The evolution question from the GOP presidential debate (in which Sen. Sam Brownback and two other candidates raised their hands when asked if anyone doesn’t believe in evolution) is still generating commentary. Tom Teepen had a column in Wednesday’s Opinion pages saying that it was embarrassing even to have to ask the question. Kathleen Parker had a column Sunday arguing that the issue is more complex than a simple yes/no question.
That could be true, as the evolution debate is extending beyond biology into political science. Some conservative intellectuals are arguing that “Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances,” the New York Times reported.
Then again, Parker joked, the presidential debate presented Darwinists with a contradiction: “If Darwin was right, how did these knuckle-draggers make it to the presidential campaign podium?”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
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
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
128 Comments
I realize neo-cons don’t listen to anything as progressive as news, but social darwinism has been dead for more than 60 years; it died with the third reich (yes, that’s dead too). Don’t try to dig it up, stuff it and pretend it’s alive. Let it rest in peace with all the other cockamamie theories of that woeful period!
Jed’s correct. Spencer’s ideas were tossed aside a long time ago.
It is kind of amusing how they argue for the selective pressures of free market forces, but are offended that evolution might be taught in school. A basic contradiction. Not surprising though, given the record of the party of inconsistency.
So what is the price of tea in China these days?
Steven,What’s really hilarious is watching how they worship free-market competition when it favors them, and scream bloody murder while paying through the nose for legislative relief and corporate welfare when it doesn’t.
Dittos to Jed and Steven.
Check out how The Eagle tries to spin Parker as 1. funny and 2. an equal opportunity critic.
She is neither.
She is the female version of Cal Thomas. The only thing she’ll criticise a Republican for is not being Conservative enough.
And her “wit” is petite bourgoursie “Reader’s Digest” “Humor is good medicine” crap . . .
Excellent column by Ms. Parker. Illustrative of the confusion generated by the either contrived or ignorant use of the term “Evolution” to refer to all things from simple variations within species to the theory of common descent.
What’s wrong with free-market capitalism? Many Democrats believe that, especially William Clinton. He valued capitalism and free trade as good economic policies.
Being anti-capitalist is like being anti-evolution. Everybody knows that capitalism works best, although it’s cruel and unfair like the real world, it’s much better than humans trying to control other humans ability to conduct commerce.
There’s a little talked about fact about these debates. The Democrats are afraid to come to a debate on Fox News, but the Republicans go on MSNBC and put up with the inane question from Chris Matthews.
Now if the Dems think they can run an effective campaign by avoiding the tough questions and asking stupid ones to the republicans then have at it.
You’ld be surprised at the number of voters that don’t believe in the myth of evolution, no matter how you define it.
Hank
I was reading a commentary the other day that explained or tried to explain a possible explanation of the Bible and evolution.
Basically it stated that the beginning of men came much later than animals, dinosaurs and humans(cave men.) Something about the phrase when Cain went out and found a wife. The explanation was that he found a human (soul-less cave woman.) to communicate his desires.
The first day, second day, etc. etc. was somewhat convoluted as it gave the explanation for the passage of time as billions or millions of years. The dinosaurs and early was to be in this early period and later on “beasts of our kind” were created (I’m assuming mammals.)
Anyway, yet another unprovable scenario about this type of evolution, but I guess it’s a matter of faith.
Facts have always threatened religion.
Religion seems to have no difficulty in transforming phantasy into fact, as long as it is written, or derived by interpretations from old unverifiable text.
Religions even set forth punishments for any presentation of fact, as history has well documented such attempts, along with the accompanying ramifications.
It’s all about absolute power, and that which offers challenge.
The content is your real concern { forgot the link }.http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=96152&d=14&m=5&y=2007
You’d be surprised at the number of voters that don’t believe in the myth of evolution, no matter how you define it.
Hank
Dood, you have monkeys in your family tree!
You’d be surprised at the number of voters that don’t believe in the myth of evolution, no matter how you define it.
Hank
Dood, you have monkeys in your family tree!
Hank,
It doesn’t matter which network televises the “debates”. They’re structured to help the most heavily-funded (read pre-selected) candidates appear to be competent, and limit the talk-time of the minor candidates, and thus marginalize them.
How about real debates, where the minor candidates ask the majors questions, then rebut (and majors query minors as well).
MSNBC, a co-partnered creation of General Electric and Microsoft, is every bit as capitalism-friendly as Fox. The difference is, as Dems view it, Fox could try to manipulate things to mess up Dem front-runners, and improve the Republican party’s 08 prospects.
It is very interesting that Dow Jones’ principle voting members, descendants of the Bancroft/Barron family, who have long allowed the Wall Street Journal’s professional managers to exercise freedom in reportage and Op-Eds, so long as journalistic propriety has been maintained (which it has been) and who represent America’s upper class, are mostly opposed to Rupert Murdoch’s bid to buy Dow Jones.
These scions of American capitalism do not trust Mr. Murdoch to maintain the company’s (and particularly its flagship journal’s) highly respected tradition of journalistic integrity, breadth of stories, and universally acclaimed excellence. They would love the $5 billion he is offering, but there are principles involved that trump dollars, as they see it.
BTW, MSNBC’s “debate” did a nice job advancing Mitt Romney’s candidacy. As a half-billionaire (investment manager), he’s the capitalist-corporate sector’s favored pick, since he’s one of them.
Call it a hunch, but I think the Fox show will do similarly to puff Mr. Romney.
Ahhh, Kansas. My home sweet home. Where a guy who proudly raises his hand in front of the nation to confirm he doesn’t believe in evolution is lauded. Don’t forget he was re-elected with something like 65% of the vote here last time he was up. Embarrassing. And we wonder why other parts of the country laugh at us.
I can’t blame the Democrats for not wanting their debate on Fox Noise Channel. Considering the hatchet jobs that the likes of Hume, O’Reilly, Hannity and Kristol do on them, I am surprised that they even grant them interviews.
