Evolution: the Pushback

It is simply unfathomable that in 2008 there are people who dispute evolution. There is NO doubt that evolution is a scientific fact. The only debate involves exactly HOW it has occured over millions of years. Those that deny evolution are simply ignorant or blinded by religious myth. It is ridiculous religious outcry on this and other issues that causes the rest of the world to shake their heads and laugh at America’s ignorance. Only SCIENCE should be taught in Ameica’s SCIENCE classrooms.

Evolution is fact, regardless if there was intelligent design involved or not.
Anyone believing otherwise is a fool.

To say that the NAS report is “short on evidence” is like a bad political ad. The report is packed with evidence – the Discovery Institute’s choice not to accept any of it is their own problem.
Considering the broad and diverse scientific evidence for evolution, it probably IS true that it is “so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it.” That doesn’t mean we won’t accept new evidence – just that it would surprise us.

I agree with dano. Religion is taught in church/Sunday school and SCIENCE is taught in public schools. Way back when I was in grade school, we were taught evolution and I went to church every Sunday and learned about “Adam and Eve”. There was a conflict in my mind that no one seemed to be able to answer: What came first, the dinosaurs and cavemen or Adam and Eve? So, at some point I made up my own mind that God created all of it BEGINNING with evolution, dinosaurs, etc. – and man evolved from there. I no longer attend a church because I find many Christians to be too closed-minded to accept ANY other facts. Truth is, we do have MORE evidence to back up evolution than the theories in the bible. For me, I’ll continue to believe God created evolution as science has proven to us already. People should stop being so closed-minded and allow themselves to learn something new everyday.

That chicken or the egg problem should leave the Discovery people with a new tangent to ruminate on for a long time, until they evolve into big headed whiners with little evidence at hand.

The problem with intelligent design is the theory is not based on much intelligence. A bunch of thrown together ideas claimed to be true. Science doesn’t work that way. I remember someone trying to teach immutable truths at a confirmation class. The problem is not one of them was based on any sort of fact and was far from a ‘Truth’. They were all just beliefs with a loose set of arguments to support them (and some of the arguments were not very good at all). Just saying something is true doesn’t make it so (even if it is). And to teach that something is true when you have nothing to support that claim, that’s irrespossible. Religion is fine but disputing something backed with tons of evidence with a thought up belief backed by almost nothing, that’s just silly. Teach science in school and teach beliefs anyplace else.
btw – you can’t de-volve. Evolving doesn’t mean advancing or improving, it simply means changing. You can’t un-change. That’s the problem with all these ‘facts’, most of them don’t even make any sense.

“immutable evidence,” Sam? Most creationists don’t even stand by the Paluxy River nonsense. You challenge us to “be intellectually honest and give a good long look at the real evidence.” I did, thank you. Did you? Have you read the NAS report that this blog refers to? If not, it doesn’t sound like you are taking a “good long look” to me. Give it a try; then we’ll talk.

Have you heard about the Creation Museum? They have exhibits where man is shown walking with the dinosaurs. The museum curator explained this by saying all living creatures were created on the same day, so of course the exhibits have all living creatures having walked the earth together during the same time perioid. Then why weren’t the dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? If you were God and you knew a group of men were writing a book about you wouldn’t you want them to know about the millions of years that earth exihited before man walked on it? They weren’t mentioned because man had not yet discovered a bone to even know that such creatures had even existed. If you don’t understand evolution take a look at the history of cars & televisions. There’s a perfect example of how something can evolve and continue to evolve. You christians who think you have the answers to life and how everyone should live it have single handidly caused more death, distruction, and have spread more hate and fear around the globe then any entity ever invented. Why can’t you say God and evolution in the same sentence? What are you afraid of? The truth? You obviously can’t handle the truth.

RE: ko6728
What are you so afraid of? Why must you hide behind what you want to be true, instead of embracing The Truth?
Again evolution is NOT the truth. More and more REAL scientists–defined as those who do not have a preconceived religious notion such as ‘evolution must be true so lets make the data fit the fantacy’ are not only distancing themselves from evolution, but are flat out disproving it using real science. If you really want to know the truth about evolution and intellegent design, do some real investigating. Take some courses that teach you how to read and interpret statistics and raw data, so that you don’t have to rely on ‘the experts’ to do it for you. Then, begin with the premise that ‘I want to know ‘the truth’ not what is popular or what the so called ‘experts’ want me to think. Finally, Learn not to contradict yourself, it makes you sound less intellegent.

RE sam:
I assume you’re referring to the Dinosaur/”Man Track” Controversy where dinosaur and supposed human footprints where found in the same rock layer. However, the human footprints have been shown to be either mistaken interpretation or in some cases outright fakes.
And what do you mean that there is overwhelming evidence that all of the physical universe is actually devolving from a higher order than exists today.
What evidence?

Lance,
I’d refer you to what is understood to be the Oldest written book of the Bible, Job.
You will find a lot of science before science was science. A Round Earth, Galaxies, the mystery of Snow flakes individuality and yes Dinosaurs.
It’s called God’s Word for a reason.

Science has admitted it’s mistakes and recognized its faults as new discoveries are made and theories get revised. What bothers me most is how Christian-centric this whole debate is. References to the bible, earth being created in 6 days and so on, if there is such a focus on creationism versus evolution, could some one please bring another religion into focus. The most im taking from this, is science is not denying faith, rather faith (more specifically, Christianity) is denying science. Science has never tried to destroy faith, it merely attempts to explain and understand what is observed.

If someone wants to believe the creation story over biological evolution because that’s what the Bible says, I have no problem with that. But please be honest enough to say that you do believe it BECAUSE that’s what the Bible says. Don’t try to tell me that science somehow supports that belief. That is simply FALSE. I am a biologist. I have been studying biology and evolution for 30 years. I know what the data do and do not support. Tell me that I’m not a “real” scientist, dear sam, and I’m likely to get ######.

sam,
“Houston, we have a problem!”
I HAVE taken those courses, and I HAVE seen the soi disant “human footprints” along the Palusky River; of particular interest were the ones at the Taylor Site, which are likely the ones you refer to in your earlier post. After a close, personal examination I had to take the position that these are not human footprints and in a couple of cases, not footprints at all. Note that this was my own conclusion: the geologist who took me there told me that we were going to see human footprints next to saurian prints; once I had seen the evidence myself I had to argue against his opinion. This really bothered me as this man was a genius in his field and I was only a student, but the evidence was clear – not human prints. It was only after a frustrating 30-45 minutes of discussion that he admitted that I was right; he used Palusky as a sort of litmus test to determine if his students could examine evidence and reach their own conclusions rather than depending on “wiser heads” to do their thinking for them.
That lesson has never been forgotten, and I strive to make sure that brilliant man’s teaching was not wasted. Another brilliant man laid out the three steps of reasoning as:
1) Always make up your own mind
2) Always thoroughly consider and think about all the facts before making up your mind
3) Always make sure you actually have all the facts before thinking
The teaching of these two men has seen me through some tough times, and helped guide me through some tough decisions: their teachings were in fact correct.
As an aside, this approach makes it impossible to establish personal definitions that can be used in place of actual reasoning such as defining what “REAL scientists” are and then stating (without cited examples) how they are “disproving” evolution using “real science”. If your reliance on the fallacy of the Palusky tracks is an example of this, I would invite you to take your own advice, as well as that of my mentors: study, examine the evidence yourself without prejudice, and only then come to a conclusion. It appears as if you’re relying on others to look and think for you, rather than doing it for yourself.
For a starting point, go to Texas and look for yourself. It really doesn’t take geological training to see that the “human footprints” aren’t, although a modicum of knowledge does help. But still, go and look for yourself; we can talk more after your return.

Right on “Wondering”! And now we know who we can blame for bringing us the damn cockroach!

I believe in evolution but not the simplistic kind that many materialist scientists claim. What they continue to leave out of the picture is the immortal nature of man.
Reincarnation has been scientifically proven at the University level. See the results of the research and discoveries of the Univerisity of Arizona, Veritas program, and the University of Virginia Health Systems, Personality Studies for more information.
What I’d like to see now is how they interplay of reincarnation and evolution happens. Then and only then would we see an advance in the science of evolution and maybe a wider acceptance of it.

MT – How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

jock59801 – How many darwinists can dance on the head of a pin? And the phrase is supposed to include “needle” and not “pin”.

MT: It should be noted that such a large WOOD structure would collapse under it’s own weight. In short, Noah’s Arc is only a tall tale.

RE: Tamoko
I am not afraid of anything. To include creatures purported to have no flesh. No, make that “especially” creatures purported to have no flesh.
Keep your Jehovah’s Witnesses’ tactics out of intellectual discussion.
Evolution is the “Truth” and once again, anyone who denies that fact is a fool. I stand by that. I also stand by the facts I learned in every statistics, trigonometry, algebra, genetics, humanities, and electronics class I have ever taken.
You should read a book called “The Golden Bough” if you really want to put whatever your “experts” and their facts up against reality. I suggest every religous zealot do so as well.
Lastly, no where in my post did I contradict myself.

Lance my dear fellow,
Have you read the Bible? Try the book of JOB. There is a very detailed description of a dinosaur found there.
Lets apply a small amount of logic to this discussion. First, get your facts correct, Dr. Carl Baugh (of the creation evidences museum) did not tell you or anyone else that ‘all’ living things were created on the same day. As a matter of reference, man was created on the sixth day. The other organisms were created on previous days. Second, His ‘exhibits’ are reproductions of what he has found in the riverbed. Which are fossilized human footprints deposited withn the fossilized footprints of dinosaurs. I don’t mean near each other, or in the same rock layer–I mean that they were layed down within moments of one another then covered up and fossilized together. I have personally seen them in the river bed. There is no doubt that the footprints are human. Cars and televisions evolved? Really? I suppose their was a primordial soup that they ‘evolved’ from, too? Now, I simply love it when you folks prove my point for me. You see it really does take some intellect to be able to understand the following, but I will try to keep it a simple as I can. Televisions and cars do not evolve. If they did you would only have to purchase one and then later models would just come forth. Televisions and cars are the products of intellegent design. (Some more intellegent than others) Furthermore, not only do they not evolve, but in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (a big word I know, But bare with me) they tend to decompose over time, unless new energy and intellgence (ie the car restorer) are applied to them. Again apply a little intellegence and a little logic folks, thats all I ask. Its NOT even a BAD example of how things supposedly evolve!! Us Christians have caused more death than any other entity? Please, that is the oldest and the lamest cop out in the little book of cop outs. You are obviouy confusing christians whith some other religious group. Do you even know what it means to be a christian? Something tells me that you don’t, or you would be one! Evolution and God in the same sentence, there I said it, do I get a sticker now? Seriously, All you need to do is loose the anger, and whatever else is keeping you from using your intellect and logic. Maybe the courses that I suggested earlier. Oh, and by the way, I am afraid that people like you won’t see the light in time to make a difference in their lives. As far as The Truth is concerned, He and I get along just dandy, thank you.

LB750 – you provide zero evidence to back up your claim. I provided evidence to back up mine.
All of the evolutionists on here are either presupposed to naturalism/atheism or are not well educated regarding all of the holes in the evolutionary theory.

RE: Voice of Reason
Looks like another one has joined the discussion.
Why does the W.B.T.S. take such offense to evolution? Probably the same reason they discourage a college education for their children: they fear knowledge. That is not just for the J.W.’s, though, that holds true for all of the zealots, regardless of faith.

Ron good comments, but about evolution being true. Think this throuh. All living organisms have DNA, correct? This is the information required not only for the organism to survive, but also to procreate (for those of you that don’t have a dictionary, that means to have babies), true? Yes, mutations do occur, but they are almost always a net loss of informantion. So then what would cause a speciic organism to ADAPT to a change? Could it be that the information required for the adaptation is already encoed within the organism’s DNA? Just Food for thought!!

I belive all the way with evolution. I am a firm believer we should spend more time on studying evolution. Also, I understand people have the religion to freedom, but think they are runnign for answers to the question. The bible was written by people! If that what makes them believe life is about after it, then they may.

All:
Let’s not confuse NATURAL SELECTION with EVOLUTION.
I would hope that all of the folks against evolution would at least acknowledge that a “loving god” would instill an ability for any creature to adapt to its surroundings. This would be natural selection.
Now, over time, natural genetic mutations which are mostly detrimental to the organism coupled with natural selection, which is good for the organism, to me, would equal evolution.

The parent exists first…that is if one believes in time.
Jeez, when I look in the mirror, I sure do.

