Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., explained in a New York Times commentary what he meant when he said, during a show of hands at the first GOP presidential debate, that he didn’t believe in evolution. “If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true,” he wrote. “If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.”
Brownback said that “the premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.”
But on the National Review Online, conservative John Derbyshire responded that saying “here is Brownback talking about evolutionary biology” is a bit like “saying: ‘Here’s Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations.’”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- jbradley on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Phinatic on It’s the stupidity about the economy
157 Comments
856 words in Sam’s NY Times editorial, and guess what?
HE NEVER ANSWERED THE DAMN QUESTION.
What a moron. How the hell did he get elected in the first place??? Is the Democratic Party going to pull its collective head out this year and get a _real_ candidate for this seat?
Good grief.
Oh wait, he’s not up until 2010. 2 1/2 more years of stupid…
:::sigh:::
Brownback believes it’s impossible to walk a mile. He believes you can take step after step but actually achieving the distance of a mile from those steps is impossible. That’s his position on evolution, it’s absurd.
It can be shown that through a period of climate change, habitat change and societal change. Man does evolve. We have been come less hairy, our teeth are not as strong or sharp as they once were. Such as before our food was so processed it took stronger teeth to chew. But over the centuries as man’s meals change to a less difficult to eat food. Our teeth have become less of a factor and have evolved.
a Micro change over several hundred years, like wise our dwellings have improved from basic shelter from a storm to a climate control bios sphere. So the need for our hair has diminished, yes the day is coming when we will be hairless, toothless moles! Kiss me you fool! LOL
856 words and he did not answer the question. He is a slimey politician, but the real telling and exactly correct part of the story:
“But on the National Review Online, conservative John Derbyshire responded that saying “here is Brownback talking about evolutionary biology” is a bit like “saying: ‘Here’s Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations.’””
No more need to be said.
Do Not re-elect Sam Brownbck for his stance of supporting the collassal screw up the “immirgration Feform Bill” that does not.
Sammy body likes special interest groups more than his own constitutients.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”-Albert Einstein
“The fact that evolution is the backbone of biology, and thus biology is in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory-is it then a science or faith?-Charles Darwin
Why certain religious groups want to disbelieve evolution is okay with me. They’re wrong, but that’s their problem. Evolving from bipeds, not monkeys, is our heritage. And bipeds have been around for at least a million years.
That’s quite a bit longer than the 8,000 years or so these same believers think the earths been around. On that one, I refer to Einstein’s quote. Or think plate tectonics, if you dare.
Writerdog,
Creationists don’t reject Micro Evolution.
We simply don’t believe that it proves Macro Evolution.
nathan……………your fundie dogma is very boring. Give it up, use your Montgomery GI money to get a real education and maybe then you might understand “S-C-I-E-N-C-E”.
Apophis,
I might understand Evolution, but don’t presume I don’t understand science.
Typical, go straight to the insults.
ah, nathan……….you show your ignorance of science when you disregard the evolution based on your fundie dogma. If you consider that an insult, well what the hell.
Get a real education solider-boy.
don’t presume I don’t understand science.Posted by: Nathan | June 03, 2007 at 07:42 AM
When God created them [stars] 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.Posted by: Nathan | May 30, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Okay. I won’t presume you don’t understand science. I’ll just wait for you to tell me yourself that you don’t understand science.
Looks like my wait is over, actually.
“Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”
Well said Mr. Brownback.
“Creationists don’t reject Micro Evolution.
We simply don’t believe that it proves Macro Evolution.”
Those are one in the same ther Nathan.
This is where I break away from the Stupid Kansas “Conservative” Republicans. These guys do not want a “Free and conservative” American, they want to establish a fundamentalist Christian Caliphate.
That is the government getting involved with religions, and I can think of nothing MORE non-conservative.
Give it up you have lost and lost big on the ID/Creo v. evolution debate.
You want to do nothing more than replace Science with vodoo!
Nathan,Your reasoning concerning the light from start makes no sense at all. If your assumption were true, the speed of light can be discounted as a scientific fact. You must also understand the bible was written when people had no clue to what, or how far starts, are. They also had no clue as to continents, DNA, simple hygiene or basically any sciences, except some metallurgy.
Do you for one minute think the people of the times would have understood, let alone follow, a biblical text supporting the above? The writers would have been burned at the stake for blasphemy.
I think God knew what he was doing, and science has pretty much proven that. It is the fundamentalists who either can’t or wont see just how intelligent God really is.
As Einstein said, “religion without science is blind.” Fundamentalists prove him correct.
What I continue to fail to understand is HOW common descent is incompatible with a “guiding intelligence”. Common descent, in its subtlety, simplicity, and beauty is far more worthy a mechanism for the development of life than a “Once upon a time…” explanation.
IMHO, the real controversy here is NOT common descent per se, but its implications for literal Christian theology. If common descent is true, then we owe our existence to lower, imperfect, “mortal”, forms o life. Therefore, in contradiction to scripture, we never had “eternal life” to begin with. Following through on this, if we never had eternal life, then there is certainly no need for a savior to return to us what we never had in the first place. From here, it’s easy to see how the whole structure collapses under its own weight.
This has all happened before. The Christian community has had to rethink its dogma and its place in the world many, many, times. This appears to be a good time to re-examine things again. Maybe this time, instead of being hung up on sophistic ramblings of philosopher-theologians, the focus should be on the simplicity of Jesus’ view of God and life…”love God with all your heart and love your fellow man as you love yourself”….no mention of arks, dinosaurs, the trinity, the infallible nature of the pope in matters of dogma, and on and on and and on. Sure seems to me like a lot of literalist Christians are no better than the literalist pharisees of Jesus’ own time.
One of the greatest sins or faults of man is his pride. We certainly are pretty cheeky to believe that we understand God’ intents and methods so well that there is no room for discussion or doubt. Lewis Carroll mad Humpty Dumpty full of pride (read the chapter). Humpty then fell and couldn’t be put back together aain. The story is not LITERALLY true, but it certainly is true in another sense…pride DOES goeth before the fall.
All of this is really unimportant. Within the next twenty years the Mexicans will have taken over and it won’t matter one wit what whitey believes!
What does national origin have to do with religious dogma…there are evangelical, literalist, latinos, and there aren’t..BFD.
What does national origin have to do with religious dogma…
Not a damn thing…but in this case the Mexicans are all agreed that whitey has to go and leave what will soon be their country.
They have no problem believing in a religion and practicing genocide. After all, that is how the United States came to be isn’t it?
Christians got rid of the inconvenient heathens so thay could take over.
It seems to me that the main reason there are fights over this issue is what’s taught in public schools.
If we had meaningful school choice — meaning vouchers — or even better, an end to public schools, this issue would largely disappear. People would be free to believe what they wish, and we could all move on to other things rather than fighting.
But you all like to fight over what others should be forced to believe, don’t you?
Uh oh happy… you just opened a whole can of worms… and I could go on a major rant about how the “original inhabitants” of OUR land, were killed, excluded, had their culture and language and religion all but wiped out, and put on conenient reservations, to all of the foreign born immigrants coming here to find a “promised land” —
Oh, what the heck, somebody else can go on that rant… I have had a long weekend!!