The Democrats should boycott Fox until the “fair and balanced” folks start actual reporting in a “fair and balanced” manner.
Actually, nation wide polls show that approximately 70% of the people do not believe that man evolved from the ape.
Admittedly, most people don’t give it very serious thought, but 70%? Therefore, no matter what you believe about evolution a presidential candidate that doesn’t believe in evolution is more maintream than one that does.
I know a lot of very intelligent people that logically conclude that evolution is a myth.
Hank
I don’t even bother trying to have a discussion about evolution with anyone who believes this planet was created fewer than 8000 years ago. It’s like discussing the NASA budget with the people who say the moon landings were hoaxes. There’s no common premise from which to even *have* a conversation.
I would agree with Hank that 70% of people have not evolved from apes.
:)
Hey Mark,
I would welcome a substantive debate on issues and I aggree with most of what you wrote.
However, reasonable people do not believe that Fox News is biased and most people agree that MSNBC is.
Sorry
Hank
I aggree Tom,
Just keep your mind closed. If you get smart enough to defend your beliefs let me know, I’ll be here.
Hank
If you get smart enough to defend your beliefs let me know, I’ll be here.Posted by: Hank Price | May 14, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I do so every day. Keep up.
You would think that those who believe in Evolution, being the scientific types they claim to be, would be more interested in teaching/showing everyone why their belief is true.
Instead they sit around making fun of those who disagree and refuse to talk with them.
Nathan,
How old do you believe our planet to be?
And what does it really matter what the candidate believes about evolution? Is he/she going to change the bill of rights or something?
Look at the Supreme Court. The Repubs had the perfect opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade and didn’t even try.
What I am looking for is a president that can handle money (get the budget in check) handle a war (get this damn thing finished and our troops home) and get the gas prices down most hopefully by full court pressing hydrogen and/or electric.
I give a rats butt what he/she feels about evolution.
Like I said…
More interested in making fun of them.
Tom,
Why is that the question you use to base your decision to refuse to talk with someone?
Which is more rediculous by your standards:
Believing in a young earth or believing that God sent his son to die for all our sins so that we may have eternal life?
Both should be just as preoposterous by the standards you set.
Yet you focus on the age of the earth.
It is merely a tactic you use to try to rationalize your demeaning of those who disagree with Evolution.
It is a bit more difficult to do that when you make fun of them for believing in God or Jesus.
So you purposefully choose the age of the Earth question instead.
Your tactics are weak minded, those used by others like you who instead of trying to explain their belief of Evolution choose to ridicule those who disagree instead.
Nathan,
I asked you a simple question: How old do you believe the earth to be? It’s a critical part of any discussion of evolution, since evolution postulates species changes over millions of years. If you don’t believe the earth is more than 8000 years old, how do we have any discussion of the evidence for or against evolution?
This question wasn’t meant to mock. It was meant to see if we even have a common premise from which to start the conversation.
I believe the Earth is older than 8,000 years and I also believe in creationism.
Behemoth is mention in Job 40: v15-24Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25, 26 and Isaiah 27:1.This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.Since humans are in the Bible, we unconsciously think that dinosaurs were extinct—and therefore not mentioned in the Bible.As you have just seen, the Bible not only refers to dinosaurs, but has detailed information about two of them.You can read more about this at: http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm
Dear Tom,
I don’t believe the earth is much older than 8-10,000 years. So what?
It’s interesting that in science what ever your core beliefs happen to be that’s the direction you’re research and evidence tends to take you.
For instance, I can find a lot of scientific evidence that supports my faith. That and logic makes me unafraid to discuss evolution with you.
Hank
As much as I like pointing out the fallacies of various viewpoints on this issue, the debate is really a waste of time.
Creationists base their belief on faith. If you have faith in God and have a strict belief in creationism, any evidence for evolution will not (or should not?) change your faith Solid faith based beliefs are founded on things the faithful believe to be unwaveringly truthful. Any tangible evidence can be dismissed without question because with faith comes a knowledge that we do not (cannot?) know all of the facts. Faith means we believe in something even though there are no tangible facts to support it or even some to refute it.
If you do not adhere to a strict creationist theory you probably base your ideas on tangible evidence and scientific methodology. As such, something has to be Proven (unbiasedly) to be true. There is no way to Tangibly prove creationism, so there is almost no chance a creationist can change the mind of someone who does not already believe it.
Really, why does it matter where we as a species came from? We may be curious, but it is not worth expending much energy of thought on.
One thing creationists and evolutionaries should agree on is that the start of the human race was in the PAST. We are here now, lets make the best of it and work to ensure a better tomorrow.
My rant is over
Norse mythology talks about a giant serpent that circles the Earth so that must have been true to. However, the Akdamut refers to the behemoth as an ox and the leviathan as a fish. Oxes and fish aren’t dinosaurs, but then again, creationism isn’t science.
There are simple things to do in order to test if dinosaurs lived with humans, one is date them and the other is view which layers their fossils are buried. No dinosaur fossil has been dated at the same age of human ancestry and no fossil has been found on the same geological layer as humans.
However, that’s scientific fact and that doesn’t play well with creationists.
“Really, why does it matter where we as a species came from?”
Actually, it matters a lot . . . if you care where we are eventually going!
And, it’s been answered already by Nathan.
Having faith in God is not evidence that you are stupid, however, many times valid arguments and points of view are dismissed on this BLOG by merely mentioning that a person believes in Genesis. Even in topics that have nothing to do with religion or science.
Every time someone uses my faith in an argument it shows the weakness of theirs.
Hank
Scientists believe people are descended from ape-like ancestors, creationists believe women are descended from a Jehovah’s Rib Joint.
If you don’t accept the scientific fact of evolution then how come you need to get a flu shot every year and why do people get colds? Science says viruses mutate, creationists say these just appear out of nowhere by magic.
