try to label me as rejecting biology, genetics, astronomy, geometry, and gravity then it is really sad.
Apparently you are only interested in demeaning me or trying to belittle me.
Your tactics are no better than a 2nd grade bully on the playground.
They are not rooted in logic, they are not rooted in science.
They are nothing more than petty name calling.
Sol, I provided a link to a site which gives the translation and it mentions nothing about sphere. So that just makes you a liar.
Nathan, I only said you denied all those theories only because of your actions on this thread. It’s not my fault that you make yourself look bad.
The military offers this great thing called a GI Bill (don’t tell the conservatives about this socialist program though) which will give you a lot of money to attend college. Perhaps you can use the GI Bill to get an education on such concepts as genetics, geometry and biology. These courses are offered at many universities.
“They are nothing more than petty name calling.”
Then provide some scientific evidence, for Christ’s sake, Nathan.
You claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old – the evidence says it is 4.5 billion years old.
Explain, scientifically, why the disparity.
Please. That is not name calling – it is merely asking for you to back up your contention.
“Doug, what is the Hebrew word for sphere?”
As for a previous question the answer is chuwg, which means circle.http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=02329
Circular reference? I’m a liar? Take a look at your own words.
WSClark, don’t you know the worst insult you can give a creationist is to ask them to support their claims?
Well Sol, I go to the link that I provided and the word is what I said and the meaning is what I said. It’s not my fault you can’t see what’s right in front of you. The Hebrew spelling for sphere and circle are quite different but being the expert in Hebrew that you are apparently you already knew that. Since you know that then why are you lying right now?
http://www.dictionary.co.il/index.php
I’m off to work, I’m sure there will be no scientific evidence for creationism posted by the time I return and Sol will still be a liar.
I asked you for the Hebrew word for Sphere, you return the word for circle and I am a liar. This really proves your theories. You state something dumb, get caught, then call someone else a liar. Great job doug.
Doug,
Nothing I have done or said on this thread shows that I reject any thing other than Evolution.
You are simply labeling me with those things because that is all you can do.
Then you go on saying I need to use my GI Bill. Again, another attack on my intelligence because I reject Evolution.
It brings nothing to the discussion.
You only intend to ridicule, you are not seeking anything other than self gratification at making fun of those who disagree with Evolution.
Sol–as if it had anything to do with anything, what the hell IS the Hebrew word for “sphere”?
Also, folks . . . 200 posts arguing with the American Taliban about the age of the universe?
Now that’s what I call a colossal waste of bandwidth.
Why don’t you try to convert Osama bin Laden to Hinduism while you’re at it . . .
You deserve the ridicule you perceive Nathan. Believing your sky-god version story of creationism over the scientific, Theory of Evolution makes it totally appropriate. Maybe you should borrow one of mommy’s 6 degrees! LOL
“Once again, circular logic:”
Once again, wrong.
“Evolution relies on DNA similarities to be true.”
The theory of evolution predicts a very specific pattern of DNA similarities.
“There are similarities in DNA so Evolution must be true.”
The predicted pattern of DNA similarities is, in fact, found. This does NOT prove evolution is true. But it does constitute empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
“No where in that loop of reasoning do we actually see HOW the similarity ACTUALLY proves common ancestry.”
You obviously do not understand what nested hierarchies are, or why I keep bringing them up. Nested hierarchies are what answers this question.
It can be mathematically proven that an unbroken series of ancestor-descendant relationships (i.e. common descent) must necessarily result in a series of nested hierarchies.
That all species fit into a single nested hierarchy (phylogentic tree) based on multiple independent classification methods is strong empirical evidence in support of the theory of evolution.
It did not have to be this way, but it is.
“Our DNA is 70-90 percent comparable to a mouse. I guess we also share a common ancestor with them too?”
Yes, now you’re beginning to get it. We share a common ancestor with ALL living things.
“Where is the line of similarity drawn? We are “similar” in DNA to many things, it proves nothing about a common ancestor.”
As I said above. The specific pattern of similarity is ONLY required by common descent. That we observe the one and only one pattern of similarity we would expect from common descent is strong evidence of common descent.—–
I think this argument has gone on long enough. You’re all wrong anyways. I tried to make a pot roast two weeks ago and inadvertently created the universe. I have proof because the dishes I was using are still in my sink. You can use proven science to check the mold growth to confirm that it’s actually been there for 2 weeks. Thus, I must have actually done it. You’re all just confused because when the universe was created, along with it came this notion of memory which has tricked you all into thinking you were around much longer than that. Just like the universe has been tricked into thinking it’s billions of years old. Last time I try and make pot roast. Don’t try to dispute it, there’s scientific evidence that proves it happened.
Nested Hierarchies, I learned those in BASIC programming class. :D
Then there are RNA viruses…
And those pesky crystalline life forms on Star Trek.
I wonder if robots will have a taxonomic classification system 100 years from now?
What caused the first spark when there was no energy or matter before that?
How come cockroaches haven’t changed in 60 millions years and humans have? I would think they would have grown into more powerful and smarter insects by now.
Will human induced genes introduced into plants be able to vote and have alternative lifestyles 50 years from now?
The problem, Nathan, is ID can’t be proven by any means other than faith. Faith is married toreligion, and as such, it does not belong in the public school teaching cirriculum. It belongs in whatever church and or home believes in it.
We might call ourselves a christian nation, but there are many faiths who do NOT believe in ID. Where do they go to learn their beliefs, public school? Do we decide to lump all beliefs in one grand class? Start teaching the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The simple fact is faith based teachings belong in church and the home, not public school.
To do otherwise is to compound the education system with faith-based teaching. That, IMHO, is rather stupid.
JM Walker,
I have never advocated teaching ID or Creation in the class. Thats not what this thread is even about.
What I do advocate is the truth about Evolution to be taught.
“Evolution says there is a common ancestor, so similarities in DNA must confirm this!”
Wrong. Similarities in DNA are a logical requirement of the theory of common ancestry.
If common ancestry is true then DNA must have certain specific similarities. Not just any old similarity as I’ve already said. The similarities must trace out the same phylogenetic tree as other independent methods of classification do. In other words, organisms with more similar DNA should be more closely related, and this is exactly what we find.
Your DNA is more similar to your sibling’s than to your cousin’s, and you are more closely related to your sibling than to your cousin.
Human DNA is more similar to chimpanzee DNA than to shrimp DNA and you are more closely to a chimpanzee than to a shrimp.
The theory of evolution requires these similarities to fall into the same nested hierarchy that other evidence generates. Therefore, when we find these similarities it is not circular it is empirical evidence in support of common ancestry. No other theory requires nested hierarchies.
I take this quote from John Woodmorappe:
“while supernatural processes themselves cannot be tested, the consequences of supernatural events can be tested, and that is precisely what creationist scientists do”
“while supernatural processes themselves cannot be tested, the consequences of supernatural events can be tested, and that is precisely what creationist scientists do”
Please provide ONE concrete example of such an experiment. I promise to not laugh.
A review of The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationismby Niles Eldredge
“the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.
Second, to the extent that a nested hierarchy of living things exists, Eldredge presumes to know what a Creator would do in asserting that God would not create life according to a nested hierarchy (pp. 145–146).
Finally, when granting the possibility that God might want to use the same design ideas over and over, Eldredge suggests that God would not do it in such a pattern that would lead one to want to infer the existence of hierarchial divisions of lineages (p. 146).”
Again, similarity in DNA is not proof of Evolution any more than it can be proof of God creating things in a nested hierarchy.
It is all about what presumption you have before you look at the evidence.
If you presume Evolution then by goodness this must prove Evolution. Except it doesn’t.
By what authority do you presume that the writings of man trump the footprints of God.
If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?
Hank
“the classification of things according to nested hierarchy was first performed, in recent pre-Darwinian times, by Linnaeus, a creationist, so it can hardly be considered a prediction of evolutionary theory.”
It is a prediction of common descent. Common descent was suspected as early as ancient Greece. That Linnaeus, a creationist, demonstrated that species can be classified by nested hierarchies convinced many that life did indeed share a single, or a few, common ancestors.
A scientific prediction (unlike a prophecy, for example) does not need to occur before the observation which confirms it. A scientific prediction needs to be a logically necessary consequence of the theory in question. Nested hierarchies fit that bill. That nested hierarchies were observed AFTER common descent was proposed but BEFORE Darwin discovered one of the mechanisms of evolution doesn’t matter one bit.
“Second, to the extent that a nested hierarchy of living things exists, Eldredge presumes to know what a Creator would do in asserting that God would not create life according to a nested hierarchy”
God could certainly create life according to a nested hierarchy if He wanted to make it look like life evolved. And if he wanted to invalidate the inference to an intelligent designer, because human designers DO NOT make their creations conform to nested hierarchies.
Any possible arrangement of life on Earth can be accommodated by creationism or intelligent design (they are synonymous), which is one of the reasons why those ideas are not scientific.
“Finally, when granting the possibility that God might want to use the same design ideas over and over, Eldredge suggests that God would not do it in such a pattern that would lead one to want to infer the existence of hierarchical divisions of lineages”
I have to agree with Eldredge here. Why God would create a broken GULO gene in primates, and broken in such a way that it indicated the primates descended from one another, is beyond me. He could do it, but why?
Human designers do use the same designs over and over, and this is precisely why human designs do not result in nested hierarchies. In a nested hierarchy a novel feature is only available to descendents of the original design. Human designers often want to use the novel feature on ALL future designs.
Frequent reuse of design ideas will virtually guarantee a non-nested hierarchy.
Don’t believe me? The first anti-lock braking system was designed for a Mercedes-Benz. If human designers followed nested hierarchies anti-lock brakes would still only be available on Mercedes-Benz. Instead, designers reused the idea and now virtually ALL cars can have anti-lock brakes. This is a violation of nested hierarchies and a hallmark of design.
“If you presume Evolution then by goodness this must prove Evolution. Except it doesn’t.”
I hope I’ve laid this notion to rest.
“If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?”
If you are descended from your parents why are your parents still here?
Your parents may or may not be here. There is no requirement that they die when you are born. Similarly with the last common ancestor between humans and the other great apes.
In our case, however, that ancestor is in fact gone. Because we did NOT evolve from the other great apes extant today. They are our cousins not our parents.
I take this quote from John Woodmorappe:
“while supernatural processes themselves cannot be tested, the consequences of supernatural events can be tested, and that is precisely what creationist scientists do”
Posted by: Nathan | May 30, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Ah Nathan…………….there is no such thing as “creation science”.
I always get a giggle out of the “God created the universe with the light from stars already on the way” justification. I’ve been told by an AoG member that this was done to “test our faith.” I’ve also been told by a Southern Baptist that ancient fossils, and the techniques used to estimate their ages, are “tools of Satan” meant to take us from God. That one’s always good for a laugh, too.
You just gotta love dogma. No matter what new facts are discovered, they’re always shoehorned into the existing belief system.
Nathan, you fell into your own trap… You told Doug that the Bible doesnt say what shape the Earth is, thus it doesnt say it sat on pillars… You said it was just a way to explain it…
SO — You only take the Book literally, when it suits you???
HERE –
I don’t see where it says the Earth rests on pillars. pillars was a way to describe foundation. Not an edict that the Earth actually rests on pillars.
Posted by: Nathan |
Pillars describe foundation… YOUR words… What does the earth rest on?? PILLARS!!! Because that was the world view of those times…
And as for the Circle of Heaven? Go outside on flat place… look towards any horizon… starting at the left(or right) bottom of the horizon, follow the sky above you all the way to the opposite (left or right)… You have just drawn in the air, a Half Circle…
The Bible writers saw the heavens as a curved Vault… or Circle of heaven… The Psalmists speak several times of the Vault of Heaven…
So, YES the Bible writers believe the Earth was Flat, and that it rested on Pillars (Book of Jonah — Jonah is sent to the END of the Earth) Now, unless you want us to believe that you really believe that, then just admit that you dont believe the entire book is literally true, but just those parts that you DECIDE must be taken literally…
“What I do advocate is the truth about Evolution to be taught.”
Where? And if that is your belief, then where should your belief be taught? Truth, in this instance seems to be in the mind of the beholder. I would imagine there are as many beliefs in man’s creation/evolution as there are religions. As I stated earlier, keep non-science based beliefs in the church or home.
Personally, I have no problem believing at some point in mans’ evolution, God gave him the power of reason, thus making him the first thinking/reasoning mammal. Who’s to say I’m wrong?
bggeek you made a great leap between evolved from and descended from. Descending from means that the source remains, evolution means the source has been altered in some fashion.
Even Darwin admitted that he couldn’t make the link. Man’s finite mind can’t envision a God so powerful that he could have created this perfect universe we live in. So it requires faith to accept creationism and some minds are to small for this.
Maya Angelou said it best about Christians:
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not shouting “I’m clean livin’.”I’m whispering “I was lost,Now I’m found and forgiven.”
When I say… “I am a Christian”I don’t speak of this with pride.I’m confessing that I stumbleand need Christ to be my guide.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not trying to be strong.I’m professing that I’m weakAnd need His strength to carry on.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not bragging of success.I’m admitting I have failedAnd need God to clean my mess.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not claiming to be perfect,My flaws are far too visibleBut, God believes I am worth it.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I still feel the sting of pain.I have my share of heartachesSo I call upon His name.
When I say… “I am a Christian”I’m not holier than thou,I’m just a simple sinnerWho received God’s good grace, somehow!
That is what it is all about for me. My faith. My belief. You are certainly welcome to your own.
You see ksgrm……………..you’ve hit the nail on the head.
That is what it is all about for me. My faith. My belief. You are certainly welcome to your own.
Posted by: ksgrm | May 30, 2007 at 04:20 PM
It’s about faith and belief, not SCIENCE!
“bggeek you made a great leap between evolved from and descended from. Descending from means that the source remains, evolution means the source has been altered in some fashion.”
A small portion of a population of organisms can become reproductively isolated from the main population. This small population is subject to genetic drift and the founder effect. It can evolve into a new species. The new species is both evolved from and descended from the original species, which also may still exist.
This is called peripatric speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatric_speciation
Do not go to creationist museum for science.
Uh, why would you?
All “Dogs” are breed down from wolves, everything from a Pekingese to a German Shepard. If it were not for the evolutionary process, that couldn’t happen.
“You just gotta love dogma. No matter what new facts are discovered, they’re always shoehorned into the existing belief system.”
Science does that too Tom. It shoehorns evidence into the existing dogma. That is, of course, Darwinian theory.
Science is dogma? Care to explain that staement outlander?
“So it requires faith to accept creationism and some minds are to small for this.”
The small minds appear to be the ones who think only their beliefs are the right beliefs. As in the dark ages. They killed people for believing different from them. They used the bible to justify their beliefs. How small minded is that?
Small minds? Look in the mirror.
ApophisHow is your crusade going to change the way the neo-cons think? Not trying to beat you up, just curious. Not an easy task.