Chas
My point exactly….what white man did to the natives will be done to white man….karma.
“If we had meaningful school choice — meaning vouchers — or even better, an end to public schools, this issue would largely disappear. People would be free to believe what they wish, and we could all move on to other things rather than fighting.”
Now that’s smart, an end to public schools…so you propose that a completely uneducated populace would be better than someone who is briefly told about evolution?
Rather than mention evolution let’s just end educating children altogether?
Good luck with that!
anonymous,
Your proposal solves nothing…just shifts it. At the end of the day all kids interested in pursuing college are expected to know a certain set of accepted, basic things- how to write a coherent sentence, how to do math at least up to the level of introductory algebra, to have been exposed to the basic sciences – physics, biology, chemistry, etc. If it is your opinion that public schools should be eliminated and all the “new” private schools that spring up should be free to teach whatever they want, then you have a prescription for chaos.
The state has an abiding interest in having an educated citizenry…to make the machinery of the republic work, but also to promote that jobs and industry find the state a source of talented labor.
I assume if you’re “for” schools that teach primarily creationim, you’d also be for schools that “teach” that the holocaust never occurred, or that “teach” that the white race is superior, or perhaps who “teach” that suicide attacks on civilians is a legitimate war strategy.
All of this is really unimportant. Within the next twenty years the Mexicans will have taken over and it won’t matter one wit what whitey believes!
Posted by: happy | June 03, 2007 at 09:56 AM
WOw! Somebody has revealed their prejudice.
I assume if you’re “for” schools that teach primarily creationim, you’d also be for schools that “teach” that the holocaust never occurred, or that “teach” that the white race is superior, or perhaps who “teach” that suicide attacks on civilians is a legitimate war strategy.
Posted by: BFAH | June 03, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I am opposed to teaching creationism in school, but I know plenty of people who are not. They do not hold any of the beleifs that you mention
littlejohn,
Read the post again..I NEVER said those who support creationism support the other positions mentioned. I actually said, if you’re FOR schools formed because you’d like them to teach creationism to your kids, then you should also be FOR any group that organizes a school to teach whatever it deems appropriate to the children of those who want subject “XXX” taught in school, “XXX” being things like revisionist history, religious indoctrination, etc.
Escept “XXX” as in ID/Creo garbage is not Scinece. So it cannot be taught as “XXX’ or Science!
BFAH-
While I don;t get the same meaning from the wording in your post, I am perfectly willing to say i may read it differently than you intended. So, on that basis, my apologies.
Tyler,
Unfortunately, with a school system “reformed” as anonymous would like, a private school could teach anything it liked and call the subject matter whatever it wanted.
Ok, the choice is Sam or Paris? I’ll take Paris.
“Tyler,
Unfortunately, with a school system “reformed” as anonymous would like, a private school could teach anything it liked and call the subject matter whatever it wanted.”
KInd of like the schools in California teaching ONLY Mexican History and ONLY Spanihs!
We have lost control of the freedoms and divisions needed to keep our Country Free!
Happy — Even if I am not totally sure about Karma, I can settle for a “paybacks are hell” kind of theory… What many Americans are complaining about NOW with illegals, is exactly what the original founders, and even some of our ancestors, did to the original inhabitants of this land…
Maybe so many are so upset about it, because they know deep down, that it might work??
Many job listings now tell us we have to know a Foreign language to be employed… Some are fearful that we will need to accept a foreign religion(for most of us) in order to “get along”… Many are quite angry that we are being asked to share our “resources” with those we arent sure have earned a share of those resources.
Yep, it does sound a little like the “wounded knee” story, only this time we are the ones being invaded… and it doesnt feel too good for many of us…
There are some radical Evolutionists who think, somehow, that Evolution “proves” that there is no God.
There are some radical Creationists who believe that the Bible “proves” that evolution is wrong and that Evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive.
The radicals in both camps are wrong.
As posted previously, by someone else on this thread, the Bible was written long ago. The Bible is a written history of what had been an oral tradition, prior to being recorded, written to a population which did not understand basic science or basic theology.
“Remember man that you are dust and to dust you shall return.” Catholic Blessing for good health, based on a Verse I dont wish to look up.
Genisis says that God made Adam from Humus, or dirt.
Websters: Humus, “good soil made rich with decayed animal or vegetable matter.”
I challenge this entire BLOG, Atheists and Believers, Strict Fundamentalists, Evolutionists, Creationists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and any combination of the various camps on this issue:
Come up with a BETTER way to explain human life, to ancient people, than to say we come from other organic matter, through humus, or dirt?
To the ancients, the idea that there were atoms or molecules or cells or DNA would have been harder to believe than witchcraft. How do you explain what you can not see?
Thousands of years ago, an explanatiion was made, in religious terms, that STILL makes sense today, in scientific terms!
I do not understand how devout Christians can be insulted by the scientific idea that we came from “Monkeys” but not be insulted by the idea that we came from “decayed” monkeys, plants, rabbits, birds, and animal feces, etc.
HUMUS is decayed animal and plant matter!
Ancient people could not understand anything more basic than dirt, dust or humus. That was the SMALLEST particle they could think of: Dust or dirt!
The Bible NEVER states that all belief must come from the Bible.
The Bible was not written as a scientific journal.
The Bible teaches us how to live, it does not serve as the ultimate authority on the origins of life!
Evolutiion is the method God used to Create our present world.
I don’t think Evolution would be possible without the hand of God.
That is FAITH, isn’t it?
This is typical Sam Brownback backpedaling on that fence. He knows he screwed up in the debate but he is satisfied with keeping his conservative Christian support. When Sam backpedals and says he supports some form of evolution, this is his way to appease the rest of the world outside of conservative Christian.
Sam will say or do anything that will get him some votes. This shows how much true moral character Brownback really has.
Sam Brownback has GREAT moral character.To say otherwise is a cheap shot.You disagree with him.We got that.To insult his charcter actually reflects on your own.
Brownback has a moral character based on his religious upbringing, which he constantly attempts to infuse into government. There is a reason the constitution frowns on that.
Brownback out of government would be someone religious people could look up to. That’s the difference.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth is MORAL character? Since when? Your definition of moral character must coincide with Bush’s bringing back honesty and integrity to the White House. Yeah, right.
Isn’t Econ101 really Paul rosell – the known Republican lap dog?
“Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”–Sam Brownback
That is nutty as hell. Brownback is saying that faith in humanity’s non-accidental existence should PRECLUDE scientific findings IF some new law or theorem could be used to prove a random origin of humans.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but that scares the hell out of me. This guy is loco. This is Dark Ages stuff. Hell, Brownback is in essence taking Cardinal Bellarmine’s side in the Rome’s 17th-century fight against Galileo and heliocentrism. That’s an argument the church “won” in the short term, but in the long term it lost BIG TIME and at a horrific cost.
You’d think these religious nutcases would learn that if you have to lie or deny knowledge to prop up faith, then that’s a real bad thing. For humans AND the church.
Lots of Republcans would be delighted to turn the clock back to 1954 or so. Brownback would apparently like to turn it back to 1616.