If you seriously want credibility then actually present something that doesn’t sound like a six year old telling a ghost story by a campfire.
Well, the supporters of ID/creationism often refer to “scientific” evidence of ID, yet I personally have never seen this so called evidence.
I am not meaning to ridicule or question anyone’s honesty, but I would like to see the scientific proof of a divine creator.
WSClark, didn’t you see the Nighline debate between Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and the Rational Response Squad? Ray said God created Coke cans. What more evidence do you need?
Jehovah’s rib? Viruses out of nowhere? Sounds to me like you are a little confused and like blanket statements.
I am a creationist and have no idea where you go the virus thing.
So how about you show the jump from ape-like-man to modern Homo sapiens.
Creationists don’t believe in mutation and genetic divergence, that’s evolutionary theory.
If you want DNA evidence of the link between hominids then you just need to look at the broken gene that codes for vitamin C production. There’s only one classification of species that has it, can you guess who?
Hank,”Dood, you have monkeys in your family tree!”
I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather be the descendant of an ape that improved himself than a mud pie that fell from grace!
“Creationists don’t believe in mutation and genetic divergence, that’s evolutionary theory.”
Is that a fact? Then I am here to prove one of many fallacies in your vision of creationists.
Not every person of faith is dumb Doug. If you choose to believe you are a descendant of a feces flinging monkey, more power to you. It doesn’t call for slander. It actually seems to show a weakness in your theory, you have to poke and prod at individuals than stand on your own beliefs.
So Sol, you are claiming that creationists accept the scientific fact of evolution. So how does that make you a creationist?
No, Doug, unlike you I prefer not to make blanket statements. I do not speak for creationism. I speak for myself.
Do you represent the entire evolutionary community?
I believe that God created man and that man, and every other entity created by God, can adapt and change. Is that so hard for you to understand?
GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (NKJV)
Maybe they have something to do with the jump from alp-like-man to the modern Homo sapiens.
Wiseman,Sounds like ID. I don’t pretend to know the mind nor will of God. I just know that he created all of us, all that is around us, and all that came before us.
Did a pretty damn good job of it too if you ask me.
Doug, I wish I knew that answer. I’m always trying to learn.
Dogs were purportedly bred from wolves. But there is one dog breed, subspecies or what, that excretes uric acid, rather than urea. The “highest” order that excretes uric acid is Aves, i.e. birds, except for this one peculiar species of Canis. Did dogs co-breed with birds?
Name the singular dog “subspecies” that has bird-like breakdown-product metabolism.
If you think that man has evolved, from whatever, that belief in should have you asking some very interesting questions.
For instance:
If man has evolved, how long has he existed on earth in his present state? With his present mental capabilities? There is evidence that the civilizations 3-4,000 years ago had some very advanced knowledge of astronomy and architecture. In fact, our known history of man indicates that we have been very intelligent from the beginning of written history.
Why then, did it take us so long to walk on the moon? Are you going to tell me that around 6,000 years ago man’s cerebral capability finaly evolved enough to invent the wheel? 20,000 years ago he was waiting for lightning to start his campfire and some how he suddenly evolved enough to envent the self igniting BBQ grill?
When you start believing in evolution, specifically the evolution of man, you have to swallow some pretty incredible things. Evolution talks about small changes over millions of years! If so, why didn’t we invent biscuits 20 million years before we got to buttered bread?
It starts making creation/creator look a lot more believable!
Hank
If one takes the relative speed of light as correct, then the farthest star seen is over 17 billion light years away, which makes the cosmos at least that old. Our star, the sun, is over 4 billion years old. This planet is at least 4 billion years old.
I have found no evidence, bible wise or otherwise, stating the earth to be only 7000 years old. The science is too exact to believe that. Verses in the bible were written to make understanding the religious significants of science easy for the common man.
Why else would God make the universe so complicated? My belief is to show man just how far beyond mans’ understanding God really is.
I believe God gave man reasoning ability and free will when He thought the time was right. That may have been only 7000 years ago, but it really doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. Believe in ID, creationism, Genisis, evolution . . . it really doesn’t matter in the end. It’s how you LIVE your life that will matter, not anything else.
Hell, believe in a tree being the cosmic force; whatever . . .if God is all knowing and just, He will judge you on your life, not your beliefs.
Leave religious beliefs in the home and church, not the classroom.
Doug,”No dinosaur fossil has been dated at the same age of human ancestry and no fossil has been found on the same geological layer as humans.”
I once heard a biblical creationist explain that by saying that since dinosaurs were heavier than humans, they sank faster in Noah’s flood and ended up on the bottom layers. Apparently they don’t believe in basic physics either.
Sol, I can understand children’s fairy tales quite well. Why is DNA so difficult for you to understand? On the one hand I have science, you have an old mythology that makes a cute story and gives advice on how much to charge if you want to sell your daughter into slavery, but as a scientific text it’s laughable.
Why is the concept of mutations in DNA replication difficult for you to understand? Your own human body is the home to unique bacteria that doesn’t exist anywhere else. It’s because millions of new bacteria are born every second and changes create new species. It’s not a difficult concept, I don’t know why a grown adult would have difficulty accepting something so simple.
That is conjecture, Mr. Price. Many ID/creationists claim scientific evidence. Where is said evidence?
Well Jed, physics is just a theory too. :)
Hank, if you believe there’s a connection between evolution, mental capacity and technology then are you saying that people in preindustrial or developing regions are mentally inferior to us? That justification for racism went out in the 19th century. Get with the times man.
Oops Aves is a Class (Kids Play Catch Over Farmer Grave’s Stable). Reptilia, another Class excretes uric acid. Maybe some mammal had sex with dinosaur, and this led to one kind of modern dog–but only one– harboring a reptilian genetic complex.
“So how about you show the jump from ape-like-man to modern Homo sapiens.”