Wandering,
This is exactly what I’m talking about!!
You cannot even quote me correctly. The lack of Intellectual integrety is astounding. NO, the animals were not created on the same day. The ark? He could have taken eggs. or a hundred other possibilities. The point is, you
seem to base your beliefs upon misquotes; which means you are basing your world view on misinformation. No ‘wander’ you are wandering.

Hello,
I’m still waiting for the bible verses from Job that mentions the dinasaurs.
I’m gonna take a break. I’ll be napping in the mouth a whale!

“On what day did God create Spinal Tap, and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?”
Cross out “Spinal Tap”
Insert “sam”

The existence of the egg first whereby the chicken evolved a way to get inside one is intriguing enough. We may have to accept the idea of the extraterrestials landing here and starting an EASTER EGG hunt where the children gathered them up and harbored the emerging animal. VOILA…

RE: esme anne
In that case, the flood should have come a few billion years earlier. That way the ark could have been alot smaller.
About the size of a large lipid drop, maybe. Throw in a couple of RNA strands and shazaam!
That’s my kind of ark. And it’s about the size of one I would build if told to do so by a “voice”. Oh wait, that means I am building an ark every time I put oil into the water before I pour in the macaroni shells. I think I’ll start telling everyone I am building an ark when I make macaroni.
Cool, everyone has really helped me out today!
;)

Dave;
Your definition of science is to say the least lacking!!Again, my WUED defines science as (1) the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
(2) a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study ie. the science of theology. (yes its there)
(3) (a)knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operatoin of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method (b) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenonena. ie natural science.
Who says that ‘God’ is not natural. As a matter of fact the Bible says hat God is knowable, therefore, according the above definition creation is absolutely a science.

MT has given a perfect example of “using pseudo scientific language and presentation” to try to give credence to unscientific gobbledegook. MT didn’t give any evidence of having done anything more than using terms invented for ID, substituting an unscientific study that looks for proof of ID in place of genuine experimentation, and the circular “logic” that if something is too complex for us humans to disassemble and successfully reassemble it must have been created by a supernatural being, God. Again, the most salient features of the scientific method are its rigor and THE FACT THAT IT PROVES A THING BY ACTIVELY WORKING TO DISPROVE IT AND FAILING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. MT, you can apparently get away with co-opting the language and format of the scientific method for your purposes, but you don’t understand it nor are you implementing it.

Sam or MT,
I have a few questions. Why didn’t God just recreate all of the creatures after the flood instead of having Noah collect them? Why did the dinosaurs, that Noah brought on the ark, go extinct? How did the animals on the ark “change” from one creature to another without evolution (wolfs to coyotes to dogs)?
Obviously, there are many “truths” you know which have yet to be shared with the rest of mankind! Are you a prophet?

I think many of you are missing the bigger picture. You are assuming humans were designed intelligently. I know many humans that don’t possess an ounce of intelligence.

sam – maybe you need a new dictionary. That is a very informal and incomplete definition of science. Most dictionaries give various definitions that are used by the general public. Science, as understood by scientists, is a PROCESS of gaining knowledge through the scientific method, which involves falsifiable hypotheses. Theology, which does not have falsifiable hypotheses, cannot be a “science.”

‘MT didn’t give any evidence of having done anything more than using terms invented for ID, substituting an unscientific study that looks for proof of ID in place of genuine experimentation, and the circular “logic” that if something is too complex for us humans to disassemble and successfully reassemble it must have been created by a supernatural being, God. Again, the most salient features of the scientific method are its rigor and THE FACT THAT IT PROVES A THING BY ACTIVELY WORKING TO DISPROVE IT AND FAILING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.’
Not only that, the “irreducible complexity” concept, as an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, fails to do so AND further reinforces that theory’s validity. The expert testimony presented at the trial concerning the Dover, PA science curriculum in rebuttal of the “irreducible complexity” argument indicated that the “irreducibly complex” structure indicated by the testifying intelligent design proponent performed an entirely different function in a similar organism in which one part of the structure was not present. Far from being “useless,” the altered structure’s function was in fact the distinguishing characteristic between two otherwise identical organisms. Thus, the evidence not only rebutted “irreducible complexity,” but also indicated the existence of a process by which natural structures change in order to execute different functions in similar organisms.
I’m sorry, but I want my kids to know this stuff. And I don’t want it taught to them only after they’ve been lectured about how the universe could be the work of a supreme being and too complex for human comprehension. I don’t want their science lessons prefaced with “Don’t Bother.”

RE: SAM
You are like most of Creationism defenders. You kind of start from “well, the bible said so”, and end up trying to defend it from there. But the fact is, you have faith that God created man and the universe and the whole nine yards. Good, but from a scientific stand point, it sure seems like organisms on earth have been adapting, dying out, mutating, evolving what ever else you want to describe it as. Its irrefutable. Likewise, for the car or the television you useed for ‘intelligent design’, well i can meet the guy that made that, and point his flaws, and then he’ll change it for the better. Nature does the same thing. Creationsim is a very instant gratification to a very complex, extremely time intensive process. every religion does this, they simplify an otherwise almost unfathomably complex universe. So keep your your faith, pray to your higher power and live within your comfort zone, but the fact remains, dino bones are 265 million years old and I have opposable thumbs. Facts, not theory, not faith, fact.

As with most “science,” evolution is a total scam. I can’t believe that people are still arguing that the world is not flat. I mean really, if you look at a picture of the earth head on it looks round, but when you lay it down on a table you can clearly see it’s flat. Case closed. If you need more proof, just check the Bible.

I believe in evolution but not the simplistic kind that many materialist scientists claim. What they continue to leave out of the picture is the immortal nature of man.
Reincarnation has been scientifically proven at the University level. See the results of the research and discoveries of the Univerisity of Arizona, Veritas program, and the University of Virginia Health Systems, Personality Studies for more information.
What I’d like to see now is how the interplay of reincarnation and evolution happens. Then and only then would we see an advance in the science of evolution and maybe a wider acceptance of it.

Good Stuff: What evidence of reincarnation? And has that evidence been confirmed (i.e. peer reviewed)?

Evolution IS fact as we see it every day. Your dog, your cat, your horse, the bull, and many others have all been evolved from centuries of human influence. Even man has gotten taller! We know these all as FACT!
Now evolution doesn’t disprove that God created all things. Science is the study of nature not the explanation of it. It would make sense that God created science as we now know it.
I saw one person refer to the fact that some theories have been proven wrong and that proves all theories are wrong. WHAT!? Man you really need a slap in the back of the head. Science makes mistakes and nobody every claims to know for 100% that theory is true.
In a sense, for all we know God created the world around us to confuse us and test us. It also says in the Bible that God gave us freedom when he kicked us out of the Garden of Eden. Does it say where the Garden of Eden was??? NO! For all anyone knows the Garden of Eden was on Mars and Noah’s arc was really a 6 month jouney to Earth from Mars. I don’t believe that but it is just an example of how ignorant taking the Bible for fact is dum.
The Bible was written by people NOT by God. People who CLAIMED too talk to God wrote in the Bible. Do you not find it odd that decendants of different deciples of Jesus recalled the same story in different ways and even contradicted each other!!?? I mean wake up!
The Bible has many stories that were taken from traditional stories of Babylon and Egypt and many other ancient civilizations. The Bible is no more fact then a theory in science. The problem is how can you prove the Bible to be true???!!! YOU CAN’T! Any God would realize that the people who lived in the days of Jesus have an unfair advantage for getting into heaven. Why are we not given the chance to see the proof of God with our own eyes? Why can’t we talk with his son and have the word of his father taught too us? There may be a GOD but he certainly doesn’t spend much time worrying about what we believe. Man is the one who makes such an issue out of faith.

Sam,
You are simply wrong. Creationism or any theory that includes supernatural elements is, again by definition, not a scientific theory. Again, for a theory to be valid science it must be based only on physical laws and can not, by definition, include “magic happens here”. Note, it is also important to understand that this is a limitation of the scientific method, that is, it’s simply a rule that defines what “science” is and how it works. It in no way implies God did not design the universe. Rather it says that “the practice of science” simply does not include the possibility of supernatural elements. Science is a man-made, man-defined, useful tool for us to know the universe as per the laws of nature. Please don’t try to endow it with the ability to know God also. It’s far more humble.

Lisa,
The key is to first teach them what science is and definitions of the words “theory” and “fact” as used in the practice of science. If they first learn that science is limited to only what can be observed in the physical universe, and then that “the theory of evolution” and it’s promotion to “scientific fact” is simply the conclusion of scientists using logic and data, then it demotes evolution to simply a usable concept that helps us deal with the real world, especially biology, rather than promote it to a “religious truth”.

Count me among the rationalists. Evolution is here to stay. ID is like the flat earth society. And as for the myths of the bible, here is one I have trouble with – Noah and the ark. Where did all the water come from that covered the earth, to a depth of at least 19,000 feet, and where did it go when it left ? The water cycle was magically suspended for that period ? Also, just how long was he afloat ? If Noah was afloat for 6 months or more, what did he feed the animals ? Where was THAT stored ? Where was it obtained ? I have trouble, considering the state of agriculture back then, understanding how Noah could go to his neighbors, and say “I need all the grain and crops you grew for this year, and the next three years, for my ark. Thanks very much, and no you can’t come, nor can your animals. Oh and by the way, I need your help to gather and LOAD all these animals AND all your grain. Get a move on, it looks like rain.” SURE he did. I did not see any of this mentioned. Oh, sorry, I found another gap in the bible.

Glad I could stir the pot for awhile. Most of you seem to assume that I am a Christian/Creationist when I specified nothing in my first comment. Why? And as for being terrible at hide-and-seek or planning trips (posted by Confused), how can you make such a comment when you know nothing about me personally? How do you know that I am not confined to a wheel chair, or worse, a hospital bed and have never experienced the joy of playing or traveling? You prove my point about the needless belittling in the debating, but nothing to advance your argument. I do have the internet as means to “travel” and “open my mind”. And Matt (Maniac), I certainly hope you weren’t referring to my comment with your retort about theories. If so, you need to go back and read (then pursue with the FACTS, not the belittling). So far, there are still alot of statements on the board, but I don’t see FACTS. (Some of you are soooo technical – a gazillion vs. a billion vs. a million. Please explain what difference it makes in “the big picture”? and whether we derived from homo erectus or not – the bottom line is we evolved from the ape and not created in the image of God – correct?) Get on with the facts, if you don’t mind. Show me the links, all of them. My mind is open to the proof. Not your statements. Give me ‘chapter and verse’, if you will. There is a formula to evolution (the primordial soup theory). Tell me you’ve seen it happen in the laboratory and that I can too. I am a clean slate. My mind is open. I am ready to be convinced through facts. Don’t give me your opinion, your statement of ‘faith’, your suggestions or comments. Give me facts without calling me a fool if I don’t believe like you. Give me evidence.

ABC;
The inclusion of ‘possibility’ in the defining statement of the report reveals the lack of one single fact to prove evolution is a reality.
There are libraries of books available on the subject of evolution. Not one book in the world includes one fact that proves evolution.
That is why evolution is called a theory.
Evolution is not a science, evolution is a faith-based religion within humanism.
Consequently we Christians have as much right to teach our faith in school as do the evolutionists.
And speaking of faith, ABC’s momentary inclusion of Ken Ham getting off a one-liner was in fact an adumbration of prophecy, unwitting as ABC may have been in their culpability.
Ham’s instantaneous disappearance previews the next major event prophesied in Holy Writ, the Rapture.
In fact, his time on-camera was enlarged by comparison to that famed ‘twinkling of an eye.’
But like God’s instantaneous creation of the world, and Jesus’ miraculous resurrection, the Rapture will also be fulfilled.
Til the Shout!
Terry,

Actually in my opinion Geology helped prove evolution – once Geologist proved that the Earth was 4.5 Billion years old, and not 9,000 yrs. as Biblicial Scholars advocate. It opened the doors for the Science of evolution to be accepted as it has been. The best example is that as Humans we have free will to form our own thoughts. This was not through ID this process has evolved over the time of our existance, as new evidence and information was discovered and processed by Humans. I have read every post on this forum, and to say the least there have been some intersting ideas expoused – some that make you shake your head in amazement, and some that show a desire to inform – on both sides of the arguement. I believe in science, and the processes involved with the scientific method; not because they have been touted as irrefutable(sp) facts, but through my own reading and research; they are what I choose to accept. I have free will. God was created by man; in times too dark to remember; as a basis for comfort and trying to understand what at that time could not be explained, but religion has also evolved; in most civilized societies we not longer burn the heretics at the stake, something that was done not too far back in our history. The world is constantly changing; I would love to see where we are in 500 years.