No way should Brownback ever manage science funding or pure science initiatives at the Federal level. This guy, by his writing, shows us clearly his failure to grasp science and science achievement.
Jesus. I guess the rest of the country might give Kansas all kinds of bible institutes (being philosophical here), but ain’t no way Kansas is ever gonna land a federally funded pure science initiative with Brownback in the US Senate.
Pedant,
Yes, it is VERY frightening…rejecting demonstrably true facts in favor of speculation as one sees fit. A case closer to our time and rather similar Galileo’s was the Nazi rejection of “Jew science”. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us) many of the world’s leading physicists were German Jews who emigrated, thus setting the reich back enormously in its quest for nuclear weapons.
Chas
I remember someone calling in to a late night talk show in the early 70’s warning about the influx of illegal Mexicans and calling it an “invasion”. The person was summarily dismissed as wacko by the host of the show.
30 years later and the idea is not as crazy as it once sounded. I’m not racist. I call it like I see it. The Mexicans are invading our country, working, and sending huge amounts of money back to Mexico.
They have no intention of obeying our laws or of honoring any new laws that congress may pass.
We have allowed them to do whatever they want for too long and the numbers are in their favor.
Short of concentration or deportation camps there are too many of them. The “war” is lost.
They have already nonviolently taken over our system and soon the country.
Like the natives we systematically destroyed because they couldn’t understand our way of life, we will allow the Mexicans to inevitably destroy us.
Typical of a politician. Don’t want to give a real answer because he is worried that he might give a real opinion and lock himself into one side and piss off voters. Loser!
The bible is not proof, it is just a flipping book.
I thought when children grew up, they weren’t suppose to have imaginary friends and imaginary figures. Too many people believe in something that doesn’t exist.
Only true Americans burn Mexican flags!!!
Every human race, every culture, has had its downside.
To say that Native Americans have it better now than they did before the White Man is very true.
This does not excuse our excesses, but the American Indians, themselves, were often brutal to one another.
The Carrib Indians, after which the Carribian was named, were cannibals. During the time of Cortez, they captured enemy tribes and ate them. They also kept enemy children in cages and fattened them like livestock, so that they could be eaten.
Sam Houston is credited with clearing out some of the Cannibal tribes on the Gulf Coast.
Southwester tribes were not cannibals, but they tortured their enemies by wrapping them in raw hide and slow cooking them over a fire, leaving the corpse for wild game to eat.
Many of the injustices done to Native Americans were done by the Spanish, who sacked the Mayan, Incan and Aztec shrines and riches.
Some of you anti-American types have no survival skills or survival instincts.
To say that we have done wrong in the past is one thing.
To say that the over throw of our culture would some how improve things, for ANYONE, is just nuts.
Again, every culture has a barbarian and cruel history, if you dig far enough!
For Heaven sake, you liberals want us to change our entire lifestyle, one minute, due to “global warming” — but they you want a Mexican culture known for rampant pollution to take over America?
Before you call me a “racist” I have Spanish roots!
“To say that Native Americans have it better now than they did before the White Man is very true.”
So, the Native Americans should just “get over” that whole genocide thing, right Paul? They should “get over” the theft of their land and the destruction of their religion and culture?
Yeah, they have it so much better now, right?
Paul, as a Cherokee I seriously question that the European invasion/genocide made things better. The descriptions you use were written by those DOING the genocide; perhaps to justify their barbarity toward the Native Americans.
It amazes me that proposing an end to public schools is interpreted as calling for the end of educating children.
What happens in today’s public schools can hardly be called education. The writer who said that incoming college students are expected to know certain things might want to read the report “Reading Between The Lines” issued by ACT a year ago. From it: “51% of ACT-tested high school graduates met ACT’s College Readiness Benchmark for Reading, demonstrating their readiness to handle the reading requirements for typical credit-bearing first-year college coursework.” Furthermore, “More eighth- and tenth-graders are on track to being ready for college-level reading than are actually ready when they graduate from high school.” The report calls this “losing momentum.”
I never said what type of schools I am for. One writer assumed I would be for schools that teach several silly things. Did I say that?
It is a mark of how much liberty we have lost when people assume that education will happen only if the state compels it. The result has been a decline in the quality of education in this country, and a dismal outlook for the future.
anonymous, you didn’t have to say much of what was inferred..it was a logical outcome. If you are in favor of some standards for student performance, then you automatically require an agency that sets the standards, measures the performance, and makes sure that school curricula are equivalent.
As far as the comment
“51% of ACT-tested high school graduates met ACT’s College Readiness Benchmark for Reading, demonstrating their readiness to handle the reading requirements for typical credit-bearing first-year college coursework.”
is concerned, that implies 49% do not meet the standards. This is supposed to be a positive thing in support of your position???
What you said was that you were for private schools with vouchers.How does that solve anything? If “literalist Christian” schools have to meet the agreed upon standards for science education, what’s the point?
The problem with today’s school system lies with the students. Learning is a 2-way street. No learning occurs if I talk to a stone, or a sleeping student, or for that matter a disengaged student who, for whatever reason, sees no value to education. IMHO, we would be better removing these kids from school and educating them at a later time, when they are more willing to learn. This would have the benefit of allowing those students who want to learn the opportunity to learn in a more interesting, faster-paced environment. It would relieve our teachers of babysitting duties, police duties, and psychotherapist duties to allow them to focus on what they want to do and what they were educated to do.
Rather than force a kid through 12 years of school, many of which do her/him no good, let education begin (and continue) when the student is willing to learn…the other side of the coin – teachers ready to teach – will always be there.
BFAH, you assumed things I never said, then “logically” proceeded from there.
We have organizations that set standards for student performance, and according to many public school experts, this high-stakes testing is ruining schools.
Either way, why not let parents be the judge of how well their children are doing?
The fact that 49% of students do not meet the standards means that our public schools are not doing a good job. That’s why the paragraph started with “What happens in today’s public schools can hardly be called education.”
We are promised, year after year, that our public schools will improve. Instead, these incremental reform measures rarely work. It amazes me that anyone can defend the current system of coerced schools masquerading as education.
Except, that is, those who have a stake in their continued monopoly.
..which is exactly my point, anonymous…perhaps the focus has been on the wrong issues…to anyone who has taught in a public school, especially a district in which the tax base is decaying, the problems are with the students, not the schools…the people being taught must be willing to learn or it’s all wasted effort.
Students do not HAVE to learn today.
There’s enough welfare around where no Americans are starving to death today. In fact 1/2 or so, depending on which study you read, are obese! And those on welfare are more obese then those who are not! How’s that for motivation.
Or they just live with their parents until they are 25.
BFAH, I agree with your approach to let the kids fail and drop out of school, or kick them out when needed, but until the welfare system is ‘reformed’ these kids will just be on the public dole the rest of their lives.
When I was in high school, I’d see other kids that were stoned, sleeping on their desks, or being disruptive in class, and NOTHING happened to them! In fact, most of them graduated!
It’s time to change the education system and bring competition to play in a free market. Give parents a voucher in the amount of whatever is being paid per student to the schools today, and let the parents choose which school their kids attend.
You’ll find a rapid growth of private schools, who will deal more fairly and aggressively with those kids who are not there to learn, and allow more time for teachers to spend with the kids who are there to learn.