Here you go.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
Doug,Aside from blanket statements, you also seem to have a problem with reading.
No, Doug, unlike you I prefer not to make blanket statements. I do not speak for creationism. I speak for myself.Do you represent the entire evolutionary community?I believe that God created man and that man, and every other entity created by God, can adapt and change. Is that so hard for you to understand?Posted by: SolDevVB | May 14, 2007 at 02:33 PM
As I drift off to sleep tonight, I’ll think about the God of creation. Doug, you can try to remember flinging poo. Enjoy and good night.
Dear Mr. Clark,
There is no written history of man that is older than the Biblical account of creation. Don’t you think that is a little odd?
Evolutionists fall back on millions of millions of years and chance.
In my opinion there is a lot of scientific evidence to support creation. Creation no more than 8,000 years ago.
If you are really interested here’s a good place to start:
http://www.designinference.com/
Hank
“Creation no more than 8,000 years ago.”
There is archaeological evidence that man existed in North America 37,000 years ago.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316(196210)28%3A2%3C138%3ATECITW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N
Doug!
Are you really that dense?
“Hank, if you believe there’s a connection between evolution, mental capacity and technology then are you saying that people in preindustrial or developing regions are mentally inferior to us? That justification for racism went out in the 19th century. Get with the times man.”
Actually man the basis for racism that went out in the 20th century (not the 19th) was Eugenics. Eugenics was the natural progression of evolution!
If you believe in creation then you must believe that a man brought forth from any culture into another culture as a baby would have the ability to function as an equal contributer to that culture.
Only if you believe in evolution could you believe that a race of man on different continents in different cultures would be mentally inferior to other races.
Your post shows that you do not understand evolution or even have a basic understanding of history!
In fact, your entire post borders on being nonsensical!
Hank
Kathleen Parker is wrong, the question for Presidential candidates is not more complex. Nobody is asking them to parse the fine details of scientific theory. The meat of the question is this: Are you throwing out a scientific theory on purely religious grounds?
What if my religion says quantum mechanics is wrong? Are you going to respect my view because the issue is so complex? Please, that is so disingenuous. I’m not voting for anyone who’s best answer is “Because God said so.”
Hank, your assertion:
“Only if you believe in evolution could you believe that a race of man on different continents in different cultures would be mentally inferior to other races.”
I disagree for two reasons. 1) The worst racism in history (slavery, etc) was practiced by creationists, mostly pre-Darwin.
also, 2) Evolution and continental migration occur on vastly different time scales. Humans arriving a million years ago, and settling different continents tens of thousands of years ago. So your argument doesn’t wash. We have not had enough time on different continents to evolve significant differences. That is a fact. The nations that industrialized first were fortunate by reason of geography, the Mediterranian being somewhat of a crossroads of continents and Europe benefiting from their roads and so forth.
Tell me Clark, do you intentionally miss my point? What does your link have to do with my question?
Again,
There is no written history of man that is older than the Biblical account of creation. Don’t you think that is a little odd?
You’re telling me that from 37,000 years ago to approximately 6,000 years ago man never figured out a way to write down his hunting and fishing brags?
Or are you telling me that evolution and it’s requirement of small changes over millions of years all of a sudden allowed man the intellegence to develope the written word in a matter of a thousand years or so?
No my friend, your magic theory of evolution asks more questions than it answers. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than creation!
Hank
cave paintings in France
Direct dates obtained in 1995 have added an unexpected dimension to the discovery. Three samples taken from charcoal drawings of two rhinoceroses and one bison have yielded dates between 30,340 and 32,410 BP (before present). Considering the statistical margins of error, this means that the paintings were made at the very ancient date of approximately 31,000 years ago, within an interval of 1,300 years. The dating of a torch mark (26,120 ± 400) superimposed on a calcite layer that covers a drawing proves that at least some of the representations were created at very early dates. Consequently, we must dismiss, or consider as highly improbable, the hypothesis that Solutrean or Magdalenian visitors collected some Aurignacian-age charcoal from the floor and used it to draw images on the wall thousands of years after the passage of the first occupants.
“If man has evolved, how long has he existed on earth in his present state? With his present mental capabilities? There is evidence that the civilizations 3-4,000 years ago had some very advanced knowledge of astronomy and architecture. In fact, our known history of man indicates that we have been very intelligent from the beginning of written history.
Why then, did it take us so long to walk on the moon? Are you going to tell me that around 6,000 years ago man’s cerebral capability finaly evolved enough to invent the wheel? 20,000 years ago he was waiting for lightning to start his campfire and some how he suddenly evolved enough to envent the self igniting BBQ grill?”
Hank,
Knowledge is not a heritable trait, thus it is not subject to natural selection and evolution.
Intelligence, however, is a selectable trait. It has benefits, but also considerable metabolic and morphological costs. A good article is here:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n12/mente/evolution/evolution_i.html
The point is that intelligence in inherited and thus remains relatively constant over short periods of time (tens of thousands of years anyway). Knowledge, however, must be relearned every generation and thus can increase or decrease independent of intelligence. Recently our knowledge has increased dramatically due mainly to the invention of writing, and later mass printing.
The fact that we had the same intelligence but less knowledge thousands of years ago in no way impugns the theory of evolution. One can be intelligent but not have knowlege, that is not a problem.
monkeyman,
Really? So you’re telling me that you know of some examples of racism worse than the holocost? Really?
The whole ’science’ of ugenics was what inspired Hitler and his ‘Master Race’ crap that led to the murder of 12 million or more people of ‘inferior’ races.
As far as slavery goes, many people didn’t think of their slaves as being ‘inferior’. They were just the spoils of war. The Romans had great respect for their Greek slaves. The Africans that captured and sold the natives of other tribes into slavery didn’t think of them as an inferior race, just an oportunity to make a little money.