Nice try, EvoSkeptic.
The process of generating organic compounds from inorganic ones has already been proven (in the 1950′s already). And let’s see…over say, 1 billion years, how many lightning flashes are there? How many organic molecules are created in that time? How many chances are there for the first life to form? Bet it exceeds a few hundred thousand trillion. Wanna talk about odds now?
Let’s go on: For one species, multiply the number of creatures in existence times the number of generations over a million years. Let’s see, if there are, say 1,000,000 members (male & female) of a species, and they can reproduce after 5 years and have 2 offspring, then that’s 1,000,000 chances of a beneficial mutation to happen in one generation. Now, let’s put that over 1,000,000 years (and most species are around for far longer, but let’s keep it conservative), and that equates to ((500,000 females * 2 offspring) * (1,000,000 years species is around / 5 years before reaching breeding age)) = 200,000,000,000 chances for small mutations to happen (and build up). Of course, this example ignores each female being able to breed more than once but also infant mortality. However, small mammals populations could very well be higher than 1,000,000 and would likely be around for far longer then just a million years. What’s the point of this? Well, gee, look at all those chances for a beneficial mutation to happen.
It’s ID that sure looks like the fairy tale here.

LB750 – are you kidding me? 200,000,000,000 chances vs. “and God SAID…” Since God is portrayed in the Bible as being perfect, there would be no mistakes or errors in his words, but with 200,000,000,000 chances, doesn’t that leave more room for error as well as for ‘a’ beneficial mutation? Seems the odds are still 1 to 200,000,000,000. More ‘facts’ please.

I figure that the SUPREME FAILURE of religion was a vain attempt to portray GOD as something akin to a human being. They can never explain why the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are obviously 2 seperate things. Do we think anger management classes were the reason? Did new T God cry when he observed Jesus and lightened up his spiel? Why is he a he or a human type being? What is GENESIS 2:7 telling you? Is all creation merely a game board where entities sit around and laugh at us? FILM AT ELEVEN…

Try again LB750.
The process of creating anything resembling a life form of any kind was never done in the 1950′s or anytime since, an organic molecule is not life. Your appeal to numbers can’t make it happen because the complexity of the information in DNA is too high (you don’t have enough time in 4.5 billion years) Furthermore the mutations you mention require leaps of faith if left to random chance unless you have a universe that is designed to make it happen. In other words small tiny changes don’t yield the correct result, you have to have large sequence changes all at once and retain any other previous beneficial change which make the probability when left to chance alone tend to 0.

Donna,
I never said anything about God or magic… you did.
The fact is the science leads to the conclusion that DNA is an information sequence. Information has never been shown to come from anything but an intelligent agent. Science is a search for the truth and thats where the truth leads.

Sorry EvoSkeptic, you simply can’t wish away the odds. DNA at first was very simple. It only needs a few molecules. Not very great odds until the right combination came together. There is no “leap” of faith involved, only cold hard numbers. It is up to you if you want to accept the possibilities of those odds or not. So far, it doesn’t sound like it.
Sadly, I have better things to do tonight besides trying to convince those who have already made up their minds and won’t accept anything if it flies in the face of what they believe, no matter what the fact actually are. I know, in time, creationists will eventually “go extinct”. :)

Sam,
Sorry it appeared like I was quoting you with the “created the same day” thing. Maybe we can replace “day” with “week” there. My point was that if dinosaurs and people were living at the same time, Noah would have had to try and fit a pair of each dinosaur on the ark. Eggs would not work, because the bible says “So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.” Eggs aren’t flesh and don’t breathe. But MT suggested that he might have taken *young* dinosaurs. Certainly if I had to wrangle with a Tyrannosaurus Rex, I would prefer one as small as possible!

sam – do you have a point in all of that? What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics have to do with evolution? I you wish to suggest that evolution somehow violates the Second Law, please just say so. It isn’t true, but at least it is a point of discussion.
Yes, there needs to be an outside source of energy for entropy to decrease in a local system. In our world, most of this energy is created by nuclear fusion in the sun, and is converted into usable energy by organisms through photosynthesis and other biochemical processes. We know how organisms get the energy to become more complex, so what’s the problem?

I Would also like to challenge ABC to air a live Creation Vs Evolution debate on tv.

Creationist and ID theorists.
Church says you can decide for yourself. The theory of evolution is not contrary to the christian faith. Christians may accept evolution as the leading scientific theory for the origin of man.
I did not say it, the Pope did..
Well that rules out the it’s so because the word of god said argument. What were we arguing about?

The basic theory of evolution states that all living things evolved from a lower state to a higher state. However, if one looks at the basic laws of physics, we see that entropy would dictate otherwise. Someone at the top of this thread stated that things can’t de-volve, yet we know the universe (because of entropy) is moving from a higher state to a lower state. All energy in it’s highest form moves from a state of usable energy to less usable energy. No energy or mass is lost, it simply becomes less available for use. Thus the laws of conservation of mass and energy are satisfied. Evolution is the only “scientific fact” that defies these other well established and proven laws. How does evolution do that?

Disgusted1 – no, evolution does not “defy” ANY physical laws. That one’s been tried before. Plenty of energy is available for local decreases in entropy. Solar energy is converted to usable energy by photosynthesis. How would an adult grow from an egg cell, if local complexity couldn’t increase?

Why not consider that evolution is the implementation of intelligent design. God, as the intelligent designer, has the ability to create all that has been created through purely natural processes and the data weigh heavily in favor of that strategy. I would think that God prefers an orderly approach to creation so that we can figure out how he did it, and then marvel at his workmanship. It’s too bad that there are those who rule out God’s involvement once they’ve concluded that natural processes led to creation. By the same token, it’s really sad that there are those who insist on a literal interpretation of the six days of creation presented in the bible when the creation story is really a parable intended to teach something much deeper about God and his plan for people. Yes, there are blind folks on both sides of the argument.

LB750…in case you haven’t done any reading on the Miller-Urey experiment since around 1980, scientists determined that the “reducing atmosphere” used in the experiment did not actually represent what the evidence indicates was the earliest Earth atmosphere. Their evidence indicates that the earliest atmosphere had roughly the same percentage of oxygen that it does now. Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment, which produced only a few simple proteins even with its “reducing atmosphere” proves NOTHING. I can prove anything I want if I can set the pre-conditions to whatever I want; however, the pre-conditions used in Miller-Urey did not match what operational science has discovered. Geologists have discovered oxidized minerals in what they consider the earliest geologic strata, meaning oxygen, which, when used with the Miller-Urey apparatus, did not produce proteins (I believe it produced formaldehyde and cyanide, neither of which are conducive to organic life surviving). However, the dating methods used by geologists for rock are based on ASSUMPTIONS (specifically, uniformitarianism that says these strata were laid down slowly over millions of years) which is a belief system not supported by operational science. In fact, scientists have been able to model sedimentation patterns in the lab, as well as observe them happening in real life, due to catastrophic amounts of water that are identical to what is observed in the geologic record, which would indicate that the sedimentary layers assumed to be millions of years in the making show patterns that suggest rapid formation, not millions of years. This is just one of many lines of evidence, observed by operational science (not origin science, which is founded in speculation on past events based on underlying assumptions), that actually supports the young earth position. To assume that science is impartial and objective is a myth; those involved with origin science bring certain pre-suppositions to their interpretation of the evidence that leads them to see certain things, and often leads them to be blind to contradictory evidence discovered by operational science. By the way, claiming that early DNA was much less complex is not supported by any evidence, and is just a theory and assumption made by those refusing to acknowledge that something other than random chance created this entire universe and everything in it. It also doesn’t explain how that “simpler” DNA became INFORMATION that instructs a living organism to operate and reproduce. Those arguments are a smoke screen for lack of evidence, and usually involve the phrases “must have”, “could have”, “probably”, “might have”, etc., none of which indicate proof, only speculation, based on ASSUMPTIONS and a belief system that drives how you interpret evidence.

The religious people here remind me of “Baghdad Bob”, just keep denying & denying & ….

So the “scientists” have decreed that evolution is an established and indisputable scientific fact have they? These are the same self-defining brains that taught us such “indisputable” facts as that the earth is flat and you’ll fall off if you sail too far. No one can travel at over 45 miles per hour without blacking out. Close the patent office because everything that CAN be invented HAS been invented. The Earth is the center of the universe and all else revolves around it. Man is the apex of all life and all animal life is beneath man. Etc. Etc.
Face the facts; you cannot scientifically prove evolution because it CANNOT be repeated in a laboratory setting. Nor can you SCIENTIFICALLY disprove the existence of “God” any more than I can SCIENTIFICALLY proove that He DOES exist. In the end it is all an exercise of the individual will to choose what you believe. The vast majority of evolutionists cling blindly to the idea that we and all that exists are simply a huge accident of molecular combination. You see — the problem is that if you acknowledge the existence of a supreme being (“God”)then you must DO something with him…a circumstance that many scientists will believe anything to avoid.

About Evolution
Ten billion years ago by a tropic sea in the warmth of the sun this is what happened.There was a rain of sand that said to small dust bamd although I don’t think and you are quite dead we’ve just got to start getting ahead.There no future being alone. so lets inprove ourselves since we’ve got the times.You be a fish and swim to and fro, I’ll be a bird just watch me go.Altho you cann’t think and I got no eyes. we’ll accidently organise into an ape and then into a man, we’ll doit all without a plan.
If you find this hard to conceive. don’t resaon on it, just believe.ignore the facts and be scientificto even things that aren’t specific.
This is taughtin every institution.This is the religion they call evolution

Its been over 150 years since Darwin’s theory and they have yet to find ONE piece of scientific evidence of evolution. If there were any REAL evidence of evolution they would have found it by now. Oh I’ve got it! Create life in the lab! Whoops, tried that, and failed, again and again and again. They’ve also been poisoning and radiating fruit flies now for nearly 100 years hoping to get something else and been getting NOTHING but retarded fruit flies. But its ok, because every day they can’t create life or evolve something in the lab they are PROVING scientifically the existence of God. Shine on.

Spectrum – I would certainly agree with that but most people do relate or generalize “evolution” in broader terms based on the concept (theory and all as a whole). That is what I meant in terms of “Evolutionist”. I do not think most creationists would disagree with what happens to a structure (mutations and natural selection), after it is built. They just do not believe it was built by chance.

I was referring to a structure already created (within a species). Not evolving from one species to another. For instance, maybe people are taller now than they were 3000 years ago or have bigger scalps. Who knows? Different hybrids of plants have evolved based on the environment, etc. I have never seen a missing link between species ever produced (no such thing).

Again, claiming its there without showing it does not constitute proof, not in science. It must be able to be observed or tested or proved. All real things contain at least 1 of these items, usually all 3, but at least 1. Evolution contains none. There has never been a time whereby a mutation of any type has been shown in any way to produce a new species of anything. The biggest promoters of evolution are immune to science if it contradicts their theory. Like Dawkins, for example. He says when homosexuality is considered that he says there is a problem with it, not a problem with the theory. You got that? There is an existing fact in reality that contradicts his theory so therefore there is a problem with REALITY, not the theory of evolution. This is a thickness that cannot be overcome EVEN with observable proof!!!! So most evolutionists cannot be convinced even when reality drops in their lap!!! Its their worldview and they cannot let go of it no matter what.

No one is trying to validate creationism based on concepts of evolution. Most of the time things about species change in order to adapt to changes in the environment, etc. Adaptation can be a driving force in nature (in plants and animals). Not evolving from one species to another. Why are people in Europe taller than most Americans? Why do darker skinned people live closer to the equator? How did certain birds adapt to cacti when there were no trees? Those types of things.

TO ALL:
Please note that the author of the comment is posted BELOW the message, not above it. Responses are becoming confused (i.e., Evoskeptic replied to me when he actually should have replied to Dave.) In order to make sense of the debate (if possible), we need to make sure we’re responding to the right comment/author, or the conversation could ‘evolve’ into one big mess.

Can someone refresh my memory on how to respond to a specific post, like the early posts reflect? thanks!

Joe, I’m on your side, but when someone builds a computer, and loads it with certain software that enables it to adapt to basically anyone who uses it then the programmer is said to be thinking ahead to meet the demands of the comsumer. Does it not stand to reason that an entity intellegent enough to create (1) a place for life, (2) the life itself, (3) and then leave the instruction manual behind, would have enough forethought to build nto his creation the ability to ADAPT using its software (DNA). We have the high ground here, don’t let the less informed frame the debate.