Those who are on dope or don’t care to learn, they can default to the public schools.
I just wanted to show some love for Econ101’s first post about Adam being made from humus.I have always wondered if “The Bible says so” is the requirement for anything to be true, how WOULD the Bible explain evolution without knowledge of DNA and genetic drift and all that good stuff?If he wanted to speak in terms that ancient humans understand, how would he do it?
Science is how God goes about doing things.
Science is how God goes about doing things, and man busily goes about adding in the “why.”
Ed Friedemann
Evolutionists rage
The new creation museums in Kentucky and Canada have prompted a new round of news articles, blogs, and commentaries mostly by those opposing evolutionists.Having read many, ad nauseum, the general message from evolutionists is one of “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up”. The emotionalism is always rampant, typified by the common threads of vitriol, foul language, ignorance and unsupported accusations.Some of it is human reaction in that:1) no one likes to be told that what they believed for years is suspect or false2) if one’s atheism is driven by evolution or vice versa, no one wants their beliefs shattered by evidence to the contrary3) name calling is a ploy often used to belittle something or someone without substantiation4) false information is often resurrected when such has been exposed years back5) denial of empirical evidence is merely denied as if such changes anything6) broad generalities are used such as that evolution is the foundation for all scienceIn the case of creation/evolution, the subject is explosive (like the “big bang”) in that the one is the antithesis ( extreme opposite) of the other with no reasonable compromise possible.All of these approaches fly in the face of sound scientific discipline. Scientists are taught that science is the search for truth. This means examining all pertinent evidence and drawing unbiased decisions and conclusions based solely on the evidence gathered. Good science requires an open mind where the evidence leads to the conclusion, not one’s personal bias or prejudice.In the scientific realm, contrary to what evolutionists would want us to believe, the application of science to the everyday world in the research and development of products that enrich our lives, evolution plays no part in science’s application to product development.Having served as a bio-engineer on NASA projects and in biological R&D on artificial heart and kidney devices, I can assure you that belief in evolution had no part in the equation for development of products that resulted. Using rationality, what product, toothpick, cell phone, PC or spacecraft required belief in evolution in order to be developed into useful products? The answer is that none of them did. True science and its application doesn’t need evolution. It plays absolutely no part in scientific research and development.So much for the importance of evolution as a scientific necessity. It has no absolutely no practical scientific relevance. Its only significance is as a faith to support their unbelief in a God?Creator.Evolutionists rage because their message is not being accepted.This is evidenced by surveys showing 60% of respondents still believing in Creation. They rage because the scientific evidence destroying their sacred myth is overwhelming. They rage because their beliefs are based on innuendo, speculation and an eroding lack of proof. They rage because their hypothesis is unraveling.They rage because deep down they know that there is a Creator, despite their denial.
Fool, evolution does not postulate atheism. Long article for someone not having that basic knowledge.
“They rage because deep down they know that there is a Creator, despite their denial.”
Jeez, now that is a pile of bullshit if there ever was one.
You can believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny for all I care – just don’t try to teach it in school in science class.
Easy right?
I won’t try to teach science at your church – you don’t try to teach religion at my school.
Easy right?
Phantom… how many websites do you see making fun of the tooth fairy, santa claus, and the Easter Bunny? None to a very few right!?
So… you and your fearful bunch of atheistic morons must attempt to give credence to your movement by attempting to humiliate other religious groups.
By the way… Dawkins speeches to get rid of all religions because they are hurting this human race, sounds a lot like Adolf Hitler and his call to destroy the jews.
Easy right?
There it is! This thread’s HITLER MOMENT!
Evolution… more specifically Macro-Evolution is a rash and out dated method to explain life’s origins. I mean if I played Xbox all day for the rest of my life and decided to reproduce, would I expect my child to have super big and fast thumbs?? LOL!
“If evolution really worked, mothers would have more than two arms by now!”-Milton Berle
Living things adapt to their environment. What Darwin did with the Galapagos Islands was just observe and for lack of a better word stereotype life on a whole with a group of birds.
Example of Darwin’s rationale:If Darwin were to observe a black family living in China. He would probably observe them for a year or so and watch their eating habits, language, and mannerisms change. And based on that, Darwin would say that a 100000 years from now all black people will disappear and evolve into chineese people.
Does that sound like science to you?
I mean he saw the beaks of birds differ in the Gallapagos (due to climate and food), and based on that we are to believe that these bird’s ancestors will one day evolve into another lifeform. And what makes it even more laughable, is that Darwinists say that this is science but we won’t be able to prove this until a million years have passed! Right….. I’m going to stick around to believe this!
Evolution is not science. Science is a wonderful gift that explains many things. Lightning, electricity, force, gravity, chemical reactions, reproduction, anatomy, etc… but Evolution… that’s not science… thats a comic book!
“if I played Xbox all day for the rest of my life and decided to reproduce, would I expect my child to have super big and fast thumbs??”
Did your super-big thumbs help you survive something that killed your small-thumbed neighbors? Did you have enough children who inherited your super-big thumbs that continued to face the same threat, that helped THEM survive what their smaller-thumbed neighbors could not?
Louis, you display an incredible amount of ignorance about how evolution works. Go read a book or something.
Thanks.
Louis don’t try to introduce logic in this debate. The sheeple have been led to long.
Tom… still reading comic books I see. Tom… Spiderman isn’t real, and neither is Evolution. Sorry to bring you to reality!
Tom… when you say sheeple… you mean you and your misguided faith in Evolution right?
Just trying to open your mind!
Louis,
Are you going to answer my question about your thumbs?
Or perhaps you don’t have opposable thumbs. That would explain quite a bit.
“Did your super-big thumbs help you survive something that killed your small-thumbed neighbors? Did you have enough children who inherited your super-big thumbs that continued to face the same threat, that helped THEM survive what their smaller-thumbed neighbors could not?”
Are you referring to the game I played or real life Tom!
You know there is a difference between real life and fiction Tom… just thought to introduce you to it.
Louis,
Can you even read the sig line of the posters here? I’m not Ksgrm.
Please try to keep up.
ksgrm, ROFLMAOYour use of sarcasm “Louis don’t try to introduce logic” and irony (a conservative like you using the phrase “sheeple have been led to long” is great!
Tom… are you a sexual pervert interested in thumb fetish? Why do you want to know about my thumbs?
I want to talk about evolution, and Louis wants to get kinky with thumbs.
Sorry, Louis. I’m happily partnered and have no sexual interest in you or your oversized thumbs. I’m sure you’ll find someone, though, who will accept you the way you are.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, Louis, if you understood a little about evolution you would understand the reference to thumbs, kids, and you.Read a little then come back when the lightbulb comes on.buh-bye
An atheist once told me that he didn’t know for sure how the universe came to be, but knew for certain it wasn’t the way that I believed it had happened. Can that sort of logic span the narrowest philosophical crevasse?
I think not.
Tom… go home! Read a real book!! And stay away from internet porn, it really is making you into a freak!
buh-bye
Brian,
I think “lightbulb” would be a stretch for Louis. I’m betting he has more along the lines of one of those little half-watt nightlights. You know the kind I’m talking about: just enough to ruin night-vision, but not enough to see by.