As far as your assertions on evolution and continental migration, you brilliantly make my point! The time that has passed since man attempted to build the tower of Babel has not been enough for evolution to make a difference!
Hank
I would ask you .morg, how far back is carbon dating able to be accurate in the dating of various carbon bearing artifacts?
Now then, assuming that creation is a fact, how could we ever resolve that ’scientific’ fact with C14 dating?
Easily! Ater creation there was a period of time that it took C14 to reach equalibrium. Equalibrium concentrations of any isotope directly depend on the production rate and the decay rate.
Creationism and C14 dating can scientifically coexist!
Hank
C14 dating is good back to about 60,000 years (and it’s useful for organic remains only, not artifacts).
It is calibrated by several independent means of dating including dendochronology, lake bed varves, ice cores, sediment cores, and others. There was never a time within the last 60,000 years when there was no C14.
Dear Bggeek,
“The point is that intelligence in inherited and thus remains relatively constant over short periods of time (tens of thousands of years anyway).”
Well, yes this is true if you believe in evolution or creation in my opinion. Nothing in my post would indicate that I did not understand the difference in intelligence and knowledge.
Your point only tends to solidify my point! If you assume that man has had the basic intelligence that he has now for ‘tens of thousands of years anyway’ how do you explain that he has had a relatively recent explosion in the amount of knowledge that he has?
If intelligence evolves over millions of years why didn’t knowledge evolve along with it?
You may think about your answer for a while, this is not a timed event!
Hank
I can never get creationist to explain how Noah got million+ species of Animal into a 400ft boat. How you feed all the animals, Lions and Tigers got to eat. How the animals got there Polar Bears, Penguins, and Kolas are a long way from the Middle East. How did the animals get back after. Marsupials in Australia, Big game in Africa. And what happened to dinosaurs? Where did all the water go? Having only 2 of every species(8 humans) would create a gentic bottleneck, thats why you dont sleep with your siblings.
Then there is the Alien seed…
The Erich Von Dankien, Chariots of the Gods stuff.
“If intelligence evolves over millions of years why didn’t knowledge evolve along with it?”
I just said. Knowledge is not an inheritable trait. Therefore, knowledge doesn’t “evolve”.
When intelligence evolved there was no method for the systematic accumulation of knowledge. There was only trial and error, and then the verbal transmission of knowledge. Both of these methods are inefficient, prone to error, and subject to dramatic setbacks. Apparently knowledge did not accumulate as fast as intelligence evolved (intelligence serves more purposes than just accumulating knowledge). There is no law that says knowledge must increase in proportion to intelligence.
This seems relatively self-evident.
“how do you explain that he has had a relatively recent explosion in the amount of knowledge that he has?”
The invention writing helped but the printing press really got the process started, and the crystalization of the scientific method sent our rate of knowledge accumulation into high gear.
How do you explain why God didn’t create Adam with all of the knoweldge we have now? Was Adam not as intelligent as we are today?
Hank, the roots of anti-semitism in central Europe, lie in Christian religious intolerence, not evolutionary theory.
The Theory of Evolution is just that…a theory.
Since none of us are going to be able to prove either Evolution or Creationism we come to loggerheads. Which should be taught in school? Well, if it’s in science class, teach Evolution – after all – that’s science.
But, if it’s in a History of Religion class – teach the story of Creation. Teach all the various Creation stories.
I don’t buy into either theory, so what?
Knowledge does and has evolved with intelligence.Religiously it is called enlightenment.
“There is no written history of man that is older than the Biblical account of creation. Don’t you think that is a little odd?”Perhaps a little research is due Hank. There are plenty older written records.
For anyone who can stomach it here’s a “debate” (and I use the word loosely) between a YECer and a… well… not a YECer. It’s about the emerical evidence for Noah’s Flood.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10675&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
One of the more interesting documentaries about DNA, genetics and human migration patterns is expressed here:
http://www.ramsdale.org/dna10.htm
One of the more interesting DNA studies show we are descended from a genetic adam and a genetic eve. They both were from Africa, and the original tribe is still around. The tribe dates back over 140,000 years.
The argument concerning man’s intelligence is a red herring. Man’s first millennium had to be concerned with survival. The planet was an inhospitable place for many centuries. His main concern was food, shelter, and procreation. Once man was able to semi-control his environment through agriculture and animal domestication, then he could turn his thinking ability to more science related things, like the wheel.
Also, as he was better able to feed himself with the nutrients he needed, his brain power increased. That is a proven fact. Look at starving people in third world countries. Their IQ is much lower that the average citizen of developed countries. And all because of food nutrients.
Ergo, when man had the time to look at nature and science, he developed the written word (nothing to do with religion), and things like the wheel, glass, bronze and iron. A natural progression, happening over tens of thousands of years.
But what about 3.7 million years old Australopithecus species found in Africa? Robutus, Africanus, etc…
You know Lucy…
The three foot tall chimp…er human.
I would venture that “Lucy” and her immediate descendants were not human. There is evidence there were numerous branches of human like creatures. At least one of which EVOLVED into humans approximately 140,000 years ago.
Nathan and/or Hank,
I had to take my leave of this conversation to earn my living. But I want to address comments you made earlier today, that characterized my comments as attacks on your faith.
I intended no such thing, and in fact, didn’t mention religion or God or Jesus or anything of the sort. What I said was this: It’s impossible to have a conversation about the evidence for evolution with people who believe this planet is less than 8000 years old. We don’t share a common premise, and without that, there’s no possibility of discussing events that happened millions of years ago, especially in the context of evolutionary theory.
There are many people of Christian and other faiths who believe our earth is 4 to 4.5 billion years old. There are many people of Christian and other faiths who believe this planet to be less than 10,000 years old. This isn’t a conversation about Christ – it’s a conversation about evolution, which postulates change over millions of years.