ED, How does turning a german shepherd into a pekingese say anything about evolution? Inbreeding might create a different breed of dog but you can’t hang onto a german shepherd and one day look at him and realize he had became a pekingese could you?
Prove it prove it prove it!
The only real way to Prove anything about how we came to be would be to travel back in time and see it. That sure is not going to happen, so there no way either creationists, evolutionists, or otherists can Prove their beliefs about the origin of Man.
Mike, I know challenging the neocons isn’t going to change them but someone has to challenge this Era of National Disgrace.
Prove it prove it prove it!
The only real way to Prove anything about how we came to be would be to travel back in time and see it. That sure is not going to happen, so there no way either creationists, evolutionists, or otherists can Prove their beliefs about the origin of Man.
JM that was not a personal attack on anyone on this blog. It simply means that some minds can only believe those things they can touch. Believing in any intangible is a stretch for them. Having a broad mind is noteworthy so I just referred to the opposite as a small mind. Would it have been more appropriate to say ‘narrow mind’?
Ksgrm… I’ve run across a few folks in my life that are so narrow minded, they can look through a keyhole with both eyes open…
Outlander,
A good scientist, when confronted with newly discovered facts, will revisit his or her original statements and theories. A good scientist will accept that they might be wrong, and incorporate those newly discovered facts into their statements and theories.
A dogmatist does not do this. No how, no way. That’s the very definition of “dogma.”
“Science is dogma? Care to explain that staement outlander?”
Not a problem Apophis. Actually, I referred to Darwinian theory as dogma. From Wikipedia:
“Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek ?????, plural ???????) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.”
Boy, even I didn’t realize how well that nailed it.
how about checking Webster’s?? I didnt know wikipedia was an authoritative source…
“If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?”
Hank
Ever take a physical anthropology course, Hank? The apes we evolved from are no longer here.
I love it!!! that outlander would call science dogma. That boy is learning from KKKarl Rove – pin your shortcomings on your opponent and complain about them.
Too much – imagine the hehehes… if I were KFG posting.
Question:
What kind of ‘man’ would assume the name of a ‘god’ and then spend countless hours bashing religion?
Answer: Apophis
It makes sense actually. Religion comes down to following a deity of some sort. So you would expect such intolerance for dissent from a ‘god’.
At least that ‘god’ doesn’t operate within a system that gives access to impressionable people. Oh wait, Apophis is another fine example of a government school teacher. How odd.
And they say there is no religion in government schools.
Outlander,
A) There’s no such thing as “Darwinian Theory.” There’s the theory of evolution, the discovery of which Darwin contributed greatly.
B) Today’s theory of evolution goes well beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. What’s most amazing, though, is how so many other scientific fields have evidence that support the core statements of evolutionary theory. But that doesn’t stop any of them from being challenged by newly discovered facts or evidence.
C) Offering criticisms of evolutionary theory based on what was written 130 years ago, or even 80 years ago, is akin to criticizing spaceflight based on the state of the art in 1903 or 1920. The favorite pastime of evolution deniers is to find a small hole in something discovered four generations ago, even when current knowledge has proven it wrong, and use that hole to discredit the work of thousands.
Chuckle… Not science Steven, Darwinian theory. You and Apophis have the same blind spot.
The religious fervor with which Darwinian theory is defended here demonstrates the validity of that characterization.
JM Walker,
I am not talking about my faith when I am asking that the truth about Evolution be told.
Lets go back to my previous example:
The Evolution of the Horse display.
I have not checked lately, but this picture has been in many if not all of teh science text books.
It is pure speculative artists rendering not based on fact.
Those are the kinds of things I want looked at more critically.
Even Evolution supporters kind of shrug their shoulders at those things.
There are numerous examples of these types of things.
Not to mention the description for how life began.
Apparently on this blog we can’t talk about how life began when talking about Evolution. We just assume life.
However, that is not what we are teaching our kids.
This has nothing to do with me having some crazy belief. It has everything with me wanting the truth.
Nathan,
When did life begin? Be authoritative, cite the source of your evidence.
Thanks.
Do you feel threatened proudman?
You are plainly an anti-public education fundamentalist. To me, your opinion means absolutely nothing.
Only an asinine fundie like you would presume just because I choose to use the name of an ancient Egyptian diety, that I promote any religon in our PUBLIC schools.
Actually, Tom, I prefer the “theory of common descent”. That way you don’t get irrelevant arguments about bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics as support.
Tom,
You already know what I believe.
What do you believe?
“Apparently on this blog we can’t talk about how life began when talking about Evolution.”
….. Number 98, the Theory of Evolution does not attempt to answer the question as to the origins of life.
Stick to one topic.
Nathan,
The peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates life on earth began ~3.5 to ~3.9 billion years ago. Of course, there is always the possibility that the science is wrong to one degree or another. As new facts and evidence are discovered, this “window” will either be narrowed, or thrown out entirely.
Your turn.
Apophis,
You learn a lot about people from the words they use. On this blog you always learn more about the person writing than the subject.
You chose to promote yourself as a god. To then say you don’t promote religion shows who you are.
Based on how you behave here I don’t care to imagine how you act at schools. What happens to the student in your class who favors creation view verses your own? You have given ample evidence that you do not tolerate dissent. Give someone like you a position of authority and nobody is allowed to disagree.
Tom,
Thats great. What test did they use to arrive at that date?
“You chose to promote yourself as a god.”
And we have another nominee for Dumbest Post of the Day. Do I hear a second?
Nathan,I am well aware evolution is not faith based, as I am also aware creationism is faith based.
Your example of the horse is, in my opinion, not a good one from your point of view.
The following link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.htmldoes, again in my opinion, add to the facts of evolution. Your call for proof of evolution is all around you. You deal with it every day.
That is my belief, and one I believe is based on scientific evidence. That you doubt what I consider facts is not something I can prove to you, because by your beliefs, it is unprovable. That is faith, nothing more or less.
I could include hundreds of links that, again, in my opinion, prove evolution as fact. You are not going to agree with any of them. You have stated so by stating there is basically no such thing as evolution. Both the point and the argument are therefore moot. How could they be anything but? Your arguments are, in my opinion, nothing more than red herrings.
For claims that the Earth is six to ten thousand years old…..
Nathan,
Thats great. What test did they use to arrive at that date?
Nathan,
When did life begin? Be authoritative, cite the source of your evidence.
Thanks.
WSClark………………I’ll 2nd that.
I don’t have time to listen to the fundie drivel for right now, I have a LARGE yard to mow beofre it rains again tonight.
Ummm actually, they used the so-called biblical scholarship of one, Bishop Usher… who determined based on the long lists of “begats” in the Old Testament, that God created the Earth in October, some 6,000 years ago, give or take a few…
Bishop Usher wasnt even using good biblical study methods for HIS time… let alone ours… The genealogies of the Old Testament are crude, to say the least… and hardly authoritative for any kind of dating…
Or, did you have another theory for your “young earth” Nathan??
Or did you maybe just get it from a Pat Robertson style “word of knowledge” — thats what Pentecostals believe happens when God speaks directly to them…
well, i reckon Nathan will be headed off to Wednesday nite prayer meeting and bible study at his church… Apophis is going to go coup de gras before it rains… and I need to fix dinner before my blood sugar drops too low… Nite all… it’s been fun… frustrating, but fun…
Nathan,
Your claim to want the truth is a lie. You have stated before that you believe in a literal interpretation of the genesis creation myth and that the earth is only 6,000 years old based on nothing more than a single book and not a shred of empirical evidence. The fact is that you refuse to believe anything that does not bolster the dogmatic creation farce that you have already chosen to believe.
“There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as The Dark Ages.”
Ruth Hurmence Green
I would venture to say the defining science that disproves the earth as 6000 to 8000 years old is simply plate tectonics.
With the Hawaiian islands moving across the sea floor at a rate of 3″ a year, it is easy to calculate exactly where and when they were born. Kauai, the oldest and furthest away from the zone it was born from, is over 5million years old. Hawaii, the youngest, is only 400,000 years old.
This is all proven, not theory, as the actual speed, along with geographical and geological finds mean the islands themselves go back over 5 million years.
Then there is the fact geological finds around San Francisco match finds exactly finds where the United States broke off from its mate. That movement had to take hundreds of thousands of years.
Conclusion: the earth is way older than 6000 to 8000 years old.
If that is the case, and science has proven to me that it is, than the bible can be taken to be written for the people of the time. People who had no clue as to other continents, DNA, evolution, or, in many societies, cleanliness is next to godliness (for a damn good reason, too).
The old societies the bible was written for, thought the earth was flat . . . wrong; the earth was the center of the universe . . . wrong. There are too many instances where beliefs were wrong, and it took science to prove it so.
That fundamentalists want to believe the literal interpretation of the bible is their business. That they want to teach such nonsense at taxpayers expense is something I will shout down as often as I can. The Brownbacks’ Morriss’s, and any other fundi running or holding office, and using that office to further a religious agenda goes against the very grain of this country, Christian or not.
JM……………….I fear you may join me in the underworld, condemned to eternal damnation!
LOL
That’s well said, JM Walker.
Like I’ve said before here. Science freed man forever from religious dogma. The contribution of the scientific method to the well-being of humans everywhere is so profound, so fundamental, that it defies imagination. Most humans alive today, even Creationists, have benefitted from science in ways of such profundity that the old ways of the Dark Ages are utterly forgotten. We would no sooner go back to a time without the scientific method than we would to a time without water, to a time without air to breathe.
Or to a time where man was ruled by any religion.
Advantages utterly taken for granted. Real, practical, tangible results come from human efforts to employ the scientific method.
And nearly all of it, especially the earliest progress, happened DESPITE religion.
And that, my friends, tops any value flowing from the Bible.
One of the interesting things about Hawaii is that there is no scientific explanation as to how birds got there.
I mean terrestrial birds. The islands are just far to distant from the continents for a current-drifting log (for example from North America), and westerly trade winds, to have carried terrestrial birds to these islands, because they would necessarily have died from starvation en route.
Leonardo da Vinci ’s drawing of the Vitruvian Man shows a man inter-connected within a circle and a square.The Circle represents the supernatural world, the Square represents the solid physical world and the man represents a bridge between both of the worlds.The representation of the drawing is Leonardo’s expression of that man connects the worlds.In all religions including satanic beliefs, all will tell you that you have to believe in them in order for that religion to work for you, religion calls it having faith.Leonardo’s expression was also saying that the supernatural world cannot exist without having to have the man to be able to connect to the solid physical world.Man is the bridge; man has all the control of what is to be his reality.
Almost twenty-four hours and no documented evidence for ID/Creationism.
How is that?
Actually I visited one of the Creationism websites and got an answer for myself.
There is no evidence.
The primary thrust of the Creationism effort is to disprove evolution and thereby claim that only creationism makes sense.
“A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer.”
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
“Primitive thinkers them Creationists are, huh!”
Interesting. For each of you that believes in evolution – just remember you have a monkey for an uncle! Funny!
Don’t forget to eat the bugs from your spouses hair before bed…
Is god all powerful? the answer is no. Simple puzzle can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it.
It took you all day to come up with that lame joke, Mac? Perhaps you are truly living proof that (some) men have not evolved.
And, by the way, Mac, the Theory of Evolution states that man has evolved from ape like creatures over the last SIXTY MILLION YEARS.
My Uncles are not nearly that old.
I wouldn’t go to the Creation Museum for science. I’d go there for TRUTH.
Anyone intrested in seeing what the group who put up the museum has to say for itself may look at this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
“If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?”
My ancestors came from Europe yet there are still Europeans. Sheesh, I come back from work and still no evidence for creationism presented, instead people post crap like ‘why are there still apes?’
How utterly lame. Why do you creationists even bother embarrassing yourselves with lies that your position is actually supportable?
The seperation of church and state benefits both the church and state. Consider England which has a state sponsored religion and compare their church participation to that of the U.S., which does not at this time have state sponsored religion. Which country has greater church participation? The answer to this problem is pretty easy. Funny how the dead-head republicans always want the government to stay out of people’s affairs, but always want the same government in people’s religious life. Kinda strange, no?
Time to check into the physical anthropolgy workshop for the WEBolog. Click on this link if you are interested in the evolution of man; don’t click, if you are not:
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/man/evnman3.html
Good night, all.
If the universe is only 10,000 years old then how could astronomers have recently observed a supernova (SN 2006gy) that just exploded? The supernova is 240 million light years away.
Do creationists deny the speed of light as well? If that’s the case, how fast does light travel according to the creationists? Or is that like asking for evidence which will never be provided?
“If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?”
This statement reflects Hank’s (god love him) ignorance of physical anthropology. The apes we humans, gorillas, and chimps descended from are now extinct.
Do not bear him ill-will, Hank and son are just doing the best they can; which, empirically, is not very good – to say the least.
“If we have evolved from apes, why are they still here?”
Because some were elected and live in the White House, while others support them.
Creationists believe because they believe in the Bible, which is their right to do. But there are many versions of the Bible, so which one is the TRUE version?
This is where these creationists lose their argument. They use the source of their knowledge in some book which is, itself, highly questionable.
The truth is, if you want to believe in Adam and Eve, then go ahead and knock yourself out. But don’t try to force it down your neighbor’s throat. That’s just not cool.
“I would venture to say the defining science that disproves the earth as 6000 to 8000 years old is simply plate tectonics.
With the Hawaiian islands moving across the sea floor at a rate of 3″ a year, it is easy to calculate exactly where and when they were born. Kauai, the oldest and furthest away from the zone it was born from, is over 5million years old. Hawaii, the youngest, is only 400,000 years old.
This is all proven, not theory, as the actual speed, along with geographical and geological finds mean the islands themselves go back over 5 million years.”
Aww, you’ve beaten me to it! Hawaii is the very best place in the US to study evolution; I have faith that many gifted science students will leave Kansas to use their gifts here and elsewhere, like I did :)
Hawaii’s endemic species support evolution. Things got to the islands by floating in the sea or by the strong trade winds. That means only small terrestrial things could have come here: seeds, itty bitty birds, insects…If you look at Hawaii’s flora and fauna, you see that only small things are endemic to the islands–no cows, pigs or goats here naturally. And only a relatively few species could manage the difficult trip over here, which explains how Hawaii has species that are not found anywhere else in the world: species that only evolved here from their tough ancestors.Google the “bottleneck effect”.Maybe also google “adaptive radiation in Hawaii”.
This paradise is filled with beautiful, awe-inspiring evidence for evolutionary theory.
And I think I figured out the creationist strategy: Refute every piece of evidence for evolution by saying “Well, that doesn’t PROVE evolution is true.” Of course, no single piece of evidence PROVES evolution. It just adds up all together as a giant body of evidence SUPPORTING evolution. We can’t prove evolution any more than we can prove the statement “All healthy dogs bark”. But we have evidence to support that all healthy dogs bark.
Where’s your giant body of evidence?