So true.

Gene pool getting weaker? That does explain my neighbor’s kids!

I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution, proudly. I don’t put my God in a box, or define him by ancient superstition written by primitiive societies and called “his” word. I believe God’s own handwriting – in the geology, biology, chemisty, physics and mathematics that make up our wonderful world and universe. This is his true language, and he gave us brains enough to understand it, and his creation.

Braxton Bragg,
You are exactly correct, evolution is The religion of the ahtiest. It replaces faith in God with a blind belief in chance. It allows them to commit murder in the form of abortion. It allows them to live a hedonistic lifestyle. It allows them to do anything they desire. Except, have a personal relationship with the one that created them. Because of their rebellious state they cannot see what He has done for them. He came out of eternity and died or them (us) so that we all– IF WE ACCEPT HIS SCARIFICE–
might have eternal life. Iknow this might sound kin of corney to some of you, but it is THE TRUTH.

Nic,
Show me the fakes down on the Paluxy River. And I will show you hundreds of out and out hoaxes perpitrted by so called scientists over the past 150 years. Its absolutely disgusting was has been done in the name of science.

You do not have to be a Christian or belong to any faith to prove evolution (as a whole theory)to be wrong or even believe in the Bible. Any logical person with no perception at all could pretty much weigh the options and figure it out. Evolution is not science (it is a theory passed off as science).

As I’ve said before and will say over and over – keep your RELIGION out of science and keep your FAITH to yourself. Those of you who can’t separate the two are doomed to feeling your religion and faith are destined to be proven wrong by scientific inquiry. A religion can be proven wrong. A faith can not. A religion applies to many people. A faith applies to one. Have faith in what you want to have faith – in God, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever – but let science teach science. After all, man made the religions and no one can deny that man is flawed. So are the religions. No amount of divine inspiration can overcome that.

hey sam, religion doesn’t allow people to murder in the name of said religion on a daily basis all over the world? You so-called good christians have no problem killing convicted criminals everyday. An eye for an eye you say? Then I guess after said criminal is killed the person who pulled the trigger should be next, and the jurors who sentenced them to death, and the judges who permitted it to happen.

Ken,
You are one of the ones I talking to. Get your facts correct. Look up the definition of religion. I’m kind of tired of doing it for all of you. Any strongly held belief that influences your life is considered religious in nature. For example, you sound like you are very zeolous in your belief. Do yo know what constitutes a ‘supernatural being’?
Why does the ‘supernatural’ scare you?
As ar as Tax dollars, I don’t want mine supporting murder of the unborn, or the endowment for the arts. Tax dollars should not be spent giving people who can work a free ride. And yet most of you think its ok to fund murder. I think the proof is in the pudding. You only have to look at what happens when you kick GOD out of sociey to know that he is real and he does affect this world every minute of every day.

dk,
First of all, capitol punishment is not murder. The Bible authorises governments (not individuals–meaning us christians) to take the life of certain crimminals for certain offences against society. It is not meant as a deterrant in the common sense, but an absolute guarantee that that person will not ever commit that crime again.
No, christians do not say an eye for an eye. If we believd in an eye for an eye, we could not by definition believe in the saving grace found in the person of Jesus Christ. You really do not understand the middle east war. As a matter of fact you don’t seem to understand much, again take the emotion out of the equation. It really does help you think better.

Science is the study of natural phenomena through the application of logic and reason, and utilizes methods to test theories that are developed in those studies (hence, the scientific method). There are exceptionally few “scientific facts”, that’s a phrase used widely by the media and the National Geographic channel, not scientists. Some theories are adopted, and if an improved theory is developed, then the new theory is adopted. Unfortunately the popular interpretation of science is that people think it has all of life’s answers indisputably laid out for them. No. It’s a constantly developing set of theories.
Religion is the faith & belief in a supernatural being, the existence of whom cannot be proven or disproven. In this blog, “religion” seems to specifically refer to christian. Intelligent design is a development from religion. It begins with a conclusion and searches for information that supports it’s belief-based ideas.
It seems to me information and theories that are contrary to intelligent design concepts are not explained by intelligent design, rather they are rejected wholesale as anti-god and anti-religion. Trying to redefine scientific principles (“logic and reason”) in the framework of intelligent design (“faith and belief”) makes no more sense than does Hitler’s efforts to develope “Arian Physics”
Basically, what I’m trying to say is just get a grip on yourselves. Scientists make no claims about having all the answers, and no one in religion should be so insecure about their faith. Grow up!

Fatesrider,
You simply cannot remove ‘faith’ from science by definition. Why are you afraid of God? Why do you think that science is the enemy of faith, religious or otherwise? You are really showing your ignorance (and I mean that in the classical sense). Look ‘real’ science is Great. For example real science finally proved the Bible correct, the earth is round. The fabric of space is being stretched out. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the picture.

Ken,
That is exactly what ‘scientists’ do.
It is what started this debate. The NAS basically clamed to have the definitive
word on evolution. Again, get your facts right!! Don’t know what you mean by insecure about faith. If I was insecure, I wouldn’t be here debating you. This debate is for you in the hopes that truth might grab a foot hold in your life. Christ is not about religion, as a matter of fact if you would care to read about Him, you would find that He is firmly against ‘religion’ He wants relatioship. Which by definition is a two way street. Try it you might see what I mean.

Christian,
If you believe in evolution, then you are misinterpreting the ‘writings’. go back and re-examine what you think you know. Again, its adaptation, not evolution.

HONEST, I have a Brother-in-law that BELIEVES the Earth is 6000yrs old. Therefore he concludes, fossils are NOT REAL! Ice layers in the Arctic dating back 600,000 yrs were faked. Parts being located on Earth from explosions in space 10,000 yrs ago CAN’T BE REAL. Gulf of Mexico just happens to look like a Giant crater. He’s the first to tell you, FAITH! Just have FAITH in the Bible…..If we could get a real expert on here, I’m pretty sure the Bible DOES SAY the Earth is FLAT!I know later additions contradict that, but, the first notation is the Earth is flat, and the Universe rotates around us.

Zuzu, I do not recall anywhere the Bible ever said it was flat; however, and I could be wrong here (so don’t take me at my word), but I am thinking Columbus came to the Americas (looking for the Indies) under the presumption the earth was round (a sphere) based on a scripture from Isaiah, even when others were telling him he was crazy.

In lack of better terms (without semantics) I think it really comes down to two options. Do folks believe in simultaneous creation or do they believe in a stair-stepped (by chance) creation theory?

Jock,
I use the definitions in the dictioary. Its a lost art I know. Again, to beat a dead horse, Evolution and Adaptation are not the same thing.

jock,
Its like showing a blind person a rainbow. They just can’t see it no matter how bright the light is. I will leave you with something from Hebrews Chapter 11 vs 1-3
“Faith IS The Substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testmony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible”. My take, God used Invisible atoms to build the universe. It took science a very long time to discover what God freely gives us in his word. I know that I cannot persuade you, but God can. The seeds have been sewn, maybe they will take root. I hope for your sake that they do.
Now Its getting really late and I am going to bed, night all.

Evolution is a myth. It has no links to anything real. Dinosaur bones are the remnants of the creatures that the Bible speaks of. There were birds, fish animals and “creeping things”… significant giant creeping things… that happen to just now be in the news! The Bible spoke of them first! The Bible does not say that one ting turned into another. It says that they were all created around the same time and they all lived together. Evolution has lost it’s credibility. It is nothing more than an unproven idea which amounts to wishful thinking. They are hoping beyond hope there is no God because if there is a God, they are in trouble. It takes a lot of faith to believe in Evolution because there is no basis for it.

jockyoung…please get your facts straight. Evolutionists, in their “origin of life” model, are the ones who claim that life originated by chance (i.e. the “right” mix of elements in the “right” type of atmosphere in the “right” conditions, all achieved randomly with nothing pre-engineered, somehow sprang to life. And your claim that decay rates have proven the “millions of years” also does not hold up to scientific inquiry (the operational science I talked about). Establishinhg time lines is based on ASSUMPTIONS (initial amount of parent element in the item being tested, initial amount of daughter element present in the item tested, no contamination, and a constant decay rate). Experiments have shown that decay rates may have been accelerated in the past. Any contamination (meaning introduction of additional quantities of the parent and/or daughter element during the process) will skew the results. One of the most common decay rates used by evolutioninsts, Carbon 14, is so inaccurate that labs ask how old the item is “supposed” to be so they can come up with a better approximation for its age; that age, of course, comes from what layer of rock it is found in, and what time frame they believe that rock layer represents (which is what I thought the radioometric dating was supposed to prove). FACT: Carbon 14 will completely decay to undetectable quantities (based on its current decay rate) in approximately 50,000 years. FACT: Carbon 14 has been detected in diamonds, coal, fossils, etc. that are supposed to be millions if not billions of years old. REAL science would lead you to believe that the oldest those items could be is something less than 50,000 years old. It is at this point that origin scientists reject the Carbon 14 study results and date the item based on its location in the “geologic record” (which is what you said was proven by radiometric dating). All other radiometric dating methods have similar flaws, calling into question their reliability. Those decay rates have been shown in experimentation to not be constant and can be influenced by outside factors. Combine that with the possibility of contamination, and you have a test whose reliability comes into question. The NAS book has 86 pages of facts that they have interpreted with their naturalistic paradigm; the key here is the interpretation. The facts do not explain themselves; they must be interpreted based on some framework (in this case, and evolutionary framework). The issue that comes up is how well does your evolutionary framework stand up to new evidence. Evolutionists are constantly explaining away discoveries that do not fit their framework or having to completely rewrite their framework because the evidence does not fit. They normally claim that “we know evolution is a fact; we’re just working out the details,” a weak and arrogant attempt to try to distract from the fact that they are wrong. Naturalism seeks to explain everything in natural terms, which is what evolutionists try to do and are unwilling to even consider any evidence indicating creation or intelligent design (they are not synonymous) because it does not meet their criteria of having a naturalistic explanation, therfore is “unscientific” (which, by the way, did not used to be the definition of science until around the early 1980s when the NAS was able to convince the Supreme Court that for something to be scientific, it required a naturalistic explanation). By the way, no creationist or intelligent design person who understands science will claim that natural selection does not happen, as natural selection is the environment acting on organisms that have changed due to variations in existing DNA (dark fur vs. light fur) or loss of information on the DNA (viral resistence to antibiotics). Their main argument is that it is impossible to add the massive amounts of INFORMATION to DNA that is required to build the complex structures (even one small step at a time) seen in the diversity of life. Evolutionists claim that rearrangement or mutation (copying errors) on DNA can account for the development of these complex structures is unable to be proven by operational science (the testing of a hypothesis through observation and experimentation). In fact, operational science proves the opposite. Evolutionists oversimplify their explanation (“descent with modification”) to hide the fact that no rearrangement or mutation of DNA has ever been shown to ADD information to the DNA molecule. Any mutations that appear to be beneficial (like antibiotic resistence, sickle cell anemia reducing the chances of getting malaria, etc.) are losses of information on the DNA (space does not permit me to explain more, but you can find plenty of detailed, scientific explanations of such backed up by research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on many of the reputable creationist or ID web sites, if you are willing to look at them). For molecules-to-man evolution, or for evolution of any “simpler” organism to a “more complex” organism, massive amounts of information must be added to the DNA. It is more than simply rearranging or adding a few proteins, as the proteins on the DNA strands are a coded language that tells the cell what to do. For evolutionists to use an example of natural selection (modification due to loss of information on DNA) as evidence that information can be added to the DNA is deceptive.

I liked the post about dinosaurs being mentioned in the bible. Of course folks don’t remember seeing any such thing there other than behemonths. You see, that’s the problem with thumpers. The say something is so because it’s in the bible. But they don’t say *which* bible.
King James Genesis:
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Young’s Literal Translation:
And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.
There are other translations around. Who knows, one might say dinosaurs. And who knows which translation is right.
One thing you got to give God. Heck of a sense of humor. Not only did he set things up so evolution would be obvious, but if you believe as many do, that he made the creation 4,000 or even 9,000 years ago, he totally faked most of the stars. Given the speed of light, we’ve yet to see most of the stars, just the light He created to make it looks as if those stars were there.
Wonder what He’s up to….