A geology professor I used to know told me that there was evidence for not one, but three distinct and sudden floods that marked the end of the ice age, and it was within the realm of possibility that the most recent could have wiped out the bare beginnings of several coastal civilizations around the world.Also, the story of the flood of Genesis was preceded by nearly 1,000 years by a remarkably similar version involving a Sumerian king, Gilgamesh (an ancestor of Superman, by all accounts), who built a huge boat to rescue mankind. Neither version is nearly old enough to be an actual account of that most recent flood, but oral folklore as a general history has been validated on numerous occasions. The flood story, although mythologized to an extreme, may actually possess a kernel of fact.
The flood story, although mythologized to an extreme, may actually possess a kernel of fact.Posted by: Jed | May 14, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Unlike the young earth story, which is just nuts. Purely willful ignorance, designed to add flair to a faith weakly held.
The kernel of fact concerning the biblical flood points to the Mediterranean sea flooding the black sea via a split in the land. By all accounts, the rush of water was so intense, it created storms that lasted approximately 40 days and 40 nights. The biblical flood may have in fact been a localized event which wiped out most of the inhabited region of the time.
There is much evidence supporting this found by expeditions using sophisticated sonar as well as underwater photography. The biblical account may be a combination of both Gilgamesh and old testament. Not to surprising when the sophistication of the people living in the area at the time. Stories handed down through generations, while having legend melded with truth, are just that: oral histories.
One must remember the bible is a collection of stories handed down, and put in book form by humans, long after the facts, who indeed are fallible.
Tom,
So basically, what you are saying is that you can only have a conversation about Evolution with someone who already believes it?
That makes no sense.
Either you can/want to discuss it or you don’t. We don’t have to agree on the age of the Earth to discuss the merits of Evolutionary theory.
The Tom who asked about the Ark,
The Bible doesn’t say that Noah loaded up all the different species.
The Bible says 2 of each kind.
JM Walker,
If you discounted almost everything, other than there being a flood, which the Bible talks about…
Well, then I could see how you could say what you did.
The key being, your dismissal of what the Bible says…
Nathan,
Don’t put words into my mouth. Again: Evolution postulates change in species over millions of years. If you believe the earth is only a few thousands of years old, we don’t have a starting point to discuss evolution. How can we discuss life on earth millions of years ago if you reject the basic premise of “millions of years ago?”
Tom,
You don’t have to accept the basic premise to argue about the whole idea.
However, if the first argument is the age of the Earth, then perhaps that is the place to begin discussing Evolutionary Theory?
Nathan,
The whole purpose of a basic premise is to provide a foundation for any subsequent discussion. If, for example, we wished to discuss fossilized trilobytes from 350 million years ago…the conversation ends, right there. A person who believes in a “young earth” rejects the 350 million years before we even get to any discussion of fossils or other geological evidence.
I repeat my statement from earlier today: Having discussions about evolution with people who believe the earth is 10,000 or 8,000 or 6,000 years old is pointless. If you don’t accept the postulation that earth is billions of years old, you will never accept any evidence that rests on that postulation.
Nathan, I have asked earlier for the “scientific” evidence that ID/creationism is valid. So far, all I have heard is speculation and efforts to discount evolution.
Every reputable scientist is of the opinion that the Earth is millions of years old. I would like to see some evidence from your side of the debate.
It is an easy question – what is the scientific proof Intelligent Design?
Not speculation or denouncing evolution, but solid scientific proof of ID.
Easy, right?
I’m not surprised that I come back from work and there’s no scientific evidence for creationism presented. I wasn’t expecting much since I asked for evidence on this forum months ago and received the same amount of excuses.
If the universe is only 8,000 years old then how does the creationist account for materials listed on the periodic table that half half-lives of well over a billion years? According to the creationist mythos that’s impossible.
Doesn’t an 8,000 year old Earth make the dinosaurs magical since they were able to live millions of years ago without noticing that there wasn’t a universe around them.
Then there’s those civilizations that existed past 8,000 years ago which persisted without anybody telling them that humans hadn’t been created yet.
Perhaps my reading comprehension is bad because I’m sure I read that creationists claimed they had scientific evidence for this nonsense. Perhaps they were saying the evidence contradicts their views but they just hate reality so much they don’t want to accept it. I wonder what emotional trauma they had in science class to cause them to stick their fingers in their ears and scream every time someone brings up reality.
JM,I heard that Black Sea theory quite some time ago. All of it, including my version, is of course speculation. There is though, some new evidence just now coming to light that may affect all our opinions on the subject if it proves valid and is published in a year or so.Also, I’ve done considerable study and a little collection of folklore over the years, and it can be stunning how long these tales can last, and after you subtract the cultural bias of those passing them down, they can be surprisingly accurate. One folklorist of note collected a story in southern Missouri that appears to have been in oral circulation (originally from Viking mythology by way of northern Scotland) since sometime in the 9th century, and though christianized, was still quite recognizable!
“The earth shall tremble on the new moon and all will anguish the sun.”
I dunno,it was a prediction by an apocalyptic soothsayer.
Since creationists here believe the universe is only 8,000 years old then how do they explain the existence of the recently observed supernova? This supernova exploded 240 million years ago and the light is just now reaching Earth to become visible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301109.html
Do creationists not believe in the speed of light either? I know it’s just a theory and all but what scientific evidence do you have that light naturally travels at a much faster rate.
Someone here is going to win the Nobel Prize for their outstanding scientific discoveries that not only debunk the speed of light (imagine the money you’ll make from the telecommunication industry) but complete change the field of physics and astronomy (which are all theories like evolution).
Tom is correct about the lack of common premises. We cannot argue about fossil evidence from billions of years ago, because Nathan and Hank don’t believe the earth existed more than 10,000 years ago.