And this:”Evolution relies on DNA similarities to be true. There are similarities in DNA so Evolution must be true. Circular logic”
No, no, no, no, no. Before DNA, phylogenetic trees and evolutionary relationships were based on morphological and developmental differences. With the arrival of DNA sequencing and bioinformatics tools, it largely CONFIRMED these relationships. SO the reasoning was as follows: IF evolution is true, THEN the DNA sequences should show specific similarities and differences to support our previous taxonomic classifications.
And guess what? They did, and where they didn’t mesh, we have scientists jumping all over the discrepancies to try and figure out the mistakes. Because science loves to find mistakes in science, because every discrepancy points to a new opportunity to learn something.
Of course, go on and take every statement here on the blog and say that it doesn’t PROVE evolution, and that creation COULD have still happened. Stars that are billions of light years away? Doesn’t PROVE an old earth, creation still COULD have occurred because God could made it work. He’s God, after all.
Beautiful, but not science. Not by a long shot.
Now, I invite you to start posting your big pile of evidence supporting creation, and all of us can get to work on answering it.
“Creationists believe because they believe in the Bible, which is their right to do. But there are many versions of the Bible, so which one is the TRUE version?”
Easy answer. They believe in the Bible they haven’t read.
I am upset that I miss all the excitement here! Sorry, I just had to laugh hard when Nathan had to pull “Me Mommy and Daddy are super smart” card. A Marine hiding behind Mum’s skirt?
Anyway, I trust his judgment more when it comes to armament, than when it comes to “touchy” subjects that may contradict HIS reading of the Bible (or the Torah, Qur’an, Veda, Dianetics, etc.). I do strongly take offense at his “My Christianity is bigger than yours” idee fixe. I regret ever having to say this. But, I felt that it must be said. Humility isn’t one of his forte.
What’s kind of funny about this whole thing is that if the non-believers are right, when I die, that is it. I cease to exist. There will be now oops-oh, no gotcha, just nothing. If the believers are right, when a non-believer dies, there will be hell to pay – pun intended. You may not believe in God, but He sure believes in you. I would rather err on the side of eternal redemption.
And Pascal’s Wager makes an appearence. Still not a better argument than the last time I heard it.
Fearful Man creates his gods in his own image and with his own attributes, attitudes, sexual quilts and structured to benefit himself with rewards and punishments.
According to some people, God is even a real estate broker.
The general assumption is that we are the end product of evolution, when, by all indication, events strongly suggest that most people are only in a universal stage of adolescent development.
If we don’t know an answer to something, we have been prone throughout history to just make one up.
Right now we’re killing people in the name of someones religion, and there’s nothing new about that.
God gave us all a brain, perhaps it’s time to use it.
Sol, where is this hell that you speak of? There’s a town call Hell in Michigan but if someone’s dead they can’t go there.
I hope you aren’t one of those nuts who still hold onto a notion that ghosts burn for eternity. For something to burn it must have physical properties as fire is produced by a chemical reaction. I know chemistry is just a theory and it’s some of that pesky science and your Bible says hell is located in a volcano but really, isn’t it about time you gave up these fairy tales?
I see Doug is still at it…
What do you believe Doug? That we came from a Big Bang?
If that is what you want to believe more power to you, but don’t for one instant think it holds any more credibility than our belief in Jesus.
Doug,When we both die, then the debate will be resolved. I don’t wish ill on you, but eternal burning in a non consuming fire just isn’t my cup of tea.
And you can pound that ‘its just a theory …’ crap with a pound of sand.
Here’s one for you. In the string theory, what are the strings made of? Why do the strings disobey the laws of spacetime? Can you explain that?
Are we playing the lets be as silly as possible game?
Doug,
Which part of Evolutionary theory explaining(or attmepting to explain) the cambrian explosion is FACT which we should take as FACT and not question?
Which one?
Nathan,
Why can’t you provide one single piece of evidence that backs up your belief in a young earth, the biblical creation myth or that Noah fed salads to T Rex on the ark?
Scott,
I already gave just one example of evidence of a global flood.
You don’t have to agree with it. I actually gave both sides to demonstrate my point which is that Creation and Evolution use the same evidence, but interpret it differently.
Science doesn’t deal in fact, but highest probabilities. Fairy tales deal in whatever you want them to be and therefore need the rationalizing of explanations.
Remember, that everything we understand is derived from the perceptions constructed from the five senses and the explanations are derived or concocted from that limited information or a preconceived result.
Early man saw fire coming out of volcanoes and assumed there was a “fiery place” “down there.”
Nathan, give us one piece of evidence that is not subject to “interpretation.” You are just giving us evolution evidence that cannot be interpreted as proving that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Give us some evidence.
WSC
Would a very old calendar work for you?
Nathan, I don’t think anyone suggested there was a Big Bang and the next second there were people. Creationists think we appeared in an instant when God farted the universe. There’s no need to apply your anti-scientific bead rattling ideas to the reality based community.
I never denied the fact of the Cambrian age. You deny it because you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and refer to the Cambrian period which was over 500 million years ago. Don’t blame me because you don’t know what you are talking about.
Sol, you can keep on repeating your nonsense but you have yet to answer the question. Where is this hell that you believe in? Or do you discount the entire field of chemistry?
Doug,
Why do strings defy spacetime?
Nathan, if there was a global flood then how to you account for coral reef at Eniwetok atoll that’s older than 130,000 years? The flood would have wiped out the reefs by two means, washing them away or denying them access to sunlight killing off the plant life. Yet they are still there.
The problem you have Nathan is that you can’t simply disregard facts that you find inconvenient then declare your position correct. It’s called science, you should learn about it with that GI Bill (then again, high school education is free so you can go back and pay attention this time).
Sol, do you typically answer questions by asking irrelevant questions? Or is this your way of admitting you can’t support your claims, yet again?
Doug,
you keep refusing to answer the question. What is it you believe in?
What FACT explaining the cambrian explosion is the FACT we must accept without question?
I guess you must not believe in science.
Doug,
Instead of answering question is all you can do is ignore them as a means of not having to explain them because you can’t?
Doug,
Are you 130,000 years old? Were you there when that reef was formed?
Why do you think it is 130,000 years old?
….waiting, watching and waiting, waiting for that evidence of ID or Creationism or Flying Pasta…..
“Which part of Evolutionary theory explaining(or attmepting to explain) the Cambrian explosion is FACT which we should take as FACT and not question?”
Nathan, this question doesn’t make any sense. The “Cambrian explosion” is a name people made up to describe a group of shelled fossils that appear in a specific geologic strata.
That we observe the fossils is a fact. They exist. A lot of them. Regardless of whether we have a theory to explain their origin or not.
It just so happens that evolution explains the Cambrian explosion just fine. I’m not sure what you think the problem is unless you get more specific.
At this point I should note that the “explosion” lasted at least 10 million years and that their are fossils of multicellular organisms prior to the Cambrian (look up ediacara fauna).
So the Cambrian explosion was neither abrupt nor without precedent.
Also, while you’re getting more specific about things. Maybe you can get more specific about the problem you have with horse evolution. You keep bringing it up as if it’s some difficulty with evolutionary theory but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Doug,
I learned in High School that many scientists believe in what is called the Big Bang theory.
It is a theory you know?
You don’t believe it?
Why don’t you go get your GED so you can start believing in science?
Come on, Nathan. Instead of just attacking evolution, why can’t you just provide some scientific evidence that supports the claim of Intelligent Design.
So far, you have only chosen to “reinterpret” evolutionary evidence while attacking those that believe same.
If you want to debate, debate the facts……
So far, you have produced nothing that would indicate that ID is real science.
So Nathan, you are denying the existence of the Cambrian age? What dispute is there that there needs to be a question about it? Your question is absurd.
Whats wrong Doug?
You don’t believe in science?
What about you WS Clark, do you believe in the Big Bang?
Lets hear it for all of you science deniers, what say you?
PS let me know, Doug, when you are ready for a serious discussion. It seems you stopped just about when you started.
Nathan, coral reefs grow at an average rate per year. Drilling tens of thousands of feet the bottom of a coral reef gives an indication of age, much like tree rings can date a tree. This is all basic stuff you should have learned in high school. Somehow I doubt you paid any attention in science class since you have to debate the most basic of scientific knowledge.
Nathan, coral reefs grow at an average rate per year. Drilling tens of thousands of feet the bottom of a coral reef gives an indication of age, much like tree rings can date a tree. This is all basic stuff you should have learned in high school. Somehow I doubt you paid any attention in science class since you have to debate the most basic of scientific knowledge.
Nathan, your posts just get more and more stupid. Now you are just throwing a temper tantrum. Go suck on your pacifier.
“I already gave just one example of evidence of a global flood.”
Nathan, I searched all of your posts in this thread (believe me, it was tedious), and I didn’t see your evidence of a global flood. Can you repeat it?
“Nathan, coral reefs grow at an average rate per year. Drilling tens of thousands of feet the bottom of a coral reef gives an indication of age, much like tree rings can date a tree. This is all basic stuff you should have learned in high school. Somehow I doubt you paid any attention in science class since you have to debate the most basic of scientific knowledge.”
Except God could have created the coral reefs as they are, with their layers. Doesn’t prove an old earth ;)
“Lets hear it for all of you science deniers, what say you?”
Dunno. I’m not a physicist, but I’m sure that physicists go through their peer-review process just like us biologists and the evidence they have is probably strong. Of course, I wouldn’t categorically say the Big Bang is absolutely the best explanation because I’m not qualified to do so. Even if it is the best explanation I’m sure that it is compatible with the existence of God.
Most people who don’t have any degree past a bachelors wouldn’t declare themselves authorities on biology, geology, physics AND theology. That’s quite a resume.
I am interested to hear you respond to DNA sequencing largely confirming evolutionary relationships. I think it’s probably the worst thing to happen to the creationist movement. I can’t think of a bigger piece of evidence for evolution than the now supported hypothesis “IF evolution is a valid theory, THEN these sequences should match up like this”.
“What about you WS Clark, do you believe in the Big Bang?”
We were discussing EVOLUTION, not the Big Bang.
Let’s kill one subject at a time.
Still waiting for that proof of Creationism…………
“The Lords Prayer!”Within its contents lies the Solution to the entire Worlds’ Problems. It is such “Good News” and it is soooo seldom that we hear “Good News.”
In all its simplicity “The Lord’s Prayer” or “Our Father Prayer,” answers “three” of the most catastrophic problems facing humans today. Jesus provided the Solution to all the World’s problems (in just three sentences.) Problems such as; Will there ever be “World Peace?” Will the earth be destroyed by “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or possibly an “Asteroid from Outer Space?” Or will there ever be a time when “Sickness, Sorrow and Death” is done away with?
We pray in modern English, “Let your Kingdom come.” God’s Kingdom is a Spiritual Government, I am sure that you are familiar with the terms “Prince of Peace and King of kings,” referring to Jesus Christ It is Jesus’ Spiritual Government that is going to bring permanent Peace to the Earth.
Then we continue; “Let your Kingdom come and let your will be done on earth.” In order for God’s will to be done on earth the earth has to remain and there will have to be people on earth to do God’s will. So we don’t have to worry about the earth being destroyed! But you may be wondering now will we always have to live with the tragedy of “Sickness, Sorrow and Death?” Jesus said NO!
“God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven” heaven is perfect! So in essence we are asking God to please rule this earth in Perfection as He once did in the Garden of Eden.
Wouldn’t you agree that this is “Good News?” That is why Jesus stated at Matthew 24:14, “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”
Thank you so much for your time and attention. I do hope that this is “Good News” for you also.
Sincerely,Marilyn
*** g70 9/22 pp. 10-12 Geology’s Hypothetical Structure ***Is the Present a Key to the Past?If we examine a pillar of geology’s hypothetical structure, namely, uniformitarianism with its teaching that “the present is the key to the past,” we notice here, too, serious problems.One might assume that it would be a simple matter to measure the annual rate of the formation of sediment today and then to calculate how long it would take to deposit the various thicknesses of sedimentary rock found on the earth. But this method presents many difficulties.Illustrating the problem are comments found on page 111 of the current textbook, Principles of Geology by Gilluly, Waters and Woodford. The authors there refer to a 500-foot thickness of chalk in the Paris Basin and go on to say: “The strata of chalk are composed of skeletons of minute animals and plants. Similar deposits are accumulating today at rates so slow as to defy precise measurement—certainly no more than a few millimeters per century and probably much less.”To complicate matters further, the rates of sedimentation in different places vary greatly, and few have been measured accurately. As to the thought of obtaining an annual average, the same publication points out that it “can only be guessed at.”There is another problem, too. The type of sediment being deposited today is unlike any that is found in the rock strata. The noted geologist Archibald Geikie commented on this in his Textbook of Geology as follows: “We know what are the leading characters of the accumulations now forming on the deeper parts of the ocean-floor. So far as we know, they have no analogues among the formations of the earth’s crust.”What of the impressive ages that geologists assign to their time scale based upon the decay of radioactive elements found in certain rocks? The publishers of this magazine have often pointed out that age determination by radioactive decay methods is fraught with uncertainties. One of the difficulties of assigning ages to rock strata by this means is referred to by Henry Faul, in his book, Ages of Rocks, Planets, and Stars: “Rocks that are suitable for age measurement and at the same time reliably correlated with the stratigraphic sequence are very rare.”Geologists have certainly proved woefully lacking with their time measurements based upon uniformitarianism and evolution. Far from the present geological processes being a key to the past, they “have no analogues” in the stratified formations of the earth. In fact, they cannot even be accurately measured. Besides that, rock layers are frequently found “upside-down” and “more of geologic time is represented by breaks than by strata.”How, then, did the huge masses of sedimentary rocks with their innumerable fossils get there?Strata Deposited RapidlyIn pursuing the answer it is interesting to note that the rock strata literally teem with fossils that show clear evidence of having been deposited rapidly.Scottish geologist Hugh Miller made painstaking investigations of a species of rock called the “old red sandstone” (part of the “Devonian” system in the geologic column). Miller took particular note of its abundance of fossil fish and the peculiar positions in which they are found’ entombed in the rock. What was his conclusion as to how they got there?On pages 221, 222 of The Old Red Sandstone Mr. Miller answers: “At this period of our history, some terrible catastrophe involved in sudden destruction the fish of an area at least a hundred miles from boundary to boundary. . . . The innumerable existences were annihilated at once.”Able geologists have drawn similar conclusions with regard to all the stratified rocks. British geologist Sir Henry Howorth in The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood pointed out that “Nature has at times worked with enormous energy and rapidity. . . . the rocky strata teem with evidence of violent and sudden dislocations on a great scale.”Evidence of catastrophe has been noticed not only in the stratified rocks, but also in the deposits that are on the surface of our globe. Time and again observers have been impressed at finding huge boulders sitting on top of the earth far from their sources. Some of these blocks, called “erratics,” weigh thousands of tons and apparently have traversed hundreds of miles of distance to their present locations.Modern geologists, proceeding according to the uniformitarian principle, usually say they were carried there on top of huge glaciers during lengthy ice ages of the so-called “Pleistocene” epoch. They allege that when the glaciers melted they left the boulders where we now find them.But there are many considerations that prove this theory to be unacceptable. One problem is that glaciers move only by force of gravity and, therefore, from higher elevations downward. However, the “erratic” boulders are frequently found at levels thousands of feet higher than their places of origin. To cite just one case, we find on the summit of Mr. Washington boulders of gray gneiss (a form of metamorphic rock) which were evidently carried there from a source “three to four thousand feet lower than their present elevation.”Harmony of Genesis and GeologyBut Bible students have often found that the Holy Scriptures provide satisfying solutions to problems left unsolved by scientific theories. In Genesis chapters six to eight we read of an earth-wide flood that brought an end to an era of wickedness. But would such a flood be equal to the task of uprooting and transporting the immense “erratic” boulders that we find strewn over the surfaces of the earth? Could it also account for the widespread destruction and sudden entombment in rocky matrices of countless thousands of organisms, great and small, that have been found in the fossil-bearing rocks?The above-quoted Sir Henry Howorth noted that over the entire length of Siberia some cause swept away, simultaneously, all forms of earthly life. What did he consider the cause to be?In search of the answer he wrote in The Mammoth and the Flood: “We want a cause that should kill the animals, and yet not break to pieces their bodies, or even mutilate them, . . . which would bury the bodies as well as kill the animals, . . . which could sweep together animals of different sizes and species, and mix them with trees and other debris of vegetation. What cause competent to do this is known to us, except rushing water on a great scale? . . . Water . . . is the only cause known to me capable of doing the work on a scale commensurate with the effects we see in Siberia.”How well this agrees with the inspired Word of Jehovah God! Indeed, how accurate the Bible is when it says: “And the waters became overwhelming and kept increasing greatly upon the earth . . . And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.”—Gen. 7:18, 19.Geology based on fact rather than guesswork supports the Bible record. From it we see clear evidence of the pre-Flood earth teeming with luxuriant vegetation and animal life having been suddenly plunged into watery destruction.But when geological textbooks confront us with a theoretical time apparatus based upon uniformitarianism and evolution we want to remember that the facts do not support this conjecture. No, but there are huge gaps in the “record of the rocks,” “upside-down” conditions of the strata, “evidence of violent and sudden dislocations on a great scale” and distribution of huge “erratic” boulders far from their native source. All these things unite in revealing the “geologic column” with its accompanying time scale to be just what it is—a hypothetical structure that does not represent the truth.