Belief in evolution is a sad state of mind. It assumes that we made ourselves by trial and error without any intelligence initially. Any “resonance” creating life that there is, is the resonance of Gods voice who is the One to have spoken first in the beginning. Everything that we see has the resonance of God’s voice and we were made in His image and likeness. Amazing, isn’t it?
Any logical rational human being would know that the theory of evolution just has far too many missing chains (of life forms) for it to even be considered. It’s so ignorant. Millions of years is not enough for one life form to speak itself into existence let alone the millions of life forms that we have simultaneously at one time and one place with male and female reproducing after their kind. Can you understand what impossible multiplied a million times is? Multiply that by another million times and you will see there is no way for anything good to just happen anywhere at any time. It is so ignorant.

“Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron”

If the moth evolved into an eagle and it was provable then I would believe that humans evolved from apes or fish or whatever. The THeory remains a Theory despite over 150 years of research. Go to ANY place of higher learning and ask for proof, no one has any.

People are betrayed by their own arrogance. Since when is a theory a fact? Not only is it a theory, it is delusional looking for life on Mars and missing monkey chains.
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

As Einstein said, “Those who march in lockstep were given a brain by mistake. All they need is a spinal cord.”

The ignorance of most all of you doesn’t surprise me anymore. First: The scriptures are not a complete history of creations of God, but it is a small outline of modern man. The earth was created in 7 days, 7 of Gods days, not 7 of mans. Second: If we came from monkeys, there would be no such thing as monkeys today. So, all of you arm chair scientists, increase your knowledge alot more and apply simple common sense.

People don’t even know what a million is, let alone 55 million. Do you have any idea how many dinosaur bones that would be? Absences of evidence is not evidence of anything… and what about the dinosaurs described in the Bible? That is real evidence in writing! How is it they can describe dinosaurs if there were no dinosaurs???!!! What a lot of wasted minds!

lol. forget the glass of water.

Each day (and night) of God’s creation is one rotation of the earth. The earth had to be turning very slow if thousands of years were to pass… which is not very logical. Did Adam sleep hundreds of years to make Eve? It doesn’t make sense. Jesus was able to heal and raise the dead in an instant. God doesn’t need thousands of years to speak life into existence… and the Bible is history that should be in the classroom.

One could say all matter is eternal in nature because everything had to exist in one form before becoming part of another form. Not sure how that plays into the bacteria discussion or the cooling off of the earth…

MarsHillMike: Evolution is scientific fact supported by scientific evidence. Creationism is not science, it is religion based on about 200 words in a single book. Everything else in “creationist science” is a fabrication.

By the way, did anyone notice how the graphic showing human evolution has changed on this article? It used to show literal monkey-to-man; now it shows a supposed skeletal progression. To put those skeletons into that progression, you have to assume evolution, even if your “dating” methods show them not in your illustrated sequence (which is a problem evolutionists have with their “evidence” and “dating methods”…the dating methods don’t reveal dates that align with their progression). More smoke and mirrors to try to convince us of their theory.

jock59801…the ones who confuse the terms are the evolutionists. As for adaptation and natural selection occurring in what you term “macro-evolution,” you make that statement but offer NO EVIDENCE! The evidence cannot be found in microbiology (i.e. DNA, which would need to code for the supposed adaptations, in the case of what you call “macro-evolution,” would have to be volumes of information to build new structures that would need to be fully formed in order to provide any benefit). You make statements but do not back them up. Then you offer observations of what you call “micro-evollution” and infer, again WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that it proves what you call “macro-evolution.” There is no confusion of terms.
You also dodge the origin of life. Evolution has to go back all the way to the origin of life, or are you saying that life was originally created, but evolution is what got us here? Are you a theistic evolutionist? Believer in panspermia (like Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA, who put forth the theory that this planet was seeded with organic material from outer space, because what he observed in DNA was too complex to be explained by random chance)? Evolutionists cannot dodge the origin of life; it is part and parcel to the overall naturalistic theory. Even if you do try to dodge the origin of life, the evidence still does not support evolution.

Mars – yes, I am ignoring the origin of life question, for the moment. Let’s say the origin of life could have been either produced by lightning or by God (maybe both?). It doesn’t matter for the discussion of later evolution. I am not saying whether I believe in God or not. It doesn’t matter for the scientific discussion of evolution. Evolution and God are NOT incompatible. Even the pope agrees with that, along with many Protestant and Jewish leaders.

Re: abnormative
Actually there are many transitional fossils but according to Darwin (origin), Filler (upright ape) and Gould (PE), these transitions may be abrupt and not recognized as transitional. While Darwin could not explain the mechanism and therefore only made small mention of this “transmutation”, and Gould expanded this hypothesis well beyond Darwin, Filler has examined and explained the mechanism in genetic terms. Darwins errors were in “Descent of Man” which in retrospect were understandable. Filler has corrected this quite admirably.

There are, of course, many transitional forms between species in the fossils record, and anyone who says different is either blind or lying. Provide evidence, you say? Several examples are in the NAS review, so I refer you to that document. We are supposed to be discussing it, not reproducing it here. And before you say “those have all been refuted,” at least look to see which examples we are talking about and tell me HOW each was clearly refuted.

MarshillMike: This question went to court and the creationists were free to present the best evidence they had. They only had one person with any science training and he got blown away on the stand because even he didn’t know what he was talking about. In short, the creationists lost so badly that they haven’t wanted to try a fair debate again. So what do all these well-educated creationist kids know that nobody ever bothered to present in court in the best chance they ever had to prove their case?

disabledOIFvet: Because — believe it or not — if you argue effectively you can largely shut the idiots down. I don’t mean that you can convince them about evolution or what science really is. I agree that they are a bit too far gone and the details are a bit too complex for many people to understand. Also, it seems their view is emotionally-based, not intellectually-based, so there is that to contend with. But what you can do is to show them that if they continue to try this argument in public they will wind up looking like fools. Bigots won’t change their minds, but they will understand public humiliation and will learn that trying to debate in public is not productive for them. For proof of this, you can see the issue of the drug war. In 1989, I started out on a campaign to humiliate the drug warriors every time they tried to debate the issue in public. By 1995, they were flatly refusing to come out for debates because they knew they would do better if they didn’t even show up.

MarsHillMike: You have to ask which case? You don’t even know that much? You really aren’t keeping up are you? The school board case in Pennsylvania. You haven’t offered anything that hasn’t already been given its proper hearing and laughed out of court. I mean — even the creationists have to admit they lost that one — and it wasn’t even close.

In the words of the great Carl Sagan, “Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact.” If someone wants their kids to learn about creationism, then in this great country of ours, they’re free to take them to the church of their choosing or send them to a church-based private school. Public schools are funded by public money and are therefore STATE. Church is church and public schools are state and until the constitution is repealed, that’s it. If people want to live in a theocracy, then they’re free to emmigrate to Iran.

Has anyone heard of the “gap theory”? The first two verses of the bible, Genesis 1:1-2 states “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth WAS without form and void…” The key is the word “was”. In the hebrew, there is no transitional form of the word “to be” (i.e. “was”). No some texts show this word “was” as the transitional word “became”. If this is true, the verses would now read “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the BECAME without form and void…”. This simply means that the earth was made and that at sometime, possibly much later, something happened to make it loose it’s form and make it void (void – empty).
Does this provide a possible crossing point of these two theories?

MarsHillMike: What evidence do you have for a supremely intelligent Creator of everything? If man was created in God’s image, who does God have sex with? Can you tell us where in Genesis it says anything other than “in the beginning….” Where in Genesis is radiocarbon dating disproved?

Evolution has a wide application. I have sat through class after class on evolution and debated all the various theories out there. I agree that evolution is a part of nature, but I am not convinced that it is the end-all and be-all of the explanation of life. Take a moment and think about the human eye. How did that magnificent organ come about so that it transmits full colored images to our brain? In all the classes I have ever taken on evolution, I have never seen an explanation. I agree that I don’t want someone’s religion being taught to me in science class. But I do think it should be mentioned that evolution has a wide application and contains many theories within the subject that even contradict one another.

cturple:
I am afraid that this site has not offered a decent explanation. In fact, it claims that the human eye is a botched job, if it is to be attributed to a creator. I don’t buy that for a second. I find the theories it presents to be interesting, but that is the limit. And that is in the end the issue with evolution. There are all these theories of how things developed, and they are theories that contradict one another. Evolution is a part of life. It just isn’t the end-all to the subject.

Rudy: Science doesn’t have a convenient Big Book of Answers. It deals with truths which must be discovered through scientific process. Not knowing all the answers doesn’t mean the answers are unknowable. We also don’t know how gravity works, but that doesn’t mean it’s supernatural – it just means we haven’t figured it out yet.
I actually gave you two links. You didn’t like the watered down PBS version – what about Lund University?

The question is why the news media continues to fuel this stupid argument. Creationism doesn’t belong in the classroom or the news media. Keep it in the churches where it belongs.

Just what the heck is”REAL Science?” A definition please from all of you who use this term!!!

Just like the watch points to an intelligent watchmaker the complexity of the human body points to an intelligent creator. Random chance and time just could not make us. It does not make sense. Good science must sync with common sense. My fellow Americans, don’t let Godless scientists fool you. Origins matter, we are all accountable to God

Perhaps evolution IS the intelligent design; what would make more sense? Create “as-is” organisms incapable of adapting to this volatile universe, or structure a universe capable of producing its own organisms, critters capable of mutating into better-suited forms for the long haul? Option “B” is the intelligent design.

The “watchmaker” argument is actually a poor analogy. We know a watch had to have a watchmaker because it is made with metal pieces that cannot assemble themselves. Living organisms are made up of biochemicals that CAN assemble themselves, given the right input of energy. We don’t need to assume an intelligent “life-maker” because we know how it can be done without.

Christianity once proclaimed that the Earth was the center of the universe and flat. If mankind arrived on Earth by magic as the Bible says we would all have the same DNA. Religious people once again claim that because they do or mankind does not understand something it must be the hand of a diety ….. how absurd …

Royce — May I suggest you please open the Bible starting in the book of John then Genesis, as you do your ‘fact-based’ text books written by your equally fallible authors and you might know what your are speaking of. And on the dinos — Well, someone asked how they would fit on the ark? As young ones, that’s how. Calm down everybody. That’s all for me I’ve said my peace as well.

Jesse: Wrong. Evolution has been confirmed and is supported by a mountain of evidence. Most prominent scientists (who actually care about following the scientific process) know this. The only way evolution can be PROVED false, is by an even greater amount of evidence showing that it is. Guess what, this “greater amount of” evidence has yet to materialize (in any amount). In fact, the more evidence that is uncovered or discovered, the more it reinforces evolution. That should tell you something…

I believe in evolution but not the simplistic kind that many materialist scientists claim. What they continue to leave out of the picture is the immortal nature of man.
Reincarnation has been scientifically proven at the University level. See the results of the research and discoveries of the Univerisity of Arizona, Veritas program, and the University of Virginia Health Systems, Personality Studies for more information.
What I’d like to see now is how the interplay of reincarnation and evolution happens. Then and only then would we see an advance in the science of evolution and maybe a wider acceptance of it…

It all comes back to the pathological NEED for people to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” On both sides of this issue and many others. Why does it have to be absolute, one way or the other? I believe in intelligent design because I just can’t look at the spectacular complexity of life and chalk it up to a cosmic accident. All forms of life are just so amazing and none more so than human life. When God created the universe, wouldn’t it have made a “big bang?” See, the two theories don’t have to be completed separated.

A “Theory” is the highest honor in science – there is nothing higher than a Theory and there is no such thing as “scientific fact” – there is only “evidence”. Evidence can support a “hypothesis” and only when a hypothesis gathers enough evidence does it slowly become accepted as a “THEORY”. So this would make INTELLIGENT DESIGN A HYPOTHESIS !! Now everybody shut up and go back to your churches and labs lol !!