I see Brian and Tom… that explains everything.
Well Brian and Tom (I don’t want to split you guys up)… explain why you “BELIEVE” in Evolution so much?
How were you affected personally by this theory?
Jeez, Louis, kind of new to the whole blog concept, aren’t you?
Get over yourself and produce some facts – not just mindless drivel.
And, by the way,don’t take your cues from KSGrm – she has been known to make up her own facts – sort of WE Blog’s own Rush O’Hannity.
Furthermore, please provide this board with the strongest piece of evidence that supports your position in this belief?
Louis,
I don’t “BELIEVE” in evolution.
Thanks for trying, though.
WSClark… kind of pompous aren’t you.
Unless you have something important to add to Evolution… I suggest you keep hiding in the background.
Tom… get out of here… your wasting everyone’s time with your drivel!
You believe in evolution, and now you don’t… why don’t you run for president!
I refer you to the many posts earlier on this blog supporting evolution.
As far as being personally affected by evolution…we I am here.Evolution is a process of change over many thousands of years. Evolution does not happen in one generation. It does not propose that four arms would be usefull so we will have kids with four arms.
Louis,
You’re free to find any post where I state that I “BELIEVE” in evolution. Once you find it, please share it with the rest of the bloggers by pasting it in. A date and time stamp, and the thread you find it on, will be helpful.
Thanks.
Brian… You are here that is true. but what makes you believe that Evolution is the answer?
PROVIDE ME WITH ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW AS THE TRUTH?
A simple… “I am here” is not scientific enough.
“Unless you have something important to add to Evolution”
Well, Mr. Louis Scientist, how about providing some scientific proof of ID or Creationism.
This card ha been on the table for months and not a single believer in ID has picked it up.
Since you’re the man Louis, go ahead – provide proof of ID.
As for adding anything to evolution? There are almost two centuries of documentation – Darwin was not the first to propose it – so the scientific world hardly needs my help.
Go for it, Louis, provide some proof.
Brian… are you saying that in two generations we will see a change? How many generations does it take to finally see any evidence of evolution?
WSClark…”There are almost two centuries of documentation – Darwin was not the first to propose it – so the scientific world hardly needs my help.”
Its proposed (just like ID), but there is no proof!
Am I right WSClark?
1000 of years have passed, and there has been no evidence of evolution… so Brian I can’t accept that statement you made as factual.
WSClark you speak of documentation, postulates, and faith in an out dated idea that got passed off as science. You can’t prove evolution, just as no one else can. Its okay… its your right to believe this story.However, it is intellectually dishonest to introduce this story as science.
“Am I right WSClark?”
Nope. Evolution has stood the scrutiny of time and peer-reviewed documentation by accredited scientists.
ID has not.
There are standards by which a proposal must meet to be considered a “theory.” ID has not met those standards while evolution has.
So, provide proof of ID or drop it for consideration as science.
If it is not science, it is just opinion.
End of discussion.
I’m still waiting for Louis to paste in what he claims I said.
Brian says “Evolution is a process of change over many thousands of years. Evolution does not happen in one generation. It does not propose that four arms would be usefull so we will have kids with four arms.”
Unfortunately for Brian, the human race has existed for more than thousands of centuries and they have yet to grow that third eye, that two extra pair of arms, the ability to grow feathers and fly, etc….
So when will the next evolution phase happen… What attribute to Human development are you evolutionists waiting for next? Do you guys know or is it just chance? If you were to look at the world today… what would you evolutionists like to see humans evolve into next?
Louis, do you Know the definition of science? Would you tell us what you think that is? Feel free to look it up first.
Jeez, Louis, are you related to KSGrm?
Louis, find a truly scientific paper that disclaims evolution……
Not one by a wannabe scientist or a convert scientist, but by a functioning scientist in the field that does not believe in the theory of evolution.
Go ahead – we’ll wait – I have a lot to do today – so take your time.
Louis,What do your questions about the future have to do with a discussion of the past. Are you implying that inability to use the theory of evolution to predict what ‘humans evolve into next’ means that it is an invalid theorem?
ID is a fairly new theory that has just been introduced to the science world.
I am not an ID proponent!
Instead of you guys all saying “Scientists believe in Evolution, so should we all” I want you to provide one key piece of information that makes it possible for you guys to believe in this idea known as Evolution.
I mean WSClark here mention scientits are all for it and its been accepted as factual among them, but is that the only reason why you believe it to be fact? I mean our Government tells us things WMD in Iraq… and we believe it? Does that make it true?
Just opening up your minds!
A few years after WWll, the average height of a Japanese man was five inches taller, due to mostly western nutrition.
Today it’s even taller than that.
“ID is a fairly new theory that has just been introduced to the science world.”
ID was the accepted norm until about 1800. How could you possibly say that it is a new “theory” that has been just introduced?
No Brian, I’m trying to understand you fundamentalist Evolutionists.
It appears you evolutionists believe you found the answer to life’s origins (no one was there to report it, and yet you believe it to be true).
My questions about what you feel is the next human change in evolution is something that scientists to this very day are struuggling with…. THE GAP IN FOSSIL RECORDS!
Where are all those bones that show all of the failed and intermediate attempts of primate evolution to human?
So Brian, I ask…. what is the next step if you guys are so sure of evolution giving us what we need to survive!
WSClark… ID was the accepted norm until about 1800. How could you possibly say that it is a new “theory” that has been just introduced?
I think you are speaking of creationism?
And I am referring to the concentrated efforts to actually test this theory. This ID thing is just that another theory!
“It appears you evolutionists believe you found the answer to life’s origins”
Now we will officially address this for the 98th time – the theory of evolution does not and has never attempted to answer the question as to the origins of life.
It is the theory of the evolution of species, not the theory of the origins of life. The origins of life is another topic.
This topic is evolution and ID.
WSClark my apologies! The origin of species… hate to dabble in semantics with you! Just give me a straight answer!
“I think you are speaking of creationism?”
What difference does it make if you call it ID or Creationism or Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Stick with the topic.
“My questions about what you feel is the next human change in evolution is something that scientists to this very day are struuggling with…. THE GAP IN FOSSIL RECORDS!So Brian, I ask…. what is the next step if you guys are so sure of evolution giving us what we need to survive!”
The premise behind your question is illogical. How would anyone know which factors will be necessary for survival in a million years? Perhaps smaller noses as pollution increases. Know one except God could know that.
WSClark… primordial soup? Isn’t that the origin of all life according to darwinists?
Where are all those bones that show all of the failed and intermediate attempts of primate evolution to human?Posted by: Louis | June 04, 2007 at 04:30 PM
The snarky, sarcastic answer is: Look in a mirror. There’s your “failed” primate evolution, Louis.
The real answer: Scientific literature is chock-full of examples of hominid lines that failed and died out, without passing their genes on to modern humans. Neanderthals are Exhibit A.
LMAO! “Stick to the topic!”
The greatest topic drifting-know-it-all on the WE Blog and he says “Stick to the topic!”
ROFLMAO!
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
“Just give me a straight answer!”
What was the question?