Marilyn,
Geology is hardly the only scientific basis on which common descent is based. It is, in fact, becoming increasingly unimportant as advances are made in radioactive dating, genetic analysis, etc. In archaeology, too, the bones and the layers in which they were found is increasingly less important as other techniques are brought to bear on them. You know what? They all point to common descent as the mechanism for adaptation. Some things for you to consider, if you’re an ID fan:
CancerCancers are caused either by a random mutation or a carcinogen. The mutation causes the mechanism that regulates cell growth to run wild. A mutation is one of the agents of evolution. If there is an intelligent god, why would a god create such a mutation?
AppendixesAppendixes have no useful purpose. They are vestigial organs. So why would an intelligent god design us with them?
ElbowsThere is a design flaw in the human elbow. The ulnar nerve is exposed at the tip of the humerus, just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called “striking the funny bone” (a pun on the name of the bone).
PenisesPrimates usually walk around on all fours. Because of this, the penis in primates is placed well out of harm’s way between the back legs. When higher primates began to walk upright, the penis was suddenly out in the open, in harm’s way, as any male who’s ever walked into the corner of a desk can tell you. Would an intelligent god hang the male reproductive organs out in front where they’re constantly susceptible to damage?
EmbryosHuman embryos ave tails and gill slits. So do all mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish embryos. Why design tails and gill slits at any point in human development? What purpose do they serve? Why should an intelligent god have or need them in developing embryos?
EyesFrom an engineering perspective the human eye is a terribly inefficient organ. The human eye has blind spots, and it suffers from the interference of blood vessels positioned in front of the nervous terminals, which can cause detachment of the retina. Squids, octopuses, and other cephalopod mollusks, have a very similarly constructed eye, but with the blood vessels positioned at the rear of the nervous terminals. Consequently, they do not suffer retinal detachment. Why would an intelligent god design squid eyes to be better than human eyes?
GoosebumpsGoosebumps are the result of contractions around hair follicles. In hairy primates these contractions served to cause the hair or fur to stand erect, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. In dangerous situations this reflex would also make the animal look larger and more intimidating to an attacker. Since humans have relatively little body hair compared to the other primates, goosebumps are another vestigial reflex we inherited from our primate ancestors that serves no purpose. Why would an intelligent god give humans a vestigal reflex?
KneesThe human knee is not well-designed for kneeling. Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa behind the patella, a condition known as “housemaid’s knee.” If an intelligent god really wanted you to kneel before him all the time, why would he make your knees fall apart when you do so?
Male NipplesAll male mammals have nipples. Obviously male nipples have no useful function. Male nipples are in fact worse than useless; they can be dangerous. Men can get breast cancer. Why would an intelligent god design male nipples? The simple biological-evolutionary answer to the existence of male nipples is that all human embryos are structurally female first, but later in fetal development the male hormones kick in and modify the feminine genital structures into the masculine. What is the simple “intelligent design” answer?
Prostate GlandThe urethra, essential for urination, runs through the prostate, which is vulnerable to infection. When the prostate becomes infected and swells, it pinches off the flow in the urethra, making urination painfully difficult. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Why would an intelligent god make such a mistake?
TailbonesTails are a nearly universal vertebrate feature, and are present in all vertebrate embryos. Humans and apes don’t have tails because prehensile tails are not necessary for primates who don’t live in trees. The tails of apes have gradually receded, leaving only a tiny bone on the pelvis, the coccyx. Occasionally people are born with vestigial tails. These are obvious throwbacks to our genetic ancestry. Why would an intelligent god make such a mistake?
TesticlesIn human males, the testes form inside the abdomen, then pass through the abdominal wall and down to the scrotum, thereby leaving two weak spots in the abdominal wall. This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin. Herniation both damages the intestine and cuts off or slows the blood flow to the affected testis. Why would an intelligent god use such poor design?
Vitamin CHumans must have vitamin C in their diets. Without it, we develop scurvy and eventually die. Interestingly, we have a gene for producing vitamin C ourselves; only it’s broken. It is what is known as a pseudogene, which is a broken gene that cannot produce protein. Why would an intelligent god give us the gene to make Vitamin C, a substance that we can’t live without, but then make sure it didn’t work? Why would an intelligent god design a broken gene at all? The gene for Vitamin C isn’t the only pseudogene you have, right now; every strand of DNA in your body is filled with them.
Human “Pseudogenes”German researchers have identified about 20,000 human “pseudo” genes—or look-alike genes—in the human genome and say the total number may be much higher. “We think we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg,” says Peer Bork of the European Molecular Biology Laboratories in Heidelberg, Germany, who led the study.
BFAH, I mentioned the broken gene issue too but I think I found the creationist solution. Scurvy was part of God’s perfect design because he thought long voyages on cruise ships was immoral. If he invented scurvy then people couldn’t go on luxury cruises and shows like Love Boat would never happen. Since Adam ate a piece of fruit in defiance of God’s prohibition on sailing we have fallen into a sinful world and now we have shuffleboard.
You see, creation science once again trumps you evil reality based scientists.
I don’t wish ill on you, but eternal burning in a non consuming fire just isn’t my cup of tea.Posted by: SolDevVB | May 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I sure wish you religious types could come up with a better version of hell. This burnin’ stuff is booorrring. (really stretch out the part between the “b” and the “ing” when you read that, so you can get an idea of just how boring any fires of hell are. it helps)
Donchyall and the ones who speak for or to or whatever to god ever take a break long enough to chat up somebody like Wes Craven? Because I think a guy like that could help.
Bein’ a social type, I have always been perfectly comfortable with Mark Twain’s old saw: “Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”
Also: what’s up with all the allusions to string theory?!? What’s that supposed to prove? Are you wantin’ a hug or just somebody to tell you you’re awful brainy for a guy who believes in an afterlife involving the non consuming fires of hell?
I would be real interested if you can use string theory to prove the existence of God. And hey, I bet here’s a BIG incentive for *you*: I bet the Creation Museum folk would go a fur piece toward buildin’ you a kinda spiritual asbestos suit if you could!
‘Course I’m less interested if you’re not an expert.
I’d settle for using string theory to prove the existence of hell, if it’ll help.
Sorry, BFAH, I was just mentally and emotionally reliving a moment when I walked into the corner of a desk.
What were you saying now?
Yeah, you show me somebody who doesn’t believe that every living vertebrate comes from a single common ancestor and the odds are overwhelming that I’ll show you a person who’s never taken a university course in vertebrate embryology.
Vertebrate embryology is pretty freaky what with all the gill slits and other vestigial organs that form and disappear — in humans, too.
Even a one-semester undergrad course is pretty powerful stuff.
Why do we even try to argue this with the Bible dogmatists? Their argument is “God created the light already on the way” to explain away 13.5 billion years of history and stick to their faith-based “young earth” myth. If they can explain lightspeed away, there is not a single fact they won’t be impervious to.
Yeah, I know, Tom, but like I mentioned earlier, it is like watching drunk people play Twister.
It really isn’t high-brow stuff, but it sure is funny watching them twist themselves into pretzels trying to win the game.
A may not be fact, rather prose poetry, beautifully describing the quandary in which we find ourselves.
“In the beginning…
It may not be fact, rather prose poetry, beautifully describing the quandary in which we find ourselves.
“In the beginning…
Let’s see…
God created the universe in 6 days and gave dinosaurs really sharp teeth so they could eat salad and frolic in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, as pets….
vs.
Evolution by natural selection and descent with modification.
Really, you don’t need a PhD to figure this one out.Thanks, AIG, but I’ll stick with evolution.
SIX DAYS?!? That’s how long it takes for “The Omnipotent God” to create this universe? Gee whiz, I’d look for a better Deity to worship, someone who can make everything in an instant. Lazy Christian God…
Actually the true story of creation is found only in the Gospel of Bob, the lost book of the bible that the government has been hiding in Dick Cheney’s sock drawer. It was written by the one true god himself in the original pig latin and decribes the creation of the entire universe last Thursday. The entire recorded history and knowledge that we have is really only memories implanted by a prankster god and his business partner, Satan. Everyone and everything in the universe is only one week old, anything that appears older was created to test our faith. Do not give into the temptation to believe Satan’s genesis myth (the talking snake was a hint) or join the secular progessives and their disturbing agenda of knowledge acquisistion. Do not fall prey to these evil tricks, lest you be forced to spend all eternity in the lukewarm pits of hell with nothing but Cool Ranch Doritos, Antiques Roadshow reruns and Celine Dion CDs.
The Gospel of Bob also displays for the first time god’s excellent sense of humor. The story of the creation of the Grand Canyon after god and his buddies returned home from a drunken binge and tried to write their names in the sand while urinating is hilarious.
: – ) WS…remember doing that as a kid??
: – )) very good, Scott!!
Lapin,”SIX DAYS?!? That’s how long it takes for “The Omnipotent God” to create this universe?”
For a really hip god, all it would take is to create matter, energy and space/time, or maybe space/time that creates it’s own matter and energy, and that first law of nature, from which all other laws of nature are corrolary, to set it all in motion. A 2 day job if he wanted to pad the bill.
Doug,If god created that broken gene to keep people from sinking on the Titanic, it worked worse than Bush’s Iraq war. We need to fire him and hire a god that’s at least halfway competent, one that could invent a better form of seasickness maybe, or juggle stars to disrupt navigation. We need a better god!
“Yeah, you show me somebody who doesn’t believe that every living vertebrate comes from a single common ancestor and the odds are overwhelming that I’ll show you a person who’s never taken a university course in vertebrate embryology.”
That statement is utterly worthless and means nothing
“Vertebrate embryology is pretty freaky what with all the gill slits and other vestigial organs that form and disappear — in humans, too.”
Human embrys never have “gill slits” I can not help but wonder how you did in this class, im assuming not well?
Shatterstar….your post
“God created the universe in 6 days and gave dinosaurs really sharp teeth so they could eat salad and frolic in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, as pets….
vs.
Evolution by natural selection and descent with modification.
Really, you don’t need a PhD to figure this one out.Thanks, AIG, but I’ll stick with evolution.”
Please quote any one from AIG or any other creationist for that matter that rejects natural selection or descent w mod….perhaps if you understood what creationism really is about your ignorance would not be so willfully shown. The difference is NOT within NS and descent as you proclaim but rather to the EXTENT to which NS occurs and how far back descent goes. Do a little research, it helps :)
BFAH
Your entire post asks questions like this:
“Would an intelligent god hang the male reproductive organs out in front where they’re constantly susceptible to damage?”
I ASSUME you have heard of Richard Dawkins…I thus assume you have read or at least heard about the blind watchmaker. Great book, one that should be read by all. Dawkins makes the same mistake. One cannot suppose this IS HOW GOD would have done because GOD, as many evolutionists readily point out is outside of science.
Thus, pretending to say how an ominous God “would have created” something borders on absurdity. Perhaps you should read How blind is the watchmaker by Neil Bloom for a better understanding.
In short, it is hypocritical for an evolutionist to harp about God being outside of the realm of science and then have the NERVE to testify how an ominous GOD would or would not do something.
Boy arrogance is bliss, a trait Dawkins portrays well. Especially found in his Climbing Mount Improbable book. In there he accurate comments how if one “discovered” Mount Rushmore one would be forced to conclude it was created by design. He then foregoes this logic a few paragraphs over and goes on to list why nature and organisms, more complex then Mount Rushmore which he points out, are not designed. The debate has simply turned to mathematics. Moreover math proves to be the savior for Creationism and the fatal blow to Darwinism. Instead of going on and on I will simple refer readers to the ID website or Lee Spetner’s book, Not By Chance. This book has the answers for the statistical probabilities of Darwinism…..well answers for those who choose to open their minds to accept it. To ACCEPT math :)
WSCLARK:
“Come on, Nathan. Instead of just attacking evolution, why can’t you just provide some scientific evidence that supports the claim of Intelligent Design.”
Typical evolutionary argument. Evolution is the current scientific dogma, thus it is being questioned. This notion that well until we have a better theory we must keep this old refuted idea is nonsense.
“If you want to debate, debate the facts……”
Gladly, and from glancing at a few of Nathan’s post he has done the same.”So far, you have produced nothing that would indicate that ID is real science.”
ID and darwinism are in the same boat. IF you consider one science then they are both science. Moreover the reality is they both lie outside the scope of science. Please show any scientific evidence, i.e. observable, repeatable, emperical that does not fit within the ID creationist framework but confirms Darwinism.
Please note, no need for long drawn out responses by 10 different ppl on this request. Lets see if we can get an honest debate going that doesnt get watered down by “hate” posts and long drawn out quotes. In your own words please.
Okay, KSW, a scientific theory requires peer-reviewed evidence to be considered valid. Contrary to some beliefs, a scientific theory is not just a wild ass guess.