We cannot discuss phylogenetic trees or speciation as evidence for evolution because Nathan rejects the taxonomic system that scientists use. If I remember correctly, he believes that God created many different “kinds” of creatures and these can adapt and evolve within their “kind”, but not into other “kinds”. He cannot give us a scientific explanation of what exactly a “kind” is. He says that dogs and wolves are the same kind. What, same family? Same class? Why are they the same kind?Are cyanobacteria and green algae the same kind? Are green algae and land plants the same kind? I doubt he could tell us what the common traits that tie a “kind” together except that he knows it when he sees it.So, taxonomy is thrown out.
Carbon dating as evidence of an old earth is not a common premise, because they both believe that the rate of radioactive decay has not remained constant.
There is very little to work with, and so arguing is not worth it. What young earth creationists do is examine the entire body of science and pick out very specific (often refuted) nitpicks which are miniscule when compared to all of the other evidence. They ignore all of the evidence supporting it and only focus on the few perceived weaknesses.
The problem is, if you want to falsify evolution, you need to take EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence against it and systematically disprove it. When the amount of falsification is close to the amount of evidence for evolution, THEN we can seriously consider alternative viewpoints. But we’ve collected evidence for evolution for 150 years, it’s going to take a lot of work to start to make a dent.
It is futile for all of us to argue: The young-earth creationists won’t convince us throw out entire fields of science and we won’t convince them put aside their beliefs of what the Bible says and examine all of the evidence.
Therefore, I vote that we all just chill out and maybe eat some Haagan Daaz.
Oh, and wikipedia’s explanation of the “created kind” system:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BaraminologyFrom the article:
“To refine this method, the “concept of “Baramin Distance” was proposed. The initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the Catarrhine primates, including genetic tests and tests based on ecology and morphology. However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the two groups are separate,[4] so methods that did not separate humans from primates were rejected.[5]”
So creationists DO perform “scientific testing” like rRNA sequencing, but they reject it if it conflicts with the Biblical creation. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE GUYS.
Hank: “For instance, I can find a lot of scientific evidence that supports my faith. That and logic makes me unafraid to discuss evolution with you.”
Thus, your faith is so weak that evidences are needed to support it. Dude, you’re of a weak heart! Don’t let facts get in the way of unspoilt belief…
Hank: “Every time someone uses my faith in an argument it shows the weakness of theirs.”
Or show the weakness of yours that you have to refer to things beyond what’s rational, i.e., faith. Dude, Jesus himself suggested to keep one’s faith private, so that God alone can know the depth of your heart.
It’s backwards.
It’s the knuckle-draggers who are attracted to those at the presidential campaign podium.
The Big question is: Does Santa Clause still live at the north pole?
No, Ed. He’s moving to Finland since due to global warming, NP will be one big cold ocean. :)
http://www.santaclauslive.com/main.php?kieli=eng
But the Dutch kids will insist that he lives in Spain with his Moor sidekick named Pete!
There are over 40,000 religions practiced in the world today. If I were to ask a believer from each, which religion is the one true religion, I would get a one word answer: mine.
Does that make them wrong, or right? Does it matter in the long run? My answer to that would be, no.
So what does that have to do with the bible? In my opinion, everything. The bible, as an accurate historical reference, has shown itself to be quite true. But most of that applies to the new testament.
The old testament, on the other hand, is a series of stories handed down orally, that, while having some basis in fact, are still subject to the vagaries of man. Oral traditions, by their very nature, change to reflect changing climates in mans’ history. That is not to say accounts in the old testament are wrong, only that they reflect what was perceived at the time. Ergo, the biblical flood happened, but only to the known world at the time, not the entire earth.
Of course, I could be wrong; after all, it may have been the dinosaurs that ate the written word of the times:-)
JM Walker,
It is a bit disinginuous to represent religion in the world as you do.
There might be over 40,000 religions practiced, however, there are only a few religions which have extreme predominance:
Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddist…
Christianity and Islam have the same history as well, they seperate at Abrahams sons in the Old Testament.
There is much more history in the Old Testament than you present here.
You can claim that their might have been a flood which was more localized, in your attempt to defraud the Bible, but that is not what the Bible says.
Like I said before, you would have to completely ignore much of what the Bible says about the flood to say it was merely a localized event.
There is no evidence to suggest such a blatant exageration or manipulation of the text to suggest it was so grossly wrong in it’s description of the flood.
“There is no evidence to suggest such a blatant exageration or manipulation of the text to suggest it was so grossly wrong in it’s description of the flood.”
There is also no evidence supporting the bibles version of the flood. In fact, there is much evidence as to its localized events.
Nowhere have I said the bible is wrong, what I have said is that it cooresponds to the times, and the people living in the areas at those times. It hardly, in my opinion, supports a world view, as little of the whole world was known at the time. Just the parts that consisted of what the people of those places viewed as “their entire world.”
JM Walker,
You did say the Bible was wrong:
“Ergo, the biblical flood happened, but only to the known world at the time, not the entire earth.”
If that is not a stark contrast to what the Bible says while labeling it the “biblical flood” then what on earth is it?
Roo-Ster
I’m am so glad that you have finally settled the big question of “where Santa Clause lives.”
With humble gratitude, I offer my deepest heartfelt sincere thanks, The Great Ed Friedemann
In Biblical Times people thought that the world was flat, and if you sailed long enough, you’d fall off the edge.
It seems that some blog members have taken that awesome voyage and have come back to haunt us.
There’s an estimated 100 million species on the planet today. Therefore Noah would have to get at least 200 million of them on his boat with enough food, water, ventilation and sanitation. How can people still believe this nonsense story? It was fine telling the story to children alongside stories of people living in gingerbread houses in the forest or stories about magical beans. But it’s time for some people to grow up and realize fairy tales are not meant to be taken literally.
Doug
A major problem on the supposed “Ark” is that food for those “species” is other “species.”
{ a very implausible situation }
Doug,
The Bible doesn’t claim to have placed every species on the Ark. It said God had Noah place 2 of each kind on the Ark.