Hey Jock,
I’m Back, good to see that this is still going on. That’s interesting “given the ‘right’ amount of energy”. For something to be given it must by definition have a giver. And the ‘right’ amount of energy by deinition must be measured. I guess you believe than given enough time, the giver and the measurer become time itself. This really does sound like magic, and you really do have a fanatical religious type of faith. I can guarantee that neither you nor any other human being has ever observed a living chemical or energy process on any level, where the existance of some level of information or manipulation did not preceed the process. You also know that unless additional amounts of energy and information are continually added to a system, that system will eventually run out of the ability to excgange either energy or information. So, the supposed 15 or 20 billion year age of the universe is not your friend as you suspect. It is in actuality your nemisis.
Zingesloff,
The aboluteness occurs, not with all of the diatribe, but with what Jesus stated in the New Testament concerning The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He imfatically stated that man has but one life on this earth (thus no reincarnation), and that the only ‘pleasant’ way through to the next life is thru Him. He also states that nothing was created that He did not personally create. (He created everthing inluding the universe). He did not use ‘magic’ to create, He used His Word to create. Yes, He spoke creation into existance. Now, before some of you go off half cocked, think for just a moment. Aren’t we being told almost on a daily basis that if we just speak positve and prodctive words, that the results will follow. That if we speak negative things then those results will follow. No, the issue is, WILL you bow your knee in this life (when it will save your immortal soul) or will it be at the white thrown judgment when you will have already condemned yourself to an eternity of “utter darkness”. If Jesus had not placed these Restrictions on us, very few would have a problem with Him. But He did place them there, and they must be dealt with at some point in each of our lives.

“Christians are stupid.” is just a hypotheses, not a theory – but your hypotheses is supported by a lot of evidence rofl !!

Melly: So how is it that there isn’t a single “scientist” of any description in the nation who will seek to defend “creation science” in public anymore? The last one who tried went down like the Hindenburg under cross-examination. Do you have any new “research” that wasn’t covered in that court case?

ssater,
Bullseye!!!

Kaelin: I really don’t care what people think about arrogance. Many of these people are largely brain-dead, anyway. All I care about is their recognition that they will look like fools if they try to make a public argument for certain things. You can’t get a mule to understand evolution, but you can make a mule understand when they will be beaten. That is all that is necessary.

Melly,
Thank you for making that statement. They will of course deny your position, but at leas you put it out here.

Dano, most of America is purely and simply stupid. What laughing stock we have become…and not only in science.

There are two paths of thought I notice in this blog that creationist seem to equate – Intelligent Design of a supreme being creating the universe and life from absolutely nothing, and intelligent design of man making cleaver little inventions and discoveries. I cannot understand why people wish to discuss them on the same level. There’s not an equal sign between Man making a flying machine out of metal or hybrid dogs, and a supreme being creating life out of noting – the two types of ‘design’ are not analogous. It is the later that I consider a controversy, not man’s litle discoveries & inventions. If they are related, then evolution, which is also a product of man’s ability to design using logic and reason, should be embraced by all since it’s a product of the same logic and reason that gave us other discoveries. If the two types of design are not related, then one should reject all science and inventions as being anti-god, not just a few topics such as evolution. Picking and choosing what is “acceptable thought” and what is not seems arbitrary. For example, god didn’t specify electric & mangetic field theory in the bible, yet no one questions it’s usefulness or validity. Flu vacinations are developed every year based on an understanding of viral mutations (a derivative of evolution), yet many people, even strict ID advocates, will receive a flu shot and benefit from it’s effects.

Roger: There is such a thing as fact in science. A fact is a reality that can be inferred from evidence. Evolution is a reality inferred from scientific evidence.

Sam – Yes, that is exactly what is so basic and so profound. Can life evolve without a designing mind? What is DESIGN, for that matter? Can design occur without a designing MIND? That is the barrier that no one could get passed until the 19th century. Locke couldn’t get passed it. Hume at least discussed it. That is “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.” An idea so simple and elegant that most scientists slapped themselves for not having thought of it themselves. Evolution is NOT random. Organisms evolve, and are “designed” by natural selection. I’m going to assume you know the basics of that idea. If not, read the NAS review that we are supposed to be discussing. The point is that the constant trial and error of the mutation and selection process can improve the functional DESIGN of an organism (in fact, it’s hard to see how it could NOT). Is there enough time? Scientists have shown that the rate of morphological evolution that we have actually witnessed in living organisms is much faster than any morphological change on the fossil record. YES, there is enough time.

“Life is too complex, therefore it must be designed”, isn’t even wrong. This argument is easy to overcome, and it should be considered as a way to understand and counter the idiocy of ID. Simplicity is the mark of design, not complexity. And life’s rising via evolution is not an ‘accident’ but the result of a long chain of selection. Accidents are not a part of evolution.
First, lets look at the “design from complexity” idea. Dawkins proposes that simplicity in design is the sign of intelligent design, not the other way around. It makes sense, the more complex an item is, the less likely it is designed. This is the opposite of what the Bible, ID’ers, and creationists state, and it should be possible to make this point to them if approached in a sensible manner.
Lets look at the argument above from Zinglesloff, who states that … “I just can’t look at the spectacular complexity of life and chalk it up to a cosmic accident.” Lets see what happens when we suppose that the simpler a thing is, the more likely it was designed.
If Zinglesloff discovered a watch, I venture to say he/she will probably marvel at the complexity of it, and assume that it was designed, (which it certainly was) by a watchmaker. The mistake is in looking at biology, and assuming that there is a watchmaker for us, too. There isn’t Its’ backwards; design really means simplicity. A watch is an incredibly simple thing compared to a single-celled bacteria, a virus, or any other living thing. Even the tiniest grain of sand next to that watch shows the difference between design and nature – the surface of the sand is fractal, the watch smooth, the sand a mass of crystals fused together randomly, but the watch cover is a glassy crystal of quartz with virtually no defects. The watch’s proof that is it is designed comes from being fundmentally very simple. Simplicity is the mark of design, not complexity.
Notice how the gears all fit precisely, machined by elliptical cams turning round by rotary mills in Switzerland, the timing precisely controlled by an equation of rotary motion, the hierarchy of one wheel turning another and another until a second tacks by, by using ordinary division. An equation describing it can certainly fit on a T-shirt.
This is simplicity in design, the opposite of what Bible, ID, and creationists spout, and I think their biggest weakness. IMHO, if you argue that life is complex, then you argue for non-design. Everything in our world, from the most complex things ever produced, such as a Pentium processor, are really very simple machines with precise rules, so pracise that a single error in placement of a few hundred atoms can be tracked down, repaired and rewired in the next production run, by ordinary humans; and that certainly cannot be said (yet) about even the simplest, most well known strands of viral RNA. The state of a computer is complex, hard to understand, but very simple to describe.
The complexity of life arises from the unpredicability of nature and the survival of the fittest, not the simplicity of a designer, or the randomness of accidents.
WHy not random and accidental? Evolution is not random. It just tosses out mistakes that kill, and keeps everything else. Yes, a mistakes that kills can be accidental, random, or even equential. For example, a roomful of monkeys can easily write Hamlet in a very short time, if you simply do as evolution does; just keep the correct keystrokes and kill off the bad ones. You could just try all the letters, one at a time. Or try them backwards. Or try qwertyuiop. Nothing random about it. Any mechanism you can dream up will do, including random, as evolution does not care, so long as you hit all the keys eventually. And out will pop anything you are to ask for.
Evolution does explain the spectacular complexity of life. Proposing that ID created us, well that explains nothing. It gives you an answer millions of time wrong, as you will see. So why teach that?
If you use evolution’s methods on the simple scenario of monkeys and typewriters typing even a simple sentence, you get results far faster than ID proponents spout – which is a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed. But the complete works can be created, quickly, by just keeping the good keystrokes and tossing away the bad one as not being ‘fit’, per evolutionary theory. just use evolutions rules, not ID’s. and see which one works.
Dawkins got back his phrase while at lunch, which is far shorter than a million million million million million years proposed by ID’ers.
Please, try to understand what evolution teaches by actually attending a science class before you argue that religion plays a role and must be taught as an alternative. Religion explains nothing about our world except when examined in the light of science, which posits tat religion is an evolutionary behavior that helped us survive a strange world.n/
b
or example, some argue that a room of monkeys cannot design a Shakespearean novel by random typing, but again, they have it backwards. Lets use their reasoning against them, tutn it around, and see how they aen’t even wrong.

Ferd,
Another new mather!!
Counting the errors in logic, the errors in fact, and reasoning would indeed take millions, and millions of years.
I will address one statement you made. The monkeys and shakespear, first shakespear would have to exist (written by shakespear, or it would be called someting else) then someone would have to make the typewriter, place it in a confined space, capture the monkeys, place them in the confined space, and feed them, etc. Then someone would have to monitor the situation to make sure that typewriters that the monkeys destroyed were thrown away, as they would no longer be useful, and might be used to destroy the rest of the typewriters. Then, the monitors would have to be careful not to show the monkeys how they deleted the unecessary keystrokes. As this might influence their future strokes. You get the idea. Now after 50 or 60 generations of monkeys and a couple of hundred years you might get a readable copy of shakespear’s first chapter, but you would have removed any resemblance to evolution. See, you are making a fundamental and fatal error in your logic, youre giving ‘evolution’ both personhood and intellegence. It posseses neither. Evolution cannot DO anything. And the mechanims everyone keeps referring to had to come for somewhere. Arguements are reduceable,
all the way down to their premices. If the premises are false the arguement is false, if the premis is invalid the arguement is invalid. If you build your entire arguement upon No creator and there is, you failed. If you build your arguement upon there being a creator and there is not, then you have failed.
Therefore, it ALL hinges upon there being a creator or not. That is why this debate is.

Evolution isn’t true because my invisible friend says so. Satan created the scientists. I win.

Just about all fossils are transitional fossils. Furthermore, based on science they have predicted which fossils should be found, with particular characteristics, and where in the geologic layers they should be found, and then they went out and found exactly that — fish with limbs is one example. Now, do either you or Sam have anything to add that hasn’t already been laughed out of court? Got any scientist who is willing to defend creationism in public? I didn’t think so.

Oh i do love these arguments…
In the blue corner, weighing in at a few thousand years with trademark moves such as ID/creationism, genocide, inqusitions, thought repression, slavery, terror, tyrrany and the all time favorite ‘do what i say else you shall burn in hell for all eternity (ps. jesus really does love you.) RELIGION!!!
And in the red corner, after centuries of repression, with trademark moves, such as chemistry, physics, logic, rationality, evidence, metaphysics, astronomy, mathematics, geology, and a method of self evaluation that is built on principles that extoll the virtues of self questioning in particular where being wrong is fine, pull yourself together and move onto the next experiment until you find the truth…
… give it up for SCIENCE!!!!
..DING DING… FIGHT
Please excuse the flippant intro. My athiestic bent leaves me no choice but to make fun of religion because quite simply it is without a doubt just plain humerous.
To the poster who decided to state that de-evolution is not possible… well i give you the ‘ID / creationst believers’ as proof that you should perhaps think through statements when the evidence is all arounds us that de-evolution is evident. It’s called the dumbing down of society by religious nuts.
To any who refute evolution:
The adage ‘if you think you understand quantum physics, then you don’t understand quantum physics’ rings true as much for god believers who say they understand evolution.
The way they seem to construct arguments shows that their knowledge of evolution is probably garnered from those who vociferously denounce it at the pulpits… hint… pick up a text book… preferably a basic science text and work your way up from there.
Trust me when i say it’s more illuminating than any story about turning water into wine or the moses genocides… but hey thanks, those story’s are doing wonders for the athiest cause.
Am i interested in making a serious point to the discussion? Not really, i find it infuriating to try and argue with a stone walled creationist.
To the Humanists on this debate. You’re doing a great job here extolling the virtues of evolution. I would say keep it up, but it seems to me that on many of these debate areas, the ones you are writing to are the hard core religious nuts… i.e. the ones who post comments here on ‘immutable evidence that dinosaurs were aroud when humans were around’ now i’m not sure if he/she meant immutable or irrefutable… frankly i don’t care… either way he/she is like the crackpot who goes around saying the grand canyon is evidence for the great flood! As if geology was some alien concept.
Anyway, point being is that you arent going to change their minds, though kudos for the effort.
Do the ‘jesus love me… really he does’ people. Have you done any research at all into human society and anthropology? Have you ever wondered why people ‘create’ gods (yes plural)? Have you ever wondered how or why or when the bible was constructed? What about… you know what.. forget about it… if you’re not bothered about the truth well then that’s you problem…
‘… and jesus held up a candle and said ‘I am the light’… and Peter leant over and snuffed it out saying .. nah-nah nah nah-nah.’