If you are asking if, when it comes to science, do I believe scientists or religious laypeople?
I believe scientists.
When it comes to my car, I believe auto mechanics.
When it comes to my computer, I believe my computer tech.
Therefore, when it comes to science, I take the word of the people that have done the work, read the books, passed the tests, earned the degrees and have written the papers.
I believe the scientists.
The premise behind your question is illogical. How would anyone know which factors will be necessary for survival in a million years? Perhaps smaller noses as pollution increases. Know one except God could know that.
Ahhha! So you look forward to having smaller noses! OK!Other than that you mentioned no one knows what to expect, just as no one knows that evolution is actually true or not. How can this still be considered science to suggest evolution is occuring and will continue to occur, but we don’t know when or what will evolve next?
I love the irony in your statement… “Know one except God could know that.”
So If God knows our future, does God know our past?
Therefore, when it comes to science, I take the word of the people that have done the work, read the books, passed the tests, earned the degrees and have written the papers.
I believe the scientists.
Just as I’m sure the Native Americans believed the US government would take care of them. Just as the African-Americans believed they deserved to be slaves during early america. Just as the German country believed that Jews were the inferior race and deserved to die… Survival of the fittest!
I see who you are now WSClark… the thing is though not all scientists (although a majority) are in full support of evolution these days.
Oh goody, Hitler’s back. And so soon!
Louis, piss off. Thanks.
Tom… whats up with your love of Hitler!???? This guy is a sick Nazi Thumb freak!
“Other than that you mentioned no one knows what to expect, just as no one knows that evolution is actually true or not.” I guess that is true, none of use were actually there. It would be impossible to “prove” how Human Beings came to be with out having been there or creating another from scratch.
“I see who you are now WSClark… the thing is though not all scientists (although a majority) are in full support of evolution these days.”
So produce a link from a REAL scientist that supports ID and disclaims evolution.
Easy, right?
Otherwise, take Tom’s advice and piss off.
“I love the irony in your statement… “Know one except God could know that.”
So If God knows our future, does God know our past?”
I thought that would be fun to say.
Yes, of course God knows our future and our past. Does that mean that we human are here because God literally made us as is described in Genesis? No
James,
Building a cell, huh? So, you’re of the opinion that we have to be able to construct it to understand it.
So, we’d have to build us a star to understand a solar system, and we’d have to build us an atom to understand an atom?
I’m sure you watch TV, listen to radio, use a computer, drive a car… Do you understand every detail of how they work? Can you build any one of them? Does that mean that you have no understanding, however limited it might be, of their underlying principles of operation?
Science is about postulating hypotheses that explain the data in a coherent way and which give one insight into and explanations for new experiments or old, unexplained results….if a hypothesis fails at some point because another works better, so be it…it’s “survival of the fittest hypothesis”.
There’s an interesting story about a young astronomy student talking to one of his professors after class. He says, “Gee isn’t it amazing how wrong the ancients got it when they put the earth at the center and the sun going round it. Anyone can see be the way the sun rises and sets that the sun HAS to be in the center with the earth going round it.” The professor answers, “Yes, it is rather amazing, but I wonder what a sunrise and sunset would look like IF the earth were at the center?”
(Answer: exactly the same)
Actually building a cell is a good analogy.
In order for a theory to be proved, it must be duplicated exactly. Having a model of a cell is not the same as building one from basic molecules.
If we can’t build one, then there is much knowledge to be gained and there is much knowledge missing.
brian,
you run into the little problem of free will if you believe that God knows everything that’s happened and everything that will happen. If a screenwriter writes a script, the characters who act it out have no free will, regardless of what they might think…they follow the script.
And…if God knows everything, then why pray? Prayer is sometimes a plea to God to change some condition. If God knows all, then he certainly cannot change his mind because of a prayer (this would violate the premise that he knows all)…making prayer a meaningless act. Oh, the contradictions are voluminous when you start giving God attributes. The attributes you give Him cause you to have to give him more bizarre attributes or come up with illogical explanations, which make you give him even more bizarre attributes or make you have to come up with even more bizarre explanations….
Much easier to just say…I can’t know much about God and reality except what I can perceive through my weak and deceptive human senses. I’m awed by what I perceive and I hank God for allowing me to perceive it and be a part of it.
Being omniscient doesn’t mean that you would control the will of man.
Republican,
That’s not true at all…science is not about truth…never has claimed to be…just like the law isn’t about justice. If we find truth through science, so much the better…and if we find justice through the law that’s great.
Science is about postulating an EXPLANATION that matches past observations. It is considered successful to the degree it matches these past observations and how well it stands up to future ones.
Newtonian gravitation worked perfectly well for 350 years until Einstein modified our picture of gravitation. There’s nop reason to believe that Einstein’s explanation is the final one, either. Another explanation will come along that unites even more observations with predictions. In other words, science is about coming as close as one can to matching the facts…matching facts does not make a hypothesis the “truth” but the closer it comes to explaining all the facts, the more we are justified in calling it the truth.
So, I’ve already talked about why men have nipples according to common descent…because all embryos start out female..males then receive a shot of the right hormones during gestation, and they become sexually “male”. This is all testable…in fact it is well-established.
What is the ID reason for men having nipples?
It does if you also created the man…just like a person who read a book i different from the author who writes it. The reader can see what will happen but can’t change it, but the author knew what would happen because he wrote it.
BFAH, valid points. That free will gets me every time.I think we can sum up this blog topic from your post.We as humans do not know how or why we are here. We cannot know while we are here. All we can do is be thankful we are here, have faith in something that inspires us to do good things, and hope that we are doing the best that we can given our individual circumstances.
BFAH, I’m not a Biblical scholar, but there are plenty of examples where men exercised their “Free Will” usually in rebellious behavior.
Just because we don’t know the function of something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a function.
Symmetry can be one explanation.
Another explanation can be sensory. What if nipples are extra sensitive to the touch and actually cause a more immediate response to pain or pleasure?
What if nipples are the peak of the cone for a breast, male or female? They give the growth template for the breast to develop. Without it, perhaps form and function would not exist.
What if nipples are sensory mechanisms for cold and heat?
Saying that nipples prove anything related to evolutionary changes or mammalian descent is hardly solid evidence through experiment.
It just means they did a portion of the experiment with out following through with a study on what the function of nipples are used for (besides the obvious.)
Walk on by………………………
Republican,
OK, those are fine attempts to explain nipples…has anyone tested them? Do any of those theories explain the facts better than the evolutionary one? Isn’t that the point of this blog? Rather than just say other explanations are possible, postulate some and go out and do the experiments !!
As far as omniscience is concerned, think about it a little….you can be omniscient in one of the 2 ways I pointed out…as a casual “observer” or as the actual “author” (which God is since he created us, right?). I gave you the example of the screenwriter and the script…the screenwriter created the script and so he knows evrything that will happen in it. You might read the script and also know, but you didn’t write it.
Please give me an example of a creative, omnipotent, omniscient being who “knows” the future, in fact he’s “written” it…and yet at the same time gives his “actors” free will.
Evolution, although a valid scientific theory – is every bit as much a cult as Creationism.
Only the followers vary.
I’m not sure why we can’t have one taught in school – the other in church, and end the endless debate of which one is the correct one.