So let’s start the debate with the ID or Creationists providing their sources for scientific peer reviewed evidence of same.
Post that and we can begin the debate.
Remember, we are NOT debating the validity of evolution, we are debating the validity of ID.
As I’ve posted before, a search of the peer-reviewed literature for the pat 10 years for papers supporting common descent versus those in favor of ID – 190,000:1.
What did George Tenet say about a slam dunk??
Let’s examine the matter, to exploit Nathan’s faith in God and dispute his claims, all the so-called Scientists have to do is state that his claims are false.
That sounds so very cosmos-like.
…and very unscientific.
“What did George Tenet say about a slam dunk??”
About Saddam having “Yellow Cake Uranium” from Niger { a complete fabrication, done by Tenet in a prearranged statement for Bush.
KSW, you claim creationism is science so I’d love to hear you present a testable model for creationism. In the Dover evolution case the judge asked the creationists if they had any scientific evidence for their position. Their answer was no. How can something be scientific when there’s no data in favor of their position but mountains of evidence opposing it?
As this thread has shown there is no evidence for creationism. If there was I’m sure a creationist would have presented some. I have a feeling you won’t be any different.
Trying to create “absolutes” in a perceived world is not possible.
Now, having said that, we do deal in “highest probabilities” in which case science wins over creationism.
The reason being logical sequencing.
WSclark
“Okay, KSW, a scientific theory requires peer-reviewed evidence to be considered valid.”
That is a very loose defintion of a scientific theory. Are you sure that is your defintion of a scientific theory?????
“Contrary to some beliefs, a scientific theory is not just a wild ass guess.”
WHO BELIEVES THIS, LOL!
“Remember, we are NOT debating the validity of evolution, we are debating the validity of ID.”
No, you are wrong. Moreover what are you referring to when you say “evolution”. This word has many different meanings, so if you are referring to Darwinism, the idea all organisms share a common ancestor please use the term darwinism. IF by “Evolution” one is means changes in the genetic and physiological attributes of an organism, then this is widely accepted. I have yet to read any ID or Creationist’s who rejects this notion. Please show examples of how this conflicts with creationism or ID
DOUG
“KSW, you claim creationism is science so I’d love to hear you present a testable model for creationism.”
Ummm, did you ACTUALLY read my post…this is a reoccuring problem in the GD, people read want they want to read and hear what they want to hear.
My post from earlier
“ID and darwinism are in the same boat. IF you consider one science then they are both science. Moreover the reality is THEY BOTH LIE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE. Please show any scientific evidence, i.e. observable, repeatable, emperical that does not fit within the ID creationist framework but confirms Darwinism.” –emphasis mine
Now WHERE EXACTLY do I argue creationism is science????
Doug, you either did NOT read my post and thus made an ignorant comment about my stance on creatonism OR you deliberately misrepresented my beliefs for your own argument. Which one is it?
What is the point of discussing the “scientific theory of Intelligent Design” if you are not going to provide scientific evidence, Mr. Wolverine?
And from Wiki…..
“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.”
I would be more than happy to discuss ID or Creationism with you, but your merely offering criticism of evolution is not proving ID or Creationism.
If you have some evidence to back your claim for ID, I would love to see it. Until then, there is no point to this discussion.
Remember “A Few Good Men” when Jack Nicholson says: ‘You live under the blanket of freedom in which I provide, and then question the way in which I provide it.’
It can easily be restated as:’You live with the technological advances I provide, and then question the way in which I provide them.’
How can anyone separate the complex of techniques, data, observations, and experiments – all of which support common descent – from the rest of science – thermodynamics, particle physics, geology, biology, biochemistry, genetics – and the technologies associated with these subjects – radioactive dating, gene sequencing, genetic fingerprinting… – and claim that all these techniques “work” everywhere but in the field of evolutionary biology? Amazing…
Guess we’re not as evolved as we’d like to think…
Some of us, BFAH, just some of us have not fully evolved.
WSClark
“What is the point of discussing the “scientific theory of Intelligent Design” if you are not going to provide scientific evidence, Mr. Wolverine?”
Perhaps you should reread my stance on creationism and darwinism….im not sure how much more simpler I can make it. NEITHER are scientific theories.
“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.”
Ok I would agree with this. Neither ID nor Darwinism fits this critera. Thus neither are scientific theories. Again Im not sure how much simpler I can make this.
“I would be more than happy to discuss ID or Creationism with you, but your merely offering criticism of evolution is not proving ID or Creationism.”
When did I ever set out to “prove” ID…perhaps you should not fall into Doug’s trap and just assume something….
“If you have some evidence to back your claim for ID, I would love to see it. Until then, there is no point to this discussion.”
See above
BFAH
“How can anyone separate the complex of techniques, data, observations, and experiments – all of which support common descent – from the rest of science -”
Another reader made a claim about absolutes in our world is not possible. People reading these posts take notes, any time someone uses ALL or everyone be VERY VERY cautious of this shady tactic.
I can only assuming BFAH that you reject the hundreds even thousand of scientists who reject darwinism…the problem lies in a quantifiable theory and a historic theory. Even Ernest Mayr, the Darwin of our time, readily admits the difference between theories in evolutionary biology and theories in the hard sciences like chemistry, physics, etc…
Well, Mr. Wolverine, YOU may not think that evolution is a valid scientific theory, but the scientific community sees it as such. I do not know what scientific discipline your doctorate is in, but virtually all bona fide scientists are convinced of the validity of the theory as documented.
I will take their word for it, not being a scientist myself.
The thread is about a “Creation Museum” in northern Kentucky. If you are not interested in debating ID or Creationism, then there is no point in this discussion.
Evolution as a scientific theory has literally thousands upon thousands of books, papers and reports to back it up. There is no point is rehashing it to satisfy your ego. Finding a minor flaw in a theory does not disprove the theory as a whole.
Thanks to talkorigins.org, here is just a small sampling of independent verifications for common descent:
# Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).# Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).# Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).# Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).# Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella “fit these predictions closely” (Mallatt and Chen 2003).# Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).# Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005)
Just for fun, who/what is the “intelligence” in ID. If the answer is not God, doesn’t this lead one to an infinite regression back to God? And if the intelligence is God, then whose conception of God? Hindus have creation stories too. Can you “test” one set of creationist claims against another?
Thanks to talkorigins.org, here is just a small sampling of independent verifications for common descent:
# Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).# Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).# Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).# Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).# Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella “fit these predictions closely” (Mallatt and Chen 2003).# Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).# Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005)
Just for fun, who/what is the “intelligence” in ID. If the answer is not God, doesn’t this lead one to an infinite regression back to God? And if the intelligence is God, then whose conception of God? Hindus have creation stories too. Can you “test” one set of creationist claims against another?
Sorry for the double post
BFAH – Perhaps you have not read my other posts, no creationist that I know of has problems with descent or NS. Just to the extent to which they are applied
WSCLARK – Oh I am aware of the creationist museum near Cincy OHIO, I have donated money to the project :) You have made several rants about creationism and the proof thereof…I have pointed out that neither creationism nor Darwinism are scientific theories…There are hundreds, EVEN thousands of scientists who REJECT Darwinism, whether you choose to accept this or not is up to you. Moreover, you appeal to the majority is hardly an air tight move especially in a debate about historical theories. Least we not remember that people in Dariwn’s time were making the same dogmatic statements you currently are, except they were on the other side. Perhaps its time people quit hiding behind dogma and DEBATE the facts!
Wolverine,
Again I will point to the fact that there has only been 1 peer reviewed paper supporting ID published in the last 10 years. There may be many scientists who accept creationism/ID, but they have, as yet, been unable to publish anything of merit to support it.
Apparently you are not a believer in reductionism. You seem to be of the opinion that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”. This is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Complex systems cannot, by their very nature, be understood or modeled in a simple way – climate models for example, involve some of the most complicated and hard to solve coupled partial differential equations one can imagine. THeir predictions are often wrong. This does not make the underlying science wrong…it means that we have either simplified to too great an extent or we haven’t as yet identified all mechanisms involved or we have modeled some mechanisms wrongly. Fluid dynamics is much the same…the Navier-Stokes equations are accepted by virtually every scientist as describing fluid motion under all sets of boundary and initial conditions, but the equations are still too difficult to solve for many flow problems even on todays best and fastest computers.
Human embrys never have “gill slits” I can not help but wonder how you did in this class, im assuming not well?Posted by: kswolverine | June 03, 2007 at 01:13 AM
MId-90s A, and I worked like a dog to get it. Problem is that I took this course in 1979 so I’m afraid all that remains vivid in my memory is that this course, coupled with a human genetics course I took within a semester of VE, pretty much destroyed any lingering doubts I had about common descent (and it’s the only embryology course I ever took; at one time I thought I was headed for med school).
So have you taken a university course in comparative embryology?
Wolverine,
Yeah, a lot of scientists reject Darwinism, so what? Define what you mean by darwinism. It would be far more palatable if you changed “darwinism” to “common descent”. darwinism is one explanation for the mechanism of common descent.
“I have pointed out that neither creationism nor Darwinism are scientific theories”
And I have pointed out that the scientific community consider EVOLUTION to be a valid theory, whereas they do NOT consider the theological theory of Creationism to be a SCIENTIFIC theory.
You can say it as often as you want – evolution meets the criteria for theory status and ID does not.
And it is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, not Darwinism. The work that Darwin did is merely a small part of the larger theory of evolution.
And, if this is true, there should be no problem with you producing the peer-reviewed documentation, right?
“There are hundreds, EVEN thousands of scientists who REJECT Darwinism”
So, where is the DOCUMENTATION?
Pedant -
Darwin devotes Chapter 13 in the Origin to talking about embryology and how the facts of embryology alone would be enough to convince him that evolution were true. (pg 374) But yet, studies in embryology since Darwin’s time have not strengthened evolution. There are just too many examples where the embryo does not repeat the stages of his past ancestors. The human embryo for example develops its tongue at an early stage in their development, but it is only when the child is a few months old that they starts growing teeth. Yet, our supposed ancestors are said to have evolved their teeth first and then their tongue. Moreover, the idea that a human embryo goes from a single cell organism, to a fish, an amphibian, a mammal, a monkey, and then a human has been demonstrational shown to be false. Futhermore the idea that human embryos have “gill silts” has been been shown to be wrong. (See the works of Embryologist Wayne Friar for further info)
Anyone who still sticks to this old argument, is no longer dealing with science, but have entered the realm of the dogma, where evidence and reason takes a back seat.
“There are hundreds, EVEN thousands of scientists who REJECT Darwinism”
Where do they do this? In a bar? Or a church?
Certainly sounds like idle bar chat.
“Anyone who still sticks to this old argument, is no longer dealing with science, but have entered the realm of the dogma, where evidence and reason takes a back seat.”
That sounds like a great description of ID and Creationism.
Actually, that pretty much is THE description of Creationism.
Sure, kswolverine.
So have you taken a university course in comparative embryology?
WSCLARK -
“There are hundreds, EVEN thousands of scientists who REJECT Darwinism”
So, where is the DOCUMENTATION?
Have you been to AIG,True origins or designinference.com
There are many examples of scientists who reject scientists. Do you really need me to copy and paste the links on here?????
Pedant – yes I have taken a course on embryology :) Do you retract your erroneous statement about the gill slits?
Most really good scientific work is done in bars, Pedant. Why, just the other day, I was in this bar, when in walked a Scientist, a Priest and a Platypus……..
yes I have taken a course on embryology :) Do you retract your erroneous statement about the gill slits?Posted by: kswolverine | June 03, 2007 at 05:08 PM
A university course in comparative embryology? Did you study invertebrate or vertebrate? Or both?
And yes, I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about gill slits in human embryos. I seem to remember something like that, but I’m too lazy right now to look it up.
“There are many examples of scientists who reject scientists.”
You said that there were THOUSANDS of scientists – so it should be INCREDIBLY EASY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF ID! You say that these scientists REJECT (evolution) so what the Hell do they believe?
Christ, just produce one, itsy bitsy teeny weeny piece of evidence for ID.
Just one. Only one.
Damn, that should be easy.
The most significant thing that Darwin has contributed (not his theories) is that his evolution premise allowed millions to be able to become atheists.
Quite a legacy I say. Leave hundreds of millions if not Billions to be Godless puppets of some ancestral slime or a tongue flitting lizard.
Wolverine,
You need to catch up a bit on your science.
“Haeckel’s theory is encapsulated in his memorable aphorism, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” also called the biogenetic law. What that means is that development (ontogeny) repeats the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the organism – that if we evolved from a fish that evolved into a reptile that evolved into us, our embryos physically echo that history, passing through a fish-like stage and then into a reptile-like stage. How could this happen? He argued that evolutionary history was literally the driving force behind development, and that the experiences of our ancestors were physically written into our hereditary material. This was a logical extension of his belief in Lamarckian inheritance, or the inheritance of acquired characters. If the activity of an organism can be imprinted on its genetics, then development could just be a synopsis of the activities of the parents and grandparents and ever more remote ancestors. This was an extremely attractive idea to scientists; it’s as if development were a time machine that allowed them to look back into the distant past, just by studying early stages of development.
Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong.”
Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way gill slits can serve as evidence for evolution.
Walk on by……..
Jesus, pharyngeal pouches. Just the words bring back memories of box upon box of slides (pigs, frogs, Drosophila fruit fly embryos, at various stages of development) and living with all that damn glass until 10pm each night. For a semester.
>groan<
You know, I bet for med students who were Biology majors there’s a scale return to efficiency in studying anatomy, given that they’ve all had to learn a ton of pig, frog, and fruitfly anatomy just to get to med school. Rigorous study of human anatomy can’t seem like new territory for ‘em.
Yeah, pharyngeal pouches.
Well, to sum up. kswolverine has failed to introduce any new evidence for creationism here.
In fact, his “argument” here so far is a sorry old one, straight out of the GOP playbook: say whatever it takes to cast enough doubt on Darwin’s theories to separate them from the weakest minds present, and harvest those weak-minded souls for ID or, in the best case, for creationism.
I guess your side has no problem with linking Jesus up forever with creationism. Good luck with that strategy.
Yawn.
KSwolverine responds but no testable model for creationism presented. Looks like he was wrong about creationism and science being on the same level. It’s pretty typical for a creationist to boast and make claims but never actually support those claims.
As for Darwinism, I’m sure I’ve never ran into a Darwinist although the creationists claim there are many of them. I have yet to meet one person who worships Darwin. However these are claims made by creationists so I shouldn’t expect that those claims will actually be supported by facts.
Keep on lying creationists, your religion is showing.
“You say that these scientists REJECT (evolution) so what the Hell do they believe?”
LOL, please, ive asked this before but it does not seem to do any GOOD. READ WHAT I WRITE, I never said REJECT “evolution”…..in fact I have asked you to use the correct term Darwinism……but u seemingly do not. I wonder why?
“Christ, just produce one, itsy bitsy teeny weeny piece of evidence for ID.”