I agree with the evolutionists who have said recently above that there is no further point discussing/arguing with the likes of Sam and Scott. Their minds are made up, and nothing we can say will convince them of the wrongness of creationism. Only the additional (crushing) weight of more and more scientific discoveries MIGHT get them to change their minds. Creationism has nothing further to add. It is a closed system, no additional evidence can come along…..goddidit….end of story. Studying creationism ? Goddidit. Studying evolution ? Sure, we can compare DNA between similar life forms. Compare skeletal remains of fossils versus those still alive. Transitional insects ? Gee, there are so many thousands of insects out there now, I guess some of them HAVE to be transitional. Always lots to learn that will support evolution. What a joke these guys are. Can’t publish a creationism scientific paper ? Gimme a break. All it can say is goddidit. You can’t PROVE this sort of claim. Irreducible complexity has been disproved already. The flagellum ? They human eye ? Already covered. Get a new idea. There are less and less with each passing day. You can’t PREDICT future results of any creationism experiments. I would have a hard time THINKING of an experiment to prove creationism. Can anyone ? If we discover life on Mars, will THAT disprove creationism, or will the fundies just say this is another example of goddidit, to test our faith. There is so much science where they have to say “Well, goddidit just so we could study it, but it is not REAL, those stars out there are just pretending to be millions of light years away.” Sounds too much like the crystal spheres they tried to make fit the planetary motion observations back in the earth-centric days. I am not going to post any more, it is a waste of time. They continue to quote sources which have been proven wrong, they won’t read things like the Kitzmuller/Dover transcript, their minds are made up (don’t bother them with the facts). Just make sure you don’t give them a job in YOUR company. They skipped the Logic and Reason classes entirely.

bwtarheel: Here’s a simple exercise for you. Prove that you exist.

Big Bang? Did the universe and every in it ,including man come into existence as the result of an explosion? From my understanding and from what can be observed, explosions do not create mater, order, or life, but are distructive and cause disorder.
The elements that make up life are extremely complex and even with all of our technology, man has yet to create it. But a mindless explosion did???

Jock,
Could you please name the fossils that you claim are transistional. Most of the ones I am aware of are either frauds put togeher by scientists to further their theories, or are mistakenly identified, or discovered to be a juvenile or a diseased version.

I believe the theory of evolution is a far more satisfying explanation for the variation in life on earth today than the simplistic “God created it that way” alternative.
However, to those that think the validity of evolution therefore contradicts the existence of God (and I know that many evolutionists believe there is a God, so don’t get your panties in a bunch), I have two questions:
First: Why is there something, rather than nothing? Cosmologists cannot tell us where all the matter that comprised the singularity that expanded at the moment of the Big Bang came from, nor can they tell us why it “expanded” at the moment of the Big Bang. (Personally, I prefer the word “exploded” but that’s just my juvenile desire to see things blow up talkin’.) And if the universe is continuing to expand, cosmologists cannot tell us into what it is expanding.
And second: How did life begin? Evolution only describes the process of speciation. (Recall that Darwin’s seminal work was entitled “On the Origin of Species,” not “On the Origin of Life Itself.”) The observation that lightning strikes can create amino acids or other organic molecules is nothing more than the rather pedestrian observation that chemical reactions take place in the universe. So what? It is no explanation whatsoever for the moment that organic molecules became organized and self-replicating with all the biochemical processes collectively regarded as “life.” All the texts I have read usually elide that moment with great simplicity, simply asserting that somehow organic molecules decided to become monomers, then polymers, and then decided to arrange themselves into simple-celled blue-green algae.
My gut feeling is that science will never be able to adequately explain that moment. The theists also have a simplistic explanation for that moment: they call it “God.”

Indeed, M. Fruit Loop, the validity of evolution in no way contradicts the existence of God. That’s what I’ve been saying. And the pope has said it too, for that matter, as well as many Protestant and Jewish leaders. I regret that the militant atheists find it necessary to confuse the issues. It just gets eveybody’s back up and shuts down meaningful exchange.

“Most Creationists readily admit that we cannot use the scientific method to prove that God created everything. Unfortunately, evolutionists will not admit the same thing: evolution CANNOT be proven using real scientific method, either.
bwtarheel:
If creationism cannot be supported by the scientific method, then it’s not science. The issue isn’t that you can’t PROVE the existence of a god, it’s that there is no evidence of ANY kind SUPPORTING that existence.
The fact is there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and to date, it has not been discredited.
Creationists have no empiracal evidence supporting their hypothesis. That alone is enough to dismisses it as a scientific hypothesis. There also is no evidence that your creative agent (god) exists. Therefore, creationism is dead before it gets out of the starting gate.

You and others in this discussion have stated that being able to predict future occurrances, or events is one of the criteria for testig the validity of a theory in science. If their is no predictive value, then its not science.
That there is no empirical evidense for God. Are you aware that over 60% of the Bible is predictive in nature. And that the standard in the Bible is 100%
accuracy. I will give you an example;
A couple thousand years ago, written text predicted that Israel would be in the center of internatinal politics. That Israel would be in fact a stumbling block to world peace. Amazing, but the focus of the middle east peace process is in fact Israel. If the Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it does, and it is observable, you can test both the existance and the accuracy, and exibits accurate predictive capabilities, then I submit that God is not only proveable
but that He has gone out of His way to make Himself known to anyone that cares to know Him.

sam says “I can say with some certainty that I will be able to show (with a little research)…”
If you are certain what the answer is going to be before you do the research, what is the point of doing the research?

As a naive boy watching the theatrical basketball skills of the Harlem Globetrotters and the Magicians on television – I used to firmly believe that either team could have outplayed any of the professional basketball teams of the day. Heck – professional teams were always in tight contests with each other – but the Globetrotters and Magicians were so superior in their games that they dominated and humiliated all their opponents. Not until later did I understand that the Magicians and Globetrotters had such lopsided victories and stupendous winning streaks because they played mostly a bunch of middle aged white men who worked full-time jobs and only played basketball as a recreational hobby. Creationists/intelligent designers are theatrical pseudoscientists who have convinced a surprising number of the naive public that their ‘game’ is at least equal in skill level to the evolutionists ‘game’.
In addition, imagine if you will a chess grandmaster being continuously induced to give a game to a loud, misguided chess neophyte who by din of showmanship has duped a naive public into believing that they are the true chess master. Even though the neophyte doesn’t know how all the chess pieces move and lacks the intellectual capacity to look any deeper into the game that what the next move will be for one or two of his own pieces while the chess master has a full command of the entire board and all its interconnected complexities – the childlike public perceives them as equals only because they themselves do not understand the game (science) at all.
I would never have believed that in this democracy an argument as baseless and childlike as creationism/intelligent design could ever maintain the traction it has. It should never have risen any higher in the public’s imagination that the argument brought forth by a handful of crackpot flat-earthers. But the day will arrive in the future, as sure as can be even if distant, when creationists arguments will have fallen to the level of loch ness monster sitings. Let todays evolutionists take solace in the knowledge that their names will forever be honorably associated with those men and women who throughout history have had to struggle against the confusions of their day.

sam: I haven’t said anything about science being predictive in nature. A book is not evidence of anything other than having been written.

“They look like the same species.” well, they all have eyes and teeth, anyway.

sam – I gave you a detailed article by a Christian physicist that details why the dating methods are reliable. I think it is safe to say that this guy knows a lot more about it than either one of us. You obviously didn’t read it, so have you just assumed he must be wrong without looking at it? Is that how you normally come to conclusions? Isn’t that what you have been insulting everyone else for allegedly doing?

No, Sam has a family and is obviously a reasonably intelligent person. A lot of people just aren’t aware of the vast amount of scientific information available. And why should they be? They have been told it doesn’t exist by people they trust, so why look for it? It’s not their fault that the people they trust are wrong.

I was raised in a fundie home. I had hoped that in this blog I could see some reasonableness in some of the “believers”, but I’ve encountered the same closed minded self gratifying mindset that I learned long ago not to trust. Nothing has changed in christianity, same old witch burnings. Swinging a the word ‘god’ like a baseball bat is not convincing of anything except of the swinger’s own bad behaviour. You act this way for god? You should be ashamed of yourselves.

GOD, save me from your believers!

The relationship between science & religion has always been, at best, tenuous. So the latest movement by religion decrying science was inevitable.
Dispite marked improvements in methodology and more sophisticated means of measurement, it’s all about fragile faith and fear. To deny that God might use science as a force of change is to limit the potential of man and the miracles we can imagine or implement. Fragile faith allows for neither.
It’s the new Dark Ages.

The real problem is physiological, in that a fraction of people cannot resolve conflicts as successfuly others. This is a natural combination of genetic predisposition and learned behavior.
They cannot resolve the conflict between faith and science, the coexistence of the two cannot be properly reasoned with; leaving them only one way to handle the discrepancy.
They ignore that which they cannot reason, and deal only with what which they can. New ideas can either be ignored or can be “fitted” with their current reasoning. Creationism or Intelligent Design being attempts at the latter.

Science may not ever prove that God created, but I’m quite confident that, ironically, science will prove that evolution didn’t.
bwtarheel: And I’m equally confident that it won’t.

Religion will be the death of us all. It is quite amazing to me that all these religious people are so closed mined that they will believe anything a preacher will tell them. They manipulate anything and everything to be heard. Sepration of Religion and State should be maintained or else we will end up like the Middle East. Religious people will bring about the end of America in hope of the end times. I am ashamed to live in a country that has so many ignorant people. Theocracy or Death?

Since some people were wondering, I would like to detail what the Big Bang was. First and foremost, I do not state this to discredit or credit any of the claims of truths put forth so far in this discussion, but merely to explain what the theory of the Big Bang is. Note that I state “theory”, and not “law”, “fact”, or “truth”.
The Big Bang theory states that our universe as we know it at the moment, with all the elements of the periodic table and those that surround us, were created by one titanic explosion. Why? Let’s look at the example of a dieing star. How does a star die? You do know that our star, the Sun, is primarily composed of Hydrogen molecules. Through nuclear fusion, these Hydrogen molecules are fused to become Helium. This process occurs also in other stars, whereupon two smaller atoms of an element will be fused together to release energy and form another, larger molecular element. Yet, as our Sun is still young in comparison with other stars that are far out, this process is still in its early stages. But how does this relate to the death of a star? Well, when this process reaches an element of molar mass around 56 grams per mole (or iron, Fe), the star has reached a weight and density that is too strenuous for it to maintain. At this point, the star will undergo one of two paths: either an implosion, or an explosion. In the case of an implosion (this usually happens with larger and older stars, but not necessarily), the whole star collapses inwards, keeping the same amount of mass, but condensing it into a smaller amount of space; until finally it becomes a pinpoint of matter with intense density. Thus the formation of Black Holes. In the second scenario, the star explodes, and in such a case, the tremendous release of energy will induce all those Fe molecules to go through more nuclear fusion reactions to create new and larger elements.
Now, take the explosion scenario of a star. This is what happened with the Big Bang. It started with a mass of Hydrogen molecules, the simplest atom with but one electron, and one proton. From this, when everything collapsed (will explain later how this is thought to have happened) and then exploded outwards, all the other elements were formed and consequently the building blocks of the universe. The elements swirled in clouds until with time, they slowly attracted each other until gravitational fields were formed and planets. One can note from astronomer observations that some stars seem to have grown farther away through the years (not due to seasonal changes, as they are progressively moving away), and others have grown closer. This is thought to be due to the initial explosion force that sent everything flying outwards. Thus, the whole universe is moving and expanding.
With that last comment of the previous paragraph in mind, there has evolved a second theory, attached to the Big Bang one, of a chain of Big Bangs. This states that because the universe is expanding constantly, at some point the amount of matter in the universe (a finite amount) will grow too thin (stretched). In such a case, everything will be pulled back elastically to collapse together once more. This would result in another Big Bang. In other words, it is a continual birth and re-birth of not merely the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, but everything everything everything. That, for those who wondered what the Big Bang is, is the theory of the Big Bang.
Note however dear readers (if you have read this far), that I have persisted in using the term “theory”. And relating to the topic at hand, I would like to point out that the theory of Evolution is exactly that, the theory of Evolution. It is not the fact of Evolution, or the truth of the origin of species. Additionally, Creationism has also been termed a theory. Why is this? Because it is not a Law. Take for example the Theory of Relativity stated by Einstein in comparison with Newton’s Laws. Why are these two different? It has been traditionally accepted that Einstein’s Theory is true, but it has not been proved. Admittedly, many of our technological and theoretical innovations arise from this theory, but the mere existence and functionality of those innovations do not prove the truth, or correctness of that Theory. It is named a Theory because it has not yet been proven, as we at the moment cannot travel at the speed of light. Therefore, there is no “truth” as we seek of it yet in the theories of Evolution or Creationism, because neither can be proven. Fossil records, biblical script, animal adaptation and mutation observation, all of these are not proofs. Rather, they can explain the theories, but they do not prove them. In the case of Creationism, the Biblical record is not proof in itself, as the Bible (although perhaps spoken by God) has been transcribed by Men, whom are anything but perfect. Only if the existence of God can be proven (either by the arrival of judgment day, the rebirth of Jesus, the resurrection of someone who has passed into the afterlife and can return to tell of it, or the arrival of God himself) then can the Bible be taken as a legitimate source, because none were at the creation itself. On the other hand, the theory of Evolution also does not claim any proof to truth. Fossil records and the theory of natural selection explain that Evolution could well be the answer, but it is not the only explanation out there, as exemplified by this debate. Therefore, only if an extensive experiment throughout generations and centuries is carried out to verify the validity of Evolution, it will remain a theory. I do not however, say that all science based on Evolution is false; on the contrary, I believe that biology is true, as those Laws can be proven by experiments, but that it is pure folly to adamantly advocate the truth of something that is termed a “theory” while disdainfully dismissing another.
I myself believe in Evolution. And as such, I want to clarify what Evolution means. It is not the mutation of DNA, and it is not wholly (although partly) Natural Selection. Evolution is all about adaptation, and it also does not imply (although our English language does) an Evolutionary Ladder or an apex of Evolution. Evolution is the term that identifies the process of change in living things. A fish may “evolve” to adapt to colder waters. Yet that same fish may also “evolve” to adapt to warmer waters. How so? Not by the fish itself, as the DNA does not change. Rather, as within one generation of humans some are more sensitive to cold than others, the younglings whom are more resistant to the temperature change survive. And because this trait of temperature resistant (be it hot or cold) is one that enables survival, a couple generations later one will notice that these “new” fish have, on average, a higher tolerance of that difference in temperature than their forefathers. That is evolution. But neither “hot” fish nor “cold” fish are better than the other. In this same line of thought, a human with darker skin is no better or worse than one with lighter skin. It is the same concept. That is how the ancestor of the present-day deer, could also be the ancestor of our present-day whale. Things happen in minuscule steps. It is not the “survival of the fittest,” but rather the “survival of the better adapted.” That’s the theory of Evolution.
Some will ask how did that first grain of life first bloom? Where did those hydrogen atoms come from? I do not know. I do not claim to know. And neither do any of the scientists. Religions state they know the answer, I do not know whether they are right or wrong, and I will not choose either one. For all we know maybe God planted those first seeds? Or maybe it’s all a game of probability on a grand scale.