I seriously doubt either one are. One thing is sure – neither one can travel back in time and PROVE their tenets.
Although, with TOE we CAN see how some species evolve in different ways in order to survive. But that really tells us little about man a million years ago.
The problem with placing the importance of one theory over the other is that certain folks are alienated no matter which theory wins out.
Religious folks can’t accept Evolution – it would mean the end of their faith.
So why push it on them?
It’s all academic anyway.
Scientists have identified the oldest known bee, a 100 million-year-old specimen preserved in amber.
The discovery coincides with the publication of the genetic blueprint of the honeybee, which reveals surprising links with mammals, including humans.
The ancient insect, trapped in tree sap, is at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil.
It appears to share features with both bees and wasps, and supports theories of bee evolution.
Son of a gun: DNA 100 million tears old. Kind of throws the 8000 year old ID theory out the window.
New DNA evidence suggests “African Eve”, the 150,000-year-old female ancestor of every person on Earth, may have lived in Tanzania or Ethiopia.
A televisual representation of Australopithecus afarensis, BBCFossil remains of A. afarensis (”Lucy”), a possible human ancestor, were found at Hadar, EthiopiaA genetic study has shown that the oldest known human DNA lineages are those of East Africans. The most ancient populations include the Sandawe, Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people who live in Tanzania.
Researchers found a very high amount of genetic variation, or diversity, between the mitochondrial DNA of different individuals in these populations.
Mitochondrial DNA is passed down exclusively through the maternal line. The longer a population has existed, the more variation accumulates in its DNA lineages.
“They are showing really deep, old lineages with lots of diversity. They appear to be the oldest lineages identified in Africa to date,” said Dr Sarah Tishkoff, of the University of Maryland, US, who led the research.
Opps, happened again: DNA older than 8000 years. How could that be?
Must really tick off a bunch of red-necks to learn we all are the children of black people. Makes the word, “Brother” more meaningful, doesn’t it?
No problem, JM….
The rate of nuclear decay (for whatever radioactive isotope(s) were used) varied so that it only LOOKS like it’s 100 million years old. God (or Satan…take your pick) put it there to challenge your faith.
BTW, what does God care if we believe in him or not? So, if 2 people are equally good, and equally charitable, and equally loving, God is going to have a preference for the one who believes in him?? Why?
GSheridan,Because how can science progress, and people learn their true heritage if religion won’t acknowledge science and God go hand in hand?
For instance, if the bible tried to explain the big bang to primitives:
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
Burned at the stake, anyone?
BFAH, re: ScreenWriter..
Every director knows that some actors are improvisers and they also know that the more famous one is, the harder it is to keep them from improvising.
Since God made man in his image, I am speculating that would include the free will to improvise their state of mind, intentions and the ability to be apart from God if they choose to do so.
About the nipples, if scientists have not tested the physiology of a mature nipple, then they have not completed the experiment.
Just because I hammer out some metal and that metal later becomes a hood for a 1957 Chevy, doesn’t mean that the method of forming the metal is conclusive proof for the functionality of the hood.
Aesthestics has always been the crippling point that science can not explain or prove. Yet it exists as a cognitive value assignment system.
Acquired tastes can be changed through exposure and human adaptation by sensory organs. But it doesn’t mean there was a genetic code to cause this.
There is more to our traits than meets the eye.
As I said before, the only thing that Evolution proved it can do is turn millions, if not billions of people into Atheist.
And that my dear good PhD blogging companion is an effect, not a cause.
Walk…..
“As I said before, the only thing that Evolution proved it can do is turn millions, if not billions of people into Atheist.”
That is about the stupidest thing you have ever said.
The Catholic church has no problem with evolution. I was taught it throughout my school years, and I attended Catholic school from first grade through graduation from high school. Not once was I told the earth is only 8000 years old, or that ID was anything other than junk non-science.
“God (or Satan…take your pick) put it there to challenge your faith.”
I hope that was sarcasm:-)
By the way, there are an estimated 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, and that number is growing. Hardly atheists.
The proof of evolution
If evolution was true, the proof of its effects would be overwhelming.The fossil record would be, as the name implies , an incontrovertible, uncontestable record of plants and animals in their varying stages of transition from something to something else.There should be few, if any , missing links. They are called “missing links” because after tens of thousands of fossil specimens have been unearthed, the links are still missing. They are missing because they never existed in the first place and no amount of time or worn shovels will change that. Although missing links are usually referenced as regards human evolution, links are missing in all aspects of nature, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, plants etc. With such a paucity of fossil evidence, there should be recognition that the lack of transitional fossil specimens is a clue that they never existed, otherwise the fossil record would be conclusive and with no room for debate or controversy.The observation of nature today should be the crowning glory for proving evolution. Even without the fossil record or missing links, ongoing evolution should be evident, observable. recordable and collectible as we see before our very eyes something, plant or animal in some stage of the transitional process changing from something to something else. How fascinating nature would be to observe thousands of species becoming something different, a clover leaf changing into an oak tree, a gecko changing into a bobolink, a fox changing into an elk, a cat in transition to becoming a deer etc.Bizarre and as unbelievable as these changes seem, to the evolutionist they must be believable because their tenet is that thousands of “somethings” had to change into thousands of “ something elses” by adding the magical ingredient, time. But none of them can shed any evidence on what became what and when.So far evolutionists have sought, in vain, for the missing parts to their mythical puzzle. A tooth, a few pieces of bone, fraudulent drawings, questionable conclusions, hoaxes, doctored fossils plus a large measure of speculation are evolutionists’ concepts of what they maintain as fact and science. This is abysmally bad science and as such, the evolutionists ally of time will also be their downfall as their precious myth erodes even more, and soon into oblivion.—–
yes, it was.
ronald,
ummm. I hate to tell you, but fossils don’t form from every set of bones in the ground…they don’t even form from many of the bones…in fact they form from very few. Conditions for the mineralization have to be just right. On top of that no one has given us a treasure map labeled with where the fossils are…so much for the idea that we should be overflowing with fossils.
In fact, ronald, there are very clear links for many cases. take for example
quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological “gaps” (Sereno 1999), has been found, represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002).
there is alsop a complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275).
So much for “no links”.
You might try, Ronald, no condescension implied, doing some of your own research into the subject and not rely so much on the word of your pastor or church.
BTW, which “god” did the creating….was he the christian one, or the hindu one, or the aztec one, or the hawaiian one?
“his is abysmally bad science and as such, the evolutionists ally of time will also be their downfall as their precious myth erodes even more, and soon into oblivion.”
. . . and intelligent design/8000 years old? I have yet to hear any plausible explanation for that one, other than the bible, which was written so the people of the time could understand it.
As I stated in earlier posts, try plate tectonics, the speed of light, DNA, the basic movement of people as they populated the world, Charles Darwin’s studies, Einstein, the big bang, and a myriad assortment of science fact and theory that support a universe between 13 and 17 billion years old, our sun, a 4 billion year old earth, etc, etc, etc.
You all must think God is really stupid. You give him credit for nothing but a book, written by man, assembled by man, and written so the reader of biblical times could understand it.