Again, LOL NS and descent are both “proof” of ID as much as they are Darwinism…..your constant refusal to address this goes on to show your dogmatic attutide. Perhaps one day you will be opened minded to examine the evidence :)
BFAH soooooo we agree they are not gill slits………lol ummmm this proves I need to catch up on my science how?????? Nice try
Pedant
“I guess your side has no problem with linking Jesus up forever with creationism. Good luck with that strategy.”
WHEN HAVE I EVER mentioned JESUS…..Im sorry but this has been one of the worst debates ever. Time and time again people have made reference to generic commments that I have not mentioned and often do not even believe….WOW I guess I was expecting too much in this room, but come on, AT LEAST try and address comments I have made. ITs like some of ya’ll have cookie cutter answers ready and are just posting whatever you feel like! COME ON!!!!
Doug –
Please answer this post. Failure to do so will show everyone your “true colors”
My post from earlier
“ID and darwinism are in the same boat. IF you consider one science then they are both science. Moreover the reality is THEY BOTH LIE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE. Please show any scientific evidence, i.e. observable, repeatable, emperical that does not fit within the ID creationist framework but confirms Darwinism.” –emphasis mine
Now WHERE EXACTLY do I argue creationism is science????
Doug, you either did NOT read my post and thus made an ignorant comment about my stance on creatonism OR you deliberately misrepresented my beliefs for your own argument. Which one is it?
Welcome to WE Blog kswolverine and the land of the Lib bloggers.
They start out their answers with “you have failed to prove” or “some insult” or “look at my list of peer-reviewed blah blah.” All of which they cannot support by standing on their own hind legs.
Of course, they will say you failed, without even giving you the benefit explaining how you failed in a logical manner.
Insert Lib phrase here or a few curse words and you have 90 percent of the Lib answer to everything. Oh yeah, no matter what it is, there will be a “Bush” comment in there.
Walk on by…………
Wow, are all blogs this bad Republican?
I expected to run into some dogmatic people but WOW not only are some flat out ignoring my comments but some are attributing wrong comments to me. That is just horribly wrong……and very sad
Kswolverine,
Please define “Darwinism” for me. There seems to be some confusion about what you mean by that term. Like other posters, I’ve never met anyone who has claimed to be a “Darwinist.”
Actually, some of the science blogs are quite good at discussing the issues without ad hominem. They can get testy when some PhD contests the other ones theories, but generally a solid discussion group.
There are tons of them out there. Peruse a few and find one to your liking and jump in. Some of it can get pretty deep for a layperson, but most of the “pros” are willing to discuss what you may not understand or unclear about.
Political blogs, well unless you go with one of your own values and ideology, you just become fish bait.
Then there are very specialized blogs, Like 1955-1957 Chevrolet Blogs.
You have an interest, there is a blog out there for you.
Thanks for the info Republican…Ill have to check some other blogs out.
Tom- you need to read earlier posts. I will repeat it here but from now on a little research will save some space here on the blogs. My view on the term “evolution”:
“This word has many different meanings, so if you are referring to Darwinism, the idea all organisms share a common ancestor please use the term darwinism. IF by “Evolution” one is means changes in the genetic and physiological attributes of an organism, then this is widely accepted. I have yet to read any ID or Creationist’s who rejects this notion. Please show examples of how this conflicts with creationism or ID”
Kswolverine,
I tried to be as polite as possible in my question, and you answered with condescending bullshit. Thanks so much for your consideration.
Republank,
“Political blogs, well unless you go with one of your own values and ideology, you just become fish bait.”
And Republank gives THAT advice because… wait for it… he cannot support his opinions with any credible facts, and/or science.
kswolverine,
you need to catch up on your science because you seem to attribute to both common descent and ID the same virtues/faults. This is clearly nonsense. As I said before, if the “intelligence” in Id is not God, then all one needs do is regress the argument back to God, and once we’ve reached God, we have left the realm of scientific inquiry and entered into metaphysics.
With regard to “darwinism”, “evolution”, “common descent” etc, as with all science one must be as precise as one can be in defining what one means. Many terms are used both in colloquial language and in scientific terms- often with vastly different meanings. “Action” and “reaction” are good examples, as are “energy” and “force”.
As I mentioned, darwinism is a particular explanation for common descent. Common descent is an experimental fact that stands independent of any theory that attempts to explain it – just as an apple falls to the ground with or without Newton’s postulates.
What proof of common descent is there? Take these, for example, ALL independent of any model or theory:
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendents of two separate diploid parent species.
AND
” In almost all dioecious species (species with two sexes), the sex ratio is 0.5. There are 1/2 males and 1/2 females. In most species,the Mendelian rules of inheritance explain mechanistically why this is so. For example, in humans the offspring from any one mating has a 50 percent chance of being male or female. This is because the male sperm has a 50 percent chance of containing a Y chromosome and a 50 percent chance of containing an X chromosome. Female eggs only contain X chromosomes. Individuals that are XX are female, individuals that are XY are male. Given any initial sex ratio, the next generations sex ratio will be 0.5. (the proof is left as an exercise to the reader) The only exception to this would be a sex ratio of 1 or 0. An all male or all female population has no hope of regaining a balanced sex ratio.
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
The authors of a recent paper put this to the test by studying the Atlantic silverside fish Menidia menidia. This fish has an unusual life cycle in that, during the early months of the year mostly female offspring are produced. In the summer months mostly males are produced. The bias in the sex of the offspring is induced by the water temperature. Female offspring are produced while the water is cold, males while it is warm. The sex ratio across the whole year balances out to 0.5. This sex bias is caused by temperature dependent sex determination, not temperature dependent sex mortality. In other words cold water makes baby female fish form, it doesn’t kill male baby fish. The same embryo could be male or female depending on the temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not influence the sex ratio in this species.)
The authors captured hundreds of these fish and maintained them in aquaria for five to six years. Some aquaria were maintained at low temperatures, others at high temperatures. In the low temp aquaria, the populations began with mostly females. The sex ratio , for example, in one low temp tank was 0.70 (70% female) In the high temperature aquaria, the populations began with mostly males. In one of the low tanks the sex ratio was 0.18. Both of these, given the population sizes, are significantly different than 0.50.
As the experiment progressed, the sex ratios changed from the highly skewed initial conditions. In all the populations the sex ratios converged on 0.5. The trajectory of the sex ratios converging on 0.5 differed between many of the tanks. In one tank, the next and all subsequent generations were at an 0.5 sex ration. In another, it slowly converged upon 0.5. In yet another it reached 0.5, then overshot slightly, then returned. This indicates that a sex ratio of 0.5 is somehow adaptive (there is a lot of theory as to why this may be – I may bore you with it later some time) because the fish evolved from a skewed ratio to a balanced ratio. Since chromosome assortment does not determine sex in these fish (temp does), the only explanation for their convergence to 0.5 is natural selection favored fish that produced an abnormal amount of the minority sex. (If males are lacking, any fish that produces male fish will contribute more than average to the gene pool). This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool.
Finally, notice that evolution has occured. The experiment started with populations of fish that produced skewed sex ratios and ended with populations that produced balanced sex rations. Since the environment was held constant, the change in the populations was therefore genetic. In other words, the gene pool changed over time. This is the definition of evolution.”
So, now where do I find the corresponding physical evidence for creationism? If there is none, can you explain again how common ID/creationism is on as solid a ground as common descent, or how common descent is on as shaky ground as ID?
Is there any course of study in the human condition where the “standard” that’s attacked is over 150 years old?
But that’s what the creationists and ID advocates attack: “Darwinism.”
Get a clue. Darwin started the discussiion and inspired the scientific investigation. But “Darwinism” (a term creationists shy away from actually defining) is the ultimate straw man.
Non-scientists seem to think that dissent somehow discredits scientific theory. In fact, it’s dissent, and questioning, and investigation that proves the validity of scientific discoveries.
Creationists and “Intelligent” Design advocates want The answer. Science exists to question. Until the Apollo astronaut simultaneously dropped a feather and a lead ball on the moon, there were plenty of scientists who questioned Galileo’s theory that gravity in a vacuum was a constant force. There are screwball physicists who’ve dedicated their careers to a postulate that light does not emit, but there are thinks called “Dark Sinks” — the shadow of an elm tree, it hides dark from the sun; a light bulb doesn’t emit light, it merely sucks all the dark out of a room.
It’s silly. But it’s science. Science exists to question.
Religion exists to come up with ultimate answers. And it’s really easy to decide “God did it.” I mean, who are *you* to argue with God?!
Science is an intellectual enterprise, a process that has specific rules and standards. One of those rules is you can’t insert “God” into the equation. It’d be like invoking the Infield Fly Rule into a football game.
“Intelligent” Design or so-called Creation “Science” doesn’t want to play by the rules of science.
Attack the theories of Darwin, of evolution, of common origin, et al. Do it all you want! That’s what science is all about! Prove your point and you’ll advance science. But you can’t insert an “Intelligent” Designer into the math without scientific evidence anymore than you can assert 2 + 2 = 5 because “God” says so. Hey, maybe “God” can make 2 + 2 = 5, but before you can claim it, you’ve got to show his work.
The only-est reason why this is an issue in Kansas is because creationists/religionists want to change the rules of science. They want to invoke the Infield Fly Rule into a football game.
Science has its rules. It’s a limited investigation into reality, but it’s served us well. If you want to introduce creationism or “Intelligent” Design into any scientific discussion, you’ve got to provide scientific evidence of an “Intelligent” Designer.
If you want to discuss “Intelligent” Design in a Comparative Religion class, groovy. If it’s a segment in a literature class that explores the many mythologies that have shaped civilization, fine. But just as Geometry class isn’t different if you’re twice-born or an athiest, science class has no place for “Intelligent” Design unless you can come up with *scientific* evidence of an “Intelligent” Designer.
There’s a passage in the Bible (1st Kings, I think) that should lead the faithful to belive the the Circumference of a circle equals the Square of a Radius times *3*; not “pi,” 3.142……..Funny how Biblical literalists have shied away from imposing scripture on math classes, isn’t it?
Wolverine, I completely agree, creationism isn’t science and evolution is science. I still don’t know what you mean by Darwinism, but that’s besides the point. Apparently soon loonies on this forum have yet to move into the 19th century and accept the fact the Lamark’s theories on evolution are no longer supported by the scientific evidence which shows that heredity is passed through DNA by means of natural selection. They seem to think there’s some magic man who waves a wand and fully formed being just appear out of nowhere.
Sorry I may have implied that you thought the scientific fact of evolution was on par with the religious ideology of creationism but I just tend to skim posts in the hopes that a creationist will actually present something worth reading.
I think the Creation Museum sounds like ALOT of fun, ……..if we smoke a lid of pot beforehand and can laugh as much as we want at the degree to which these strange so-called Christians who are the antithesis of that which they believe they are are will to humiliate themselves…..If Christopher hitchens smokes, it’d be especially fun to walk through it with Chris!..and I haven’t smoked in years!…..but this museum has got me thinking about it…maybe we could put an ad in underground newspapers for like a huge tour of pot smokers to make a guided or non-guided visit. …If someone does it please invite me!
Point of fact.
Kswolverine has been on this blog before discussing evolution/creation. He (I presume a he) for some reason has the idea that the “correct” term for “the” theory that living organisms come from a common descent is “Darwinism”.
Kswolverine: “This word has many different meanings, so if you are referring to Darwinism, the idea all organisms share a common ancestor please use the term darwinism. IF by “Evolution” one is means changes in the genetic and physiological attributes of an organism, then this is widely accepted. I have yet to read any ID or Creationist’s who rejects this notion. Please show examples of how this conflicts with creationism or ID”
I remember this claim from before. To be blunt: You yourself are incorrectly using the terms. True enough; evolution does mean changes in alleles and the organism over time. However, the current theories of evolution (note the plural) and especially the Modern Synthesis all emphasize the idea of common descent. “Darwinism” is used by various religious conservatives and evolution critics, and somewhat in popular culture. It is not used to label a scientific theory or position. The correct scientific term for Darwin’s theory of evolution is Natural Selection. “Darwinism” is NOT considered THE correct term for the idea of common descent. Therefore, to claim that people who use the term “evolution” when meaning common descent are incorrect in using that word instead of “Darwinism” is in itself an incorrect claim.
BF-
“you seem to attribute to both common descent and ID the same virtues/faults. This is clearly nonsense.”
Why is this clearly nonsense, because you happend to disagree with it. They are both historical theories and both are theroies that lie outside the scope of science.
“once we’ve reached God, we have left the realm of scientific inquiry and entered into metaphysics.”
You need to read Robert Jastrow. He is an atheist who talks about “climing mount improbable”. Ulitmately science has limits. There are some theories/ideas that lie outside the scope of science. Those which cannot be repeated, not emperical nor observable. The history of life is such a theory. Science has limits, to pretend otherwise is ignorance. To agrue that one historical theory can be quanitfied and measured while another cannot is dishonest.
You use God and assoicate it with ID while at the same time giving “time” these same attributes. In short instead of giving credit to God you have given credit to randomness, to “time”. In Darwinism time is GOD. As Jastrow says:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
In short you are trying to seperate two theories that are forever linked. If one is a scientific theory the other one is equally, if one is not than neither are, it all goes down to how you define science and the limits you are willingly to admit.
“Common descent is an experimental fact that stands independent of any theory that attempts to explain it”
It all depends on your definition of common descent. If you mean the fact the speciation occurs, yes this has been observed and repeated. I have not read anyone who doubts this, hence my arguement that it fits within the ID framework. However, IF by CD you mean this idea we all evolved from a single cell organism millions of years ago then NO, this HAS NOT been repeated and has NOT been observed.
To illustrate this look at the Origin. The firs two chapters of The Origin are titled: Variation Under Domestication and Variation Under Nature. Therein lays the main argument behind Darwin’s view.
Darwin observed how organisms vary in nature and he observed how man had harnessed this ability for man’s own benefit. Darwin referred to this trait as artificial selection, which was the basis for Darwin’s dangerous idea or extrapolation: Natural Selection. With natural selection however, Darwin, proclaimed it an unguided, random process that had no real purpose. Artificial selection is nothing of this sort though. Artificial Selection is an intellectual guided, predetermined event. In fact, it is more appropriately called Intelligent Selection, since knowledge is used to carefully select those traits that can be beneficial to man.
In Intelligent Selection, nothing is left to chance; farmers did not and have not relied on randomness to maximize their crops output. They have always used knowledge and skill. Darwin used Intelligent Selection for establishing the basis of natural selection, proclaiming that he named it natural selection “in order to mark its relation man’s power of selection.” Pg 53
However, since Intelligent Selection requires knowledge, order, and guidance it can hardly be used to support Darwin’s dangerous extrapolation: Natural Selection, a random, unguided process. Darwin repeatedly says that if man could do so much in his short time-span, than imagine what Nature could do through it’s long time-span: “I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of coadaptions between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by NATURE’S POWER OF SELECTION.” Pg 91
However since Intelligent Selection is so different, or even more accurately the opposite of Natural Selection, it cannot be used as evidence for Darwin’s dangerous extrapolation. Thus, Darwin’s chief example for his theory is null and void.