You are trying to take our classification system today and apply it to a time when things were not so minutely classifed as our system does today.
Noah wouldn’t have taken all 100 plus different breeds of dog, he would have taken 2 dogs.
Noah would not have taken every variant of cattle, just 2.
It is rather simple and not hard to believe.
“You are trying to take our classification system today and apply it to a time when things were not so minutely classifed as our system does today.”
You have just made my point:The biblical flood took place on the part of the earth known to man. Very little of the earth was known to man at the time. So how could people of the time record a biblical flood covering the whole earth when little was known of the world.
Trying to include a whole world thought to be flat in the biblical flood is nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. Ergo, I did not discount the biblical flood; only put it in perspective.
Breeds of dogs aren’t separate species. Poodles, German Shepard are all the same species. Scientifically what makes a species is the inability to procreate with different species. So a mountain lion and a cheetah while being related taxonomically cant breed. So exactly want is a “Kind” if your saying that modern species come from these “Kinds” then that would be evolution. The feeding and care of millions of animals is another probelm, the ZOO here in town has hundreds of workers to clean, feed, and care for just a tiny fraction of the animals om the ark. Which was down by 8 people. Then you have many animals that eat special food pandas, eat only bamboo, kolas eucplapls, carnivores, meat and so on, that a lot of food to store for a year
JM Walker,
you are still discounting the Biblical Flood.
Everything that makes it the “Biblical Flood” is that it did cover the whole earth and that Noah did have an Ark…
When you say that it was just a localized event you are in fact discounting the Biblical Flood.
Of course, we are arguing about this being nonsense, when I believe that God sent his son to die for our sins.
Is that just as nonsensical for you too?
Why not just get right to the heart of Christianity and stop nit picking the little things?
So Nathan, how many “kinds” are there and what is the scientific classification for a kind that doesn’t relate to a species?
If you started with just two dogs, you’d need to use evolution to allow the two dogs to evolve into the many different breeds of today.
The story of the “ark” as it stands is ridiculous.
God has definite ways of arriving at conclusions. You are trying to dictate those methods by your interpretations of the sequencing of events to suit your predetermined methodology. In that sense you’re playing God by endorsing the writing of man against the events created by God.
Or accepting the infallibility of man to be superior or override the absolution of God.
What is Nathan’s proposed mutation rate that would allow for a “kind” to develop the variety of dogs that we have now?
When was this mythical global flood and what dating method does Nathan use to period this event?
Ed’s comment is illustrative of the fact that most people don’t understand the term “evolution”. It is used to mean everything from changes within species to the theory of common descent.
Ed, the dog is still a dog. Different yes, and probably the differences are the result of selective breeding of recessive genes rather than “evolution”. But even if it were, it’s not turned into a different species, as Darwin’s logic would indicate has happened.
And there is no proof that its ancestors were ever anything else. It is here that Darwin’s great speculation begins.
I once challenged someone on the ark scenario, their response was “with god all things are possible, he could have put all the animnals on a pin head”, for me, I could see there was no point on continuing the debate.
“And there is no proof that its ancestors were ever anything else. It is here that Darwin’s great speculation begins.”
Darwin’s speculation conforms with logical reasoning and an ever increasing collection of evidence, therefore: Though there may not be “proof” of evolution, it sure beats the hell out of your “magic.”
{ God has his own magic and if you bother to look around, it’s everywhere }
Note: My someday to be completed paper: “The Universe Is A Cauldron Of Instruction” { copyright Ed Friedemann 2003 }
Actually, it is rather impressive that bible is so close to what scientist think about the beginning of life. The part about life coming from an inorganic substance, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Many faiths take the old testament to be an inspired writing. Not a text book explaining all the scientific mysteries.
Ed,”A major problem on the supposed “Ark” is that food for those “species” is other “species.” ”
That’s obviously what happened to the dinosaurs, dragons and unicorns. And why didn’t Noah show just a bit of compassion and “forget” to bring those zillion species of mosquitos?
Jed
I feel privileged when God shows or allows us to understand how he goes about doing things or gives us a glimpse into the inner working of a complicated process.
We were all given a mind to grow, not to stay childish, and not using our minds maybe the greatest form of disrespect.
Religions tend to teach the opposite, that which threaten their grip on power. That has held true throughout the ages.
I am discounting YOUR belief in the biblical flood. I do not buy the premise that the flood covered the entire earth, only that it covered the KNOWN land at the time.
The fact the biblical account was written many years after the Gilgamesh account leads me to believe that, while the account is histroically accurate, it is only accurate for the known lands at the time.
If the account is also accurate on a world scale, then it means we are descended from predominately black ancestors. The land was mostly inhabited by people of black descent. Why then, are we not black?
It is also a fact Jesus was more than likely black. Why, then, do we depict him as white?
I am not attempting to deny Jesus was the Son of God. In fact I believe that as well. I just find there is a definite pattern in the bible that it portrayed what was known to man at the time, i.e., known lands, tribes, etc. It in no way disputes the bible itself, just the interpretion of it.
JM,It has become obvious in recent years, as if it wasn’t so before, that all people share common ancestors who simply adapted to their environments. The genetic differences that mark “the races” is so negligible as to be meaningless. If you doubt me, send $100 and a swab to these folks and find out for sure!https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Nathan: “Of course, we are arguing about this being nonsense, when I believe that God sent his son to die for our sins.
Is that just as nonsensical for you too?
Why not just get right to the heart of Christianity and stop nit picking the little things?”
Oh, so the rest of the Bible are just “little things” then and not to be taken seriously? Funny talk for a Literalist.
I agree with one thing. Let’s get to the core of what it means to be “a follower of Christ.” To me that reduces to acknowledgment, respect, and love for a Higher Power, and expressing them by caring for others around us. No need for bashing Bibles on the heads of non-believers (or believers alike).