The Bible is a great book, but even Catholic scholars understood that.
“Because how can science progress, and people learn their true heritage if religion won’t acknowledge science and God go hand in hand?”—————-
Science and religion not only do NOT go hand in hand – but they are diametrically opposed.
Science gathers facts then uses the data to arrive at a conclusion.
Religion starts with the conclusion and then draws selective facts to support it.
But neither have cornered the market on truth.
Science, by its very nature, is subject to change of conclusion when new evidence comes to light.
The only time Science and Religion went hand-in-hand was when the Church controlled the scientists.
I have to disagree with your conclusion. I believe it was Einstein who said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
I don’t see how it can be any plainer than that. If both would look at the reality of science and religion, the accomplishments would be staggering in human terms. Sadly, I doubt that will happen.
Evolution is complicated says Brownback.
Yes, how to say evolution is false without looking like an idiot . . . now that is complicated.
Good luck.
GS: “Religious folks can’t accept Evolution – it would mean the end of their faith.
So why push it on them?”
Aha, so it is the fear of the possibility of believing the wrong God, isn’t it? A classic case of idol worship (in this case, worshipping religion before God Themself).
“Evolution is complicated says Brownback.”
Scientifically, evolution is a very simple, elegant solution to the problem of speciation.Where it gets complicated is politically. Especially when he has to answer the question where the only answer that won’t make him look like an idiot will cost him his idiot constituency!
Poor BF still up to your old tricks:
“What is the ID reason for men having nipples?”
Will you ever learn……If anyone wishes to see just how much BF “knows” bout E & C ….examine his upside down view of Mayr found in the bottom of the creationist muesum blog….BTW BFAH im still waiting for you to answer my question, since you seem to love asking questions PERHAPS you could answer one!
“What is the ID reason for men having nipples?”
How does female to male baby info you quoted, or the many other quotes NOT fit into design……*careful readers you will notice BF not answer this question only retract to, ID EXPLAINS everything, lol…..hardly. Asking how this information DOES NOT fit ID seems to mean to BF that ID explains EVERYTHING….and some of yall made fun of SAMMMY for dodging questions!!!
Get ready for some BS from BF……But it does make for some entertainment to see BF squirm :)
Avoided the question I see. Typical of a creationist, you have no scientific explanations for your mythology so you just change the subject.
Wolfy, do you tell people that flu shots and colds are a lie because viruses can’t evolve since evolution isn’t real?
Hey Doug, here’s a simple task:
Explain aesthetics with Scientific Method.
Now, explain it with the different cultures of the world.
Then, explain aesthetics as it happened in the past.
“Avoided the question I see. Typical of a creationist, you have no scientific explanations for your mythology so you just change the subject.”
Dougie did you not learn anything from the last post that I caught you in a lie…I think you are confused, BF has yet to answer any question :)
See, two responses from creationists and yet nothing in support of creationism. So predictable.
So Doug, I see you failed to provide the Scientific Method for explaining Aesthetics.
Okay Doug, how about something simpler.
Using the Scientific Method, describe “Nothingness.”
What’s that you say?
That the Scientific Method cannot be used to described something that has no parameters?
Isn’t God by definition a being with no parameters and a being whose mind cannot be known? (mind in the context as we know.)
Which brings up a good point, if we cannot even describe God’s mind, how will the Scientific Method help us in that regard?
Come on Doug, explain how Scientific Method can explain “Nothingness” and “Aesthetics.”
According to you Doug that’s the standard for proof.
Great posts, Republican. I give you credit for continually asking questions that routinely remained unaswered. I would enjoy to see Dougie answer your questions.
Publican,What on earth would you know about aesthetics?I actually took the course, read what all those philosophers, including the christian ones, had to say on the subject, and concluded they were still trying to define something artists had given up as non-existent over 150 years ago.Science has nothing to say on that subjective subject, although a few psychologists are still trying.As for nothingness, quantum mechanics states that it doesn’t exist in nature.
Really Jed. Tell me the arguments of Kant then.
And that was my point to Dough and thank you for clarifying that. That is, Scientific Method cannot be used to describe what Doug wants it to described because Scientific method is flawed in its approach to things that do not have known constructs within the parameters of science.
In other words, Scientists step outside of their cozy world of Physics and Chemistry, then they are at a loss to apply logic to things that defy logic.
I was just taking Doug down a notch to show that Scientific Method is not an end all solution.
Republican,
The questions you pose just reveal that you either don’t understand the philosophy of science or you choose to ignore it.
Science has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about the human spirit or for that matter God. To claim that it does is to purposely misrepresent it.
As far as “nothingness” is concerned, science and mathematics were the first to deal with the concept. Early mathematicians in India introduced the concept of “zero” to the world. “Zero” IS nothingness, the lack of “something”.
Physics is no worse off than metaphysics and theology as far a “nothingness” is concerned. For example, i might be your assumption that in the case of the “big bang” the resultant explosion had to expand “into” something. In fact it did not.
Mathematics was also in the lead in characterizing “infinity”. The work of George Cantor showed that there are different “kinds” of infinity…making the concept clearer and at the same time much more profound.
If you want to deal with God, then you’re right in the sense that God most fully exists in those places of the human experience that involve the human experience – why someone may cry on hearing a particular piece of music, our awe when seeing the sun rise or sun set, our wonder at the order that comes out of the complexity that is all round us, our own ability to ask ourselves unanswerable questions…
However, the physical, real, hard world of science and mathematics is also one of God’s creations. He has laid out before us a universe that is not chaos, but one that is apparently governed by laws. We understand even more about what “being” means when we discover more about how “being” works.
We will never understand the concept of God because of what we are and what we are limited by, and to assume His nature can be wrapped up in a book, or in a statement of theology, or in a doctrine is to miss the forest for the trees…to do a great disservice to him.
The best we can hope for is, as the NT says, to “see through a mirror darkly”. And the best we can do for ourselves and others is to take the stance that Gandhi did when he said, “I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, I am a Jew…”…to recognize in each of these traditions an attempt to know the unknowable.
God made Moses shield His eyes and was only allowed to “see” God after He had passed.
Isn’t that true now…we never “see” God face-to-face, but we recognize him in the things that come to pass?
“The questions you pose just reveal that you either don’t understand the philosophy of science or you choose to ignore it.”Posted by: BFAH | June 06, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Which is why I posed them to illustrate to Doug through his persistence on repeatedly asking why Creationist don’t use the Scientific Method to “prove” their claims.
“If you want to deal with God, then you’re right…”
Thank you, I knew I was.
Hmmm, more posts by creationists yet still no evidence presented for their case. Heck, not even a working model for creationism presented. I imagine it must be nice living in a world of denial.
Repub,
You’re taking the statement of you’re right out of the context in which it was said….
Publican,You still haven’t refuted anything that science has demonstrated. Is your argument about aesthetics mean that you just don’t like their conclusions? No doubt your question about “nothingness” is an attempt to understand what you feel.If, as you seem to be saying, science is profoundly mistaken regarding cosmology, you better quit using that computer, since it operates on the same scientific base knowledge cosmology does. Or are you assuming your computer runs on divine inspiration? I’d certainly like to hear your proofs on that one!