“The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?”
Again this question fits well within EITHER framework. That fact that organsims adapt and “evolve” fits BOTH theories. I fail to see what this proves.You say “the same embryo could be male or female depending on the temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not influence the sex ratio in this species.)” Ok, again HOW does this NOT fit within the ID framework????
“Finally, notice that evolution has occured. The experiment started with populations of fish that produced skewed sex ratios and ended with populations that produced balanced sex rations. Since the environment was held constant, the change in the populations was therefore genetic. In other words, the gene pool changed over time. This is the definition of evolution.”
Again I reiterate, who doubts this? Please show me one Creationist or ID proponent who rejects this? The problem AGAIN is with your definition. You have just described changes in a population due to various factors, this time temperature of water. Various other factors influence populations of fish, insects, monkeys and humans day after day. This sort of change has been documented. I HAVE YET to read or hear of any ID or C who rejects this or questions this. The problem has to do with a term called genetic homeostasis. Mayr I belive coined this word to describe the plasticity of organisms. Moreover, to account for the reason scientists cannot induce the dramatic changes found in Darwinism. Why organisms have a limit to the amount of change they can endure.
In short, the theory accounts for why scientists do not see the dramatic changes such as a single cell organism evolving into a multi cellar being. Only TIME can accomplish this or so the idea goes. But how do we know this; how do we know TIME can do what scientists have NOT been able to do???? Well…..it MUST because we are here. Thus because complex beings are here TIME must have been able to accomplish what has NOT even been close to repeated in the lab today. TIME has been given attributes of a deity. Whether you call it God or Time the bottom line science has not been able to answer where complex organisms came from. Moreover science CANNOT answer this question because it a theory that is not repeatable, observable or empirical.
“So, now where do I find the corresponding physical evidence for creationism?”
Same evidence you just used fits within creationism.
KSang
“I remember this claim from before.”
Thats good maybe you are learning a little bit.
“True enough; evolution does mean changes in alleles and the organism over time. However, the current theories of evolution (note the plural) and especially the Modern Synthesis all emphasize the idea of common descent.”
OK, we agree.
” “Darwinism” is used by various religious conservatives and evolution critics, and somewhat in popular culture.”
Darwinism is a term found in evolutioary works too, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr etc…. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
“It is not used to label a scientific theory or position.”
Incorrect. To quote Mayr:”According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a populational phenomenon and therefore should be gradual and continuous. This should be true not only for microevolution but alas for macroevolution and the transition between the two. Alas, this seems to be in conflict with observation” -What Evolution IS pg 188
Darwinian theory was founded upon Mathus’s views on economics and social situations. Moreover a fact that Darwin freely admits in his works. There are many other examples of scientists who refer to Darwinism…..try google. But rest assured your comment about Darwinism only being used by “various religious conservatives and evolution critics” is flat out wrong.
“The correct scientific term for Darwin’s theory of evolution is Natural Selection.”
NS is the description of how nature acts. This theory fits well within ID. Moreover there is a debate going on about what NS describes and the predictive value of it. However, that is an argument for another date and time. The bottom line, NS fits well within ID. If you disagree. please show how it does not
“”Darwinism” is NOT considered THE correct term for the idea of common descent. Therefore, to claim that people who use the term “evolution” when meaning common descent are incorrect in using that word instead of “Darwinism” is in itself an incorrect claim.”
As I have posted many times:
“This word has many different meanings, so if you are referring to Darwinism, the idea all organisms share a common ancestor please use the term darwinism. IF by “Evolution” one is means changes in the genetic and physiological attributes of an organism, then this is widely accepted. I have yet to read any ID or Creationist’s who rejects this notion. Please show examples of how this conflicts with creationism or ID”
This statement is true. Futhermore CD and NS fit well within the ID framework.
kswolverine,
Let’s start with a simple definition of what we’re trying to do…we’re trying to postulate a mechanism to explain the similarities yet wide variety of creatures to be found, without, at the same time, violating any of the known laws of physics, chemistry, or any scientific discipline. In addition, our explanation must explain the things we can touch, and see and smell and hear….we must also not make any appeal to God. Finally, we must be ready to modify or even trash our hypothesis if another one fits better.
If we agree then we can continue. ASince you’re claiming the same status for both, this should be no obstacle.
Now, instead of criticizing the evolutionary hypothesis, ID/creationists must either perform experiments which clearly outpredict those from common descent, or which explain the known facts better. If this cannot be done, then it’s an admission that ID is either inferior as an explanation or not science.
Given this, I’d ask the same simple questions I’ve asked before:
1) Men have nipples. The biological explanation for this is that all embryos start out as females and at a certain time during gestation future male children are exposed to hormones which make them outwardly “male”. Of course, male breasts and nipples can be subject to cancer…not a very wise design…and cancer is caused by mutations…the same mutations postulated in common descent. This has been studied ad infinitum. If there is an intelligent designer, what is the counter-explanation for male nipples, mutations, and cancer?
Several speciation events have occurred…macroevolutionarily speaking…for example
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.
Now as soon as you offer up an ID explanation for the above or post information on other experiments that make the ID explanation better and testable, we’ll have something to talk about.
Otherwise, if you’re unwilling to modify aspects of your ID hypothesis in light of certain evidence that is hard to explain, you prove without too much effort that ID is not a scientific theory.
“Now as soon as you offer up an ID explanation for the above or post information on other experiments that make the ID explanation better and testable, we’ll have something to talk about.”
HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain.
Good question. Back atcha..is there anything that isn’t explainable by an appeal to ID? In other words…not science.
Take note to all those reading, how BFAH has not answered my questions regarding HOW these examples do not FIT within ID or creationism. Moreover, speciation is readily accepted by almost all proponents of ID and C….I have yet to have of any who argue againist it.
Good question…
Now one for you…Is there any fact that isn’t explainable by ID?
Also, is ID a better explanation than common descent, even with its flaws? By better, I guess we’d have to agree that we somehow are able to use one theory or another productively or to explain other facts. Genetic fingerprinting, mutations in flu viruses, improved selective breeding of animals..have all occurred based on evolutionary ideas…plus I can cite lots of other experiments that fit pretty well with the hypothesis.
Now, what has ID produced from these observations, or, what does it explain better than evolution?
Finally, who is the intelligent designer? If he is not god, then he was also “intelligently designed”,,,and so on and so on until one reaches God. So is the designer God?
The hallmarks of ID are characteristics so omplex and stupefying that they can only logically be the result of a purposeful design. Surely, God is the most complex and stupefying concept we have, and yet you would claim he is “outside” the realm of intelligent design. So, ultimately, you bugger off on the whole “theory”. You accept ID when it suits and reject it when it doesn’t.
Pedant – yes I have taken a course on embryology :)Posted by: kswolverine | June 03, 2007 at 05:08 PM
Hate to belabor the point too much, but I’m really not getting your clear answer to my question.
Please allow me to try again.
Have you taken at least one university (yes or no) course in comparative (yes or no) embryology?
Take note, readers..kswolverine hasn’t responded yet…
Sheesh..a bit infantile, kswolverine.
“Good question…
Now one for you…”
You never answered my question, lol. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework????
Your constant failure to answer this question really is glaring.
“Is there any fact that isn’t explainable by ID?”
ID is NOT a scenitific theory.
“Also, is ID a better explanation than common descent”
Ummm CD is a part of ID soooooo I assume you are referring to Darwinsim. Is it a better explanation? Some would say yes, some would say no….hence neither are scientific theories
“..have all occurred based on evolutionary ideas..”
AGAIN you use the ballon word, “evolution” tsk tsk
Now, what has ID produced from these observations, or, what does it explain better than evolution?
Pedant:
“Have you taken at least one university (yes or no) course in comparative (yes or no) embryology?”
yes I have taken a course on embryology :)Posted by: kswolverine | June 03, 2007 at 05:08 PM
ummm what part of YES dont you understand, lol
How bout this Pedant, you can ask me one question for every one BFAH answers of mine….ummmm so far he has not answered any!
So, since BFAH cannot answer it I will open the question to all. HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain.
ummm what part of YES dont you understand, lolPosted by: kswolverine | June 04, 2007 at 08:12 PM
The part where you say yes twice.
Yes, you’ve taken a university (that’s one) course in comparative (bingo the second) embryology.
Because, you know, otherwise I might get the idea you sat in on an Operation Rescue powwow and prefer to think you instead spent this time taking a university course in comparative embryology.
kswolverine,
Fine, two can play this silly game. I am a follower of the flying spaghetti monster. He explains everything as well as ID.
In short, you can’t claim “victory” by asking me to answer a silly question. Silly, you say? The same question to you, about the spaghetti monster would have to be answered in the affirmative.
So, I’ll grant you that ID explains EVERYTHING. I didn’t say it explained things well, just that it is irrefutable…
So now, instead of resorting to Calvinistic casuistry, , try to be a man (or woman) and address the real and important issues I raised.
1) What does ID teach us from its “explanation” of, well, everything.
2) Who is the designer?
3) Why, if God is complex beyond our comprehension, is he not subject to intelligent design.
The standards for your answers should be based on the rules of evidence in a court of law. If you were to claim you ran a red light because “the devil made you do it”, you’d be laughed out of court. If, on the other hand, you supplied evidence that the light was malfunctioning, you might have a case.
What you’ve presented here is extraordinarily weak.
1) Hw does ID
kswolverine,
So, CD is part of ID, ICBS!!
And since
“ID is NOT a scenitific theory”
who gives a flying fig about what it explains? It’s just more metaphysical crap.
“So, I’ll grant you that ID explains EVERYTHING. I didn’t say it explained things well, just that it is irrefutable…”
LOL settle down there BFAH. Think before you type…..WHEN DID I EVER say ID explained everything???
“So now, instead of resorting to Calvinistic casuistry, , try to be a man (or woman) and address the real and important issues I raised.”
Haha, you have yet to answer my question, how does YOUR examples of CD or NS not FIT into ID. I ask again…..PLEASE EXPLAIN
“What you’ve presented here is extraordinarily weak.”
Ummmm could you please answer the question. This is not a GAME as u try to show, I have asked this question from the beginning and you have ignored it or gone and shown MORE examples of CD that fits with ID….Soooo I ask again
HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain, not ‘ID just explains everything then’….who EVER said that!!! I only argue that YOUR “examples” fit into ID, and asked you to show otherwise.
The fact that you have YET to do this shows either one you are confused and do not know the answer or two you know the answer and do not want to admit it. Which is it? :)
Sigh, kswolverine,
this is an incredible bore…
Ok, one more time. The what doesn’t ID explain? You’re going to limit it to common descent, I suppose.
Once more, for a theory to be a theory in the scientific sense, it must 1) make a stab at explaining observables, 2) without violating any of the known and accepted laws of physics (used here to cover all scientific domains), 3) without resorting to God (or god under any other name), 4) suggest other experiments that will help to test the range of its validity, 5) be open to criticism and modification, and 6) produce tangible results (this is the technology aspect of science and technological change).
As I’ve already said, yes, ID explains evolution, darwinism, common descent, whatever you want to call it. So what? What questions does it answer? So now you’ve regressed back to an intelligence, who can be regressed back, and back to???
And again, if it isn’t God, who is it? What experiments can you propose that will help to identify or further characterize the intelligence? And finally if God is supremely complex, by what mechanism did he come about?
If you don’t care to participate in an “intelligent” discussion, then that’s fine too…in the face of supreme ego, supreme condescension, or supreme idiocy, the man of reason just walks away. Take it for what it’s worth.
“If you don’t care to participate in an “intelligent” discussion, then that’s fine too…in the face of supreme ego, supreme condescension, or supreme idiocy, the man of reason just walks away. Take it for what it’s worth.”
Everyone take note at BFAH’s approach. HE CANNOT answer the question soooo read his posts he has resorted to jokes, insults, calling out my manhood, etc…..very telling….
BFAH, I dont know how much simpler I can say it. The “examples” you used to refute ID and “prove” “evolution” are examples THAT are found in ID! THIS does not say ID is something flying monster that can accept anything. Hardly…..You simply have refused to answer the question…
Let me approach you another way, why did you constantly show examples of CD in previous posts?????
Ummm BFAH, you are calling yourself the man of reason…hmmm I wonder how you reason not answering the basic question, asked over and over.
HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain, not ‘ID just explains everything then’….who EVER said that!!! I only argue that YOUR “examples” fit into ID, and asked you to show otherwise.
The fact that you have YET to do this shows either one you are confused and do not know the answer or two you know the answer and do not want to admit it. Which is it? :)
kswolverine,
man, you are dense. One can always make a statement that explains something…that doesn’t make the statement worth spit.
I’m truly sorry that you cannot comprehend the difference.
I’m sorry for calling you dense, but it is either willful obtuseness, or true stupidity.
So, why don’t we stop here? You are unwilling to explain exactly what ID is, except another way to cover your religiosity in the clothing of science. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you rather than “debate” with you. My only request is that you answer questions directly and supported by some form of evidence.
I have said to you that ID says and does whatever you want it to say and do. That does not qualify it as any sort of explanation to anything. So, again, back to the court of law analogy, a judge in PA has already thrown out ID as junk. Pretend he’s me and refute him with facts, not idle speculations about some “designer” “out there”.
“So, why don’t we stop here? You are unwilling to explain exactly what ID is………”
LOL, YOU are the one that has constantly said ID is this or ID is that….so now you want me to explain what ID is to you? Wow and talk about going in circles!
I ask again, and EVERYONE keeping score at home, notice how he will NOT answer…….
HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain, not ‘ID just explains everything then’….who EVER said that!!! I only argue that YOUR “examples” fit into ID, and asked you to show otherwise.
The fact that you have YET to do this shows either one you are confused and do not know the answer or two you know the answer and do not want to admit it. Which is it? :)
Tell you what BHAF, you SHOULD be at least able to answer this qeestion: Why did you constantly show examples of CD in previous posts?????
What do you want me to answer? State it specifically. IMO, I’ve answered everything you’ve asked.
So, oblige me, put down in writing one more time what you are trying to get me to answer. That’s simple enough isn’t it? ;-}
HOW do those examples NOT fit within the ID framework???? Please explain, not ‘ID just explains everything then’….who EVER said that!!! I only argue that YOUR “examples” fit into ID, and asked you to show otherwise.
The fact that you have YET to do this shows either one you are confused and do not know the answer or two you know the answer and do not want to admit it. Which is it? :)
Tell you what BHAF, you SHOULD be at least able to answer this qeestion: Why did you constantly show examples of CD in previous posts?????
And for the umpteenth time, if I read your posts corre3ctly, I have stipulated that ID is in harmony with CD.
So?
Now, be good enough to respond to any one of my questions regarding the validity of ID as anything other than religion, metaphysics, or pseudoscience. Any one question will do.
How smart are WEBlog editors? Are they noticing that this thread is going on for several days? I think they probably do, because the evolution-in-education controversy strikes a really deep chord, and always gets a humongous number of posts, so they periodically bring the issue up.
Game set MATCH!
Nice try BFAH……NEXT!
…like talking to a brick wall…
ks: I want you to say 1+1=2
bf: yes, 2=1+1
ks: See!! he can’t admit 1+1=2
bf: Didn’t I jut say 2=1+1?
ks: When will you answer the question, does 1+1=2
bf yes, 2=1+1
…pitiful
“And for the umpteenth time, if I read your posts corre3ctly, I have stipulated that ID is in harmony with CD.
So?”
You agree that Darwinism and ID are historical theories, not scientific theories. Yes you are right. Thank you for finally admitting as much :)
“Now, be good enough to respond to any one of my questions regarding the validity of ID as anything other than religion, metaphysics, or pseudoscience. Any one question will do.”
Ummmm again, ID is not a scientific theory sooooo what question are you asking? Be specific!
Poor BFAH you are trying soooo hard.
Grasping victory from the jaws of blockheadedness…
Can’t answer a single question. Try, just try.
So, you’ve established that ID explains CD. So does:
Godthe flying spaghetti monsternothingthe matrixcomputer generated reality
and of course, science, pure and simple, without resort to ID.
You seem to want to make the “cause” synonymous with the mechanism. The I of ID might be the cause, but it has nothing to do with an elucidation of the mechanism.
Too bad you’re such a putz.
You know the difference between a schlmiel and a sclamazel? A schlmiel is the guy who spill the soup. A schlamazal is the guy he spills it on…haven’t met a schlamazal of your caliber in years.
Tell you what BHAF….you seem to want the last word. I’ll let past posts speak for themselves. You are not going to open your mind and no amount of reasoning I do can change that. You have your head in the sand…….sad. Well at least I tried
POOR POOR BF….have we not learned ANYTHING…..I was going to walk away…. but alas you made one comment I cant let you continue with:
“So, you’ve established that ID explains CD. So does:
Godthe flying spaghetti monsternothingthe matrixcomputer generated reality”
BF — ID does NOT explain CD……CD helps explain ID
And wtf is an historical theory versus a scientific one? Obfuscation with terminology seems to be what you do…lawyer by chance??
OK, I’ll bite…and how does CD help to explain ID?? (I need a good chuckle before bed).
LOL BF…..ok I’m out for tonight.You are not going to open your mind and no amount of reasoning I do can change that. You have your head in the sand…….sad. Well at least I tried :)
Look at the examples you showed. Instead of evidence for the god in your equation (time) CD is evidence for an ID
GOOD night
Funny, you’re not reas0ning about anything. All you’ve said is CD explains ID. I’ve asked how…apparently you don’t want to answer…that’s cool.
nothing ventured nothing gained….tried to understand what you were saying, didn’t get much from this except a something about CD and ID being supportive of one another in some fashion….
You might want to try to work on your presentation skills. For all of the crap you posted I never saw an explanation of what your point was, only attempts to somehow “refute” my support of common descent.
Oh well, we live and learn…well, some of us just live…you know who I’m talking about ;-)
BFAH – CD explains ID.
CD helps explain ID….tell you what…you seemed confused about A LOT, historical theroies and scientific theories…y dont you go back and reread some of my posts…..there will be a quiz tomorrow! C how well you can open your mind
Yeah….I’m the one confused about theories….The references to Ernst Mayr and all of the rest of your posts are philosophical speculations. i would have thought that you’d investigated the other side too for a balanced view..perhaps that was a bad assumption on my part….
In any event, there are sooo many alternatives to the material you posted above…here is an alternate view of mayr…
“In One Long Argument, Ernst Mayr (evolutionary biologist, and originator of the Biological Species Concept) summarizes Darwin’s theories, and traces the history of their acceptance by the world scientific community.
In the Preface , he begins:
A modern evolutionist turns to Darwin’s work again and again. This is not surprising, since the roots of all our evolutionary thinking go back to Darwin. Our current controversies very often have as their starting point some vagueness in Darwin’s writings or a question Darwin was unable to answer owing to the insufficient biological knowledge available in his time. But one returns to Darwin’s original writings for more than historical reasons. Darwin frequently understood things far more clearly than both his supporters and his opponents, including those of the present day.
In Chapter Four, “Ideological Opposition to Darwin’s Five Theories”, Mayr summarizes “Darwin’s Theory”, or “Darwinism”, thus:
In both scholarly and popular literature one frequently finds references to “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, as though it were a unitary entity. In reality, Darwin’s “theory” of evolution was a whole bundle of theories, and it is impossible to discuss Darwin’s evolutionary thought constructively if one does not distinguish its various components.
… The term “Darwinism”, … has numerous meanings depending on who has used the term and at what period. A better understanding of the meaning of this term is only one reason to call attention to the composite nature of Darwin’s evolutionary thought.
… One particulary cogent reason why Darwinism cannot be a single monolithic theory is that organic evolution consists of two essentially independent processes, as we have seen: transformation in time, and diversification in ecological and geographical space. The two processes require a minimum of two entirely independent and very different theories.
… I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin’s conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin’s evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin’s evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin’s theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:
1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by “budding”, that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.
Let’s look at some of the implications of Mayr’s analysis.
At first blush, (4) Gradualism seems like it might conflict with Gould & Eldredge’s “punctuated equilibrium” theory; but on closer examination, not so.
Here [thanks to Robert Low] are two relevant quotes from On the Origin of Species:
“… it is probable that the periods, during which each [species] underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.” (from the final 6th edition, 1872)
“Varieties are often at first local…rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will simply be classed as new species.”
Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous — only that it does not proceed by “jumps” in a single generation (what Mayr calls “saltational” change). That is, despite the distortions of some anti-evolutionists, Darwin explictly did not think that evolution proceeds by the production of “hopeful monsters” — Darwin himself never proposed that a fully-dinosaur parent gave birth to fully-bird progeny. Rather, the change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations. Note that change over a thousand generations of any species appears as “sudden” or “abrupt” change in the fossil record, because a thousand generations is such an infinitesimally small fraction of Earth’s history.
(5) Natural selection, doesn’t account for some of the kinds of variation that we see in species — particularly non-adaptive traits — but you’ll notice that Darwin didn’t claim that natural selection explained all traits, merely the adaptive ones.
After Darwin, some biologists distorted the theory of natural selection into the doctrine of “strict adaptionism”, in which every feature of every organism was held to be produced by natural selection (and thus some explanation of why the feature is adaptive was required.) But Darwin didn’t say that all selection is natural (adaptive) selection — only that natural selection is the source of some change, and can explain why adaptive change occurs. Modern biologists have proposed other mechanisms for change — neutral selection, genetic drift, the “founder effect”, etc. — and Darwin himself thought that sexual selection could be important. None of these contradict the idea of natural selection; as additional mechanisms for genetic change over time, they augment it.
Here [thanks to Ken Smith] is a quote from the final chapter of the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species:
But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position — namely, at the close of the Introduction — the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.”
This has been of no avail.
Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
Mayr recaps the history of Darwinist theories, and addresses the claims that Darwinism has been disproved or superseded in Chapter Ten: “New Frontiers in Evolutionary Biology”.
Just as in the decade after the rediscovery of Mendel’s rules, since about 1970 the claim has been made increasingly often that “Darwinism is dead.”
…
Opponents of the [modern evolutionary] synthesis consistently confound three schools of Darwinism:
1. neo-Darwinism, a term coined by Romanes in 1896 to designate “Darwinism without an inheritance of acquired characters”;
2. early population genetics, a strongly reductionist school that defined evolution as the modification of gene frequencies by natural selection; and
3. the holistic branch of the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, which continued the traditions of Darwin and the naturalists while accepting the findings of genetics.
…
Darwinism is not a simple theory that is either true or false but is rather a highly complex research program that is being continuously modified and improved. This was true before the [modern evolutionary] synthesis, and it continues to be true after the synthesis. Table 2 lists many of the significant stages in the modification of Darwinism that one might recognize. Yet recognizing such seemingly discontinuous periods is in many respects an artificial enterprise. … each of these periods was heterogeneous to some extent, owing to the diversity in the thinking of different evolutionists. Most critics who have attempted to refute the evolutionary synthesis have failed to recognize this diversity of views and thus have succeeded in refuting only the reductionist fringe of the Darwinism camp.
…
Table 2Significant stages in the modification of DarwinismDate Stage Modification1883-1886 Weismann’s neo-Darwinism End of soft inheritance; diploidy and genetic recombination recognized1900 Mendelism Genetic constancy accepted and blending inheritance rejected1918-1933 Fisherism Evolution considered to be a matter of gene frequencies and the force of even small selection pressures1936-1947 Evolutionary synthesis Population thinking emphasized; interest in the evolution of diversity, geographic speciation, variable evolutionary rates1947-1972 Post-Synthesis Individual increasingly seen as target of selection; a more holistic approach; increased recognition of chance and constraints1954-1972 Punctuated equilibria Importance of speciational evolution1969-1980 Rediscovery of importance of sexual selection Importance of reproductive success for selection”
For all of the crap you posted I never saw an explanation of what your point was, only attempts to somehow “refute” my support of common descent.Posted by: BFAH | June 04, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Yeah, I’d have to add that there was a lot of pretty immature (yet unintentionally enlightening) rudeness involved in the “refutation”, too.
I’m not sure common descent is well served in any blog format, but this TypePad crap is just about the worst format you could choose.
I’ve seen some much better php-coded “debate” sites. For example, see http://www.sapfans.com/forums/index.php This isn’t a debate site; I use it as an example because it has a very powerful and useful feature in this kind of discussion: a quote feature.
IF — and that’s a huge if — common descent can be well-served in an online, no-holds-barred discussion of the type we’ve witnessed, then it’s crucial that you be able to quote exactly the other side and delineate each point you disagree with. I’ve seen some fairly sophisticated debates take place on a php site, but frankly I”m not convinced this topic can be done at all.
In any case, I’d recommend anybody who wishes to engage kwsolvirne in any further “debate” get an agreement on all terms first. Don’t hesitate to break off debate if the terms change unilaterally.
You do realize Ernest Mayr the “Darwin” of our time, “discovered” PE b4 Gould and Eldridge….yea im glad you can copy and paste, and not learn anything, lol
WEBLOG editor……wow can one just copy and paste like that-without even giving credit to the soucre. BF what is really sad is you dont understand WHAT you just posted. That does NOT refute Mayr my friend. POOR POOR BF
Yes, I realize he is the Darwin of our time. I had no idea, however, that his work had anything whatsoever to do with ID. Maybe you could point me in the right direction…I have done a reasonably exhaustive search of his work (thank goodness for online citation indexes) and I can’t find one mention of ID anywhere…
Guess that’s why I’m so confused…
I wonder if old Dr. Mayr is turning over in his grave to see that connection made. ROFLMFAO
BF – “In any event, there are sooo many alternatives to the material you posted above…here is an alternate view of mayr…”
Ummm what you presented IS Mayr’s view! THIS IS what I have been dealing with all night…..DOES NOT even know what he is posting….nuff said!
The connection is not made by him btw, but those ID apologists looking to support an unsupportable position.
He was, as you should be well aware an outspoken supporter of the scientific method. He even went so far as to criticize his colleagues in their search for extraterrestrial life…
Ah well, but his actual views aren’t important…keep forgetting that…
The point was that his views do not have a damnable thing to do with ID. So, my point was, wherever you are making that connection from, it certainly wasn’t from his own work.
…as supported by the LONG statement summarizing what that work said and entailed.
Feel free btw to post either a reference, web URL, or in fact the entire text here for the sources of the connection you are trying to make between ID and his work….more than happy to read it…again, probably good for a chuckle.
ID – a sad attempt at explaining creation imo.
If one believes in the Bible and has faith in its words, there is no need to affix man-made theories to it.
Knowing God mind is unknowable, so having to prove the unknowable is a problem to start.
How do we know if a “Day” mentioned in Genesis is really a reference to one cycle of the Earth Rotation? It could be that a day is a billion years long.
Many attempts have been made to explain the firmament. None have been satisfactory imo.
Until we can explain how nothingness can turn into a spark that caused the big bang or w/e, Scientists can only guess on how the universe was created without a divine being.
Yeah, I read that explanation on creation from zero, but it still needs a start or I should say, it couldn’t have time as an element for its beginnings, because time needs a reference point and there were none.
Trying to anthropomorphize God is an endeavor that is fruitless (pardon the Garden of Eden Pun.) That also includes assigning how many years since creation.
God and his creations cannot arbitrarily be assigned man-made constructs. There are no limitations to a being that is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Trying to wrap up a creation story that fits just doesn’t work. It can’t be done, it is unprovable and unknowable.
Oh, and since you don’t like reading long posts used to rebut/refute/or support, I’ll only use a small snippert in an obituary of Dr. Mayr here:
“Mayr was a lifelong atheist and a staunch opponent of the ongoing attack on evolution by the motley assemblage of religious zealots, creationists and “intelligent design” advocates. In 1991, he commented in an interview in the Harvard Gazette: “I’m an old-time fighter for Darwinism. I say, ‘Please tell me what’s wrong with Darwinism. I can’t see anything wrong with Darwinism.” For Mayr, Darwin’s contribution to mankind’s knowledge of the natural world was revolutionary. During an interview on his 93rd birthday, Mayr commented that one of “Darwin’s great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, ‘Where is God in your theory?’ And Laplace answered, ‘I don’t need that hypothesis.’ “
Wolverine comes on the scene but it’s the usual tripe always expressed by creationists. They never have any evidence to present but they sure do whine and throw temper tantrums.
Wolfie, does it confuse you that you are descended from your parents and related to your cousins? Does it confuse you that the nucleotides in your DNA are the same nucleotides in every living organism? Does it bewilder you that primates share a closer relationship in those nucleotide sequences with humans than humans do with mice? Does it shame you that all the scientific advances are all discovered by scientists but phonies like you come along and say some magic man did everything and you try to take credit for it?
You have no scientific evidence to support your mythology. Your best effort on this forum is to take science down to the level of your superstition which can only be convincing to someone who is completely ignorant and clueless about science. I see that’s how you became convinced.
I can be proven wrong if a creationist ever shows scientific evidence supporting their mythology but they have yet to present a testable model for creationism. That would take effort so why do that when you can spend $27 million creating a museum based upon lies and deception.
We saw Ken Ham on a UK religious channel, telling people that if any science contradicts the bible, they should put on their rose coloured glasses and don’t listen to it.
We always laugh when we see him – we call him Jebediah with the tinted coloured glasses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
Truth is they could not have made half the displays in their creationist museum – without the science that the religious authority would have once objected to.
We have to leave them to their long look backwards.
Can anyone remember when television was ‘of the devil’? Now we have computers!
It took the Catholic Church 400 years to admit that the earth went around the sun. Now we’ve been to the moon and back!
The one thing that is certain is change – we must make sure we are going forward. If religion does not want to come, we have to leave it behind, otherwise like some nations in the world today (and we won’t mention which), religious rule would drag us back to the dark ages all over again.