Lance,
Sorry for the delay, didn’t want to make this posting a habit.
Your answer is as follows:
Job 40:15 through 41:34
behemoth the Dino and leviathan the Dragon
Trust God and His Word,
You’ll be glad you did.

cturple
Contrary to your supposition that there are No answers in Genesis, if I deny that gravity exists, we need only wait until the effects of gravity have had their way to show I was incorrect. The same will be said for all those whom deny Genesis. Your answer is that the sample is too young to use the type of dating method chosen. Have you sampled any of the Rock from Mount St. Helens to determine what in fact it does sample date? Any attempt to show the issues with the dating will always be refuted by those supporting it’s use, because they have no choice, their own lives in the “Scientific communictee are at risk.
Give me true Science, observable fact, repeatable results, not supposition, and taking “facts” for granted. I’ll continue to pray that God takes mercy on the deceived, because they are “too intelligent” to understand their own limitations. Take care.

Bryan: There are plenty of answers in Genesis. There’s just no evidence that they’re the RIGHT answers.
The response I gave you was not mine because I don’t pretend to be a paleontologist or a geologist. I am able to determine a scientific answer from one that is not, however. Did you read the material I linked to, or have you just dismissed it because you don’t like what it says? You were given observable, repeatable, verifiable facts, and you’ve dismissed them in favor of conjecture, supposition, and wishful thinking – such as “Dinosaurs fit on the ark because they were babies.” Can you point out the verifiable, repeatable, observable facts in this charming tale, or do you agree that it’s absurd?
Where is the verifiable, repeatable, observable evidence that a supreme being 1. exists, and 2. created the universe and everything in it? How can you possibly have the gall to object to science conducted in accordance with scientific method, in favor of a theory that manufactures baby dinosaurs out of thin air?

Re: Rock from Mount St. Helens.
Just how, exactly, is this rock that was blown out of the ground, NEW?

cturple: You are wasting your time on a religeous fanatic. That is akin to converting Osama bin laden to Christianity. Just aint gonna happen!
But on creation – “In our solar system, the large carbon molecules, called tholins, have been found in comets and on Saturn’s moon, Titan, giving its atmosphere a red tinge. Tholins are thought to be precursors to the biomolecules that make up living organisms on Earth (though they are no longer found on our planet because the oxygen in our atmosphere would quickly destroy them).” (verbatum from an article I just read today. This does not prove nor disprove the existance of god but does gives us a mechanism for the creation of man from [star]dust.

Ed,
Thank you, it’s such a breath of fresh air and so rare to have someone kill the messenger because of the message.
Oh, I apologize for the sarcasm, just find it unnecessary to resort to name calling.
I understand the need to feel accepted. To compromise your faith because you cannot in your mind reconcile what you’ve been taught as science, yet it does expose where your faith lies. When you trust your own or others minds to be the end authority you subject yourself to the Noetic effect of sin, which describes the absurdity to which some have alluded. To interject into scripture what you think should be there, such as the Gap theory is an example of compromise. Yes sin has even compromised our ability to think clearly, objectively and correctly. It affects all of us. To find an anchor you have to find something to give light to our issues and problems that is never subjective, has no selfish agenda and never changes. God’s Word holds no agenda but truth. God’s Word is correct, living and never changes allowing everyone the same access, it is the same truth, so it is objective. Should you doubt any of God’s Word or compromise to feel accepted by the world, you lose the truth. If any of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted. This is simply because you would then need some “body”, another human to direct you to what is true and what is false and then you’d have nothing you could count upon. God promises The Holy Spirit as a token of the Inheritance to come. It is the Holy Spirit who guides you into all truth. One Holy Spirit, One truth, no surprises, no doubts, simply peace.
Know God Know Peace – No God No Peace
Take Care, it’s rough out there.

Ed,
It’s not my intention to sway others beliefs, yet I can’t help warn of falsehood when I see it. It has been said in describing the sharing of ones faith, that A Christian is just one beggar showing other beggars where to find bread. It has only been my intention to share the source of critical information, that has truly changed my life, for the better. I too am a Vet, eight years, 3 Infantry, 5 Crypto Comms. Been in Corporate America for near 24 years now. Been around and seen the misery, tired of it, and when I have the opportunity to share where I found this life giving bread, I do. It’s His Word, He is the bread of Life. Everybody wins when we read, believe and trust His truth, at no cost to us, cause He paid it all.
Take care.

By the way, the drawing at the top of the article is wrong.

Bryan,
Thank you for your excellent service to our country. With all due respect, we are not talking here about the existence of God. Science doesn’t say anything about the existence of God. But it can say how old the Earth is. There are about 40 different radiometric dating techiques and you just have to use the right one for the right time frame. Unless you want to suspend the laws of Physics, the Earth CANNOT be only 7000 years old. But God can still exist – he just didn’t create the earth only 7000 years ago.

HippieForAmerica
I always wanted to meet Bigfoot, get the address? All kidding aside, did you catch the Bigfoot documentary on DSC last night? An american ape?

If Evolution (by which is meant the common ancestry of all life on earth) is “one of the most securely established of scientific facts” then it should be one of the easist to prove.
But since it has never been proven that any kind of organism has ever evolved into another kind of organism, I suggest it remains more accurate to describe Evolution as a theory and not a fact, if one wishes to be scientific about it. But perhaps that’s not a priority of the National Academy of Sciences.

mesmerized
Please keep in mind that America was founded by Christian protestants from England and Holland followed by people from all over Europe and Asia. The majority of their decendants are still very religeous and a few fanatically so.
The difference between American religeous fanatics and those from other countries is that ours won’t kill you for what you say (at least recently). Instead we have open discussion albiet sometimes heated. But there is not really any ill will between us. From what I read in foreign publications the US is not alone in this issue, just more outspoken.

All:
For those that are actually interested in how transmutation of species functions check out Dr. Filler’s Upright Ape web site. His most recent (peer reviewed) technical paper on the subject is available free to download. After reading it I bought his book – very interesting hypothesis.

Evolution has been proven to have happened and it has been proven to BE happening, time and time again. God has never been proven to exist.

Ed [Jan 8, 2008 11:34:08 PM],
that’s why WHAT is called Science Theory? The National academy of Sciences is reported as asserting Evolution is a fact. Are you suggesting ABC News has misreported what they said?
You point out that a scientific theory is based on provable fact, and this is indeed exactly where the theory of Evolution runs into problems, because there exists no factual proof of common ancestry via Evolution, thus the theory is not so much incomplete as it is utterly baseless. It is an ever-flexible speculative assumption used to wrench and distort fact and obscure contradictory evidence.
The theory has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to mankind except for not a few jobs for the boys. It distorts true science in the name of the philosophy of Naturalism and beclouds people’s ability to think rationally by dissuading them from employing their critical faculties and persuading them of absurdities. As is evidenced by the Evolutionist’s constant conflating of assumption and proof wherein they persistently employ the logical fallacy of presenting their assumption of common ancestry via Evolution as the proof it occurred. I suggest science should not be confused with the philosophy of Naturalism.
Christian faith and science are perfectly compatible, and the Holy Bible is accurate true and reliable in every statement, as the scientific evidence itself testifies.
Permit me to suggest you might as well save your energy and refrain from attempting to instruct me in matters of the faith; I will take my lead not from you but from the Lord Jesus Christ; and he ascribed absolute authority to the scriptures.
As for giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, that Biblical reference pertains to money, not Naturalistic philosophy. Science does not belong to Naturalistic philosophy, it has been hijacked by it, and although I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design, it is still interesting to see how successfully it is challenging the shoddy unscientific machinations of Evolutionary theory.

Dom
Jesus talks to you? What did he say?

Re: As for giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, that Biblical reference pertains to money, not Naturalistic philosophy..”
It refers to the realm. God’s kingdom is in heaven, not on earth. This is earth.
What you speak of as “true science” is “bad science” that can only yield the wrong answers. It picks out only disputable cases and ignores the majority of the facts. Evolution is not about just looking at bones and making a guess. That evolution occurs is FACT, the mechanism as specifics are The Theory, which are BASED on real evidence, not religious dogma. If you have a problem accepting evolution that’s OK, and if you have a better PROVABLE scientific explanation then lets hear it. I have an open mind except when it comes to various faiths that contradict reality. One word of belief or God said and you loose my attention. I did not lecture you about faith, would not, will not, and resent the accusation. This is a academic discussion as to the importance of teaching truth without imposing someone’s favorite religion on other people’s children.

Dom – I have no interest in “attempting to instruct you in matters of the faith.” We are not talking about faith. We are talking about science. By definition, they have nothing to do with each other. Evolution happened whether God exists or not. And the fact that evolution happened is obvious to all whom God gave eyes to look and a brain to think. I really think God can handle that, don’t you?

In order to understand a person’s beliefs, one has to understand that person’s history. I’m just wondering why everybody is so adamant about the one truth,the one correct answer? And so I’m wondering why each person believes what he does, and how they came by that belief. Perhaps, by understanding the differences in perspectives that arise from various backgrounds, generations, and upbringings, the gap of convictions can be bridged. Obviously there will not be a conciliation of the different sides merely because they understand where the opposition is coming from, but perchance people will be more accepting. To lend a personal face to this discussion would relieve some of the tension, and create more room for academic discussion. =]

[Replying to Ed - Jan 9, 2008 10:25:49 AM & 10:45:53 AM]
Ed,
in answer to your questions: yes, the Lord Jesus Christ speaks to me, and he says many wonderful things. It is all clearly expounded in the Holy Bible. If you are surprised by this you are evidently unaware that Christianity is about a personal relationship with the risen saviour. Permit me to suggest you read up about it if you wish to be better informed about it. I recommend the King James Bible.
Concerning your attempt to justify your misappropriation of scripture regarding giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, I point out that ‘The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof’ (Psalm 24:1). To Caesar those things which are Caesar’s; to God those things which are God’s. I repeat, science does not belong to Naturalistic philosophy; it has been hijacked by it.
As for your comments about true science, you are insinuating your own reading into what I said and misinterpreting me.
True science is the empirical observation of physical phenomena. This is what you end up calling bad science “that can only yield the wrong answers. It picks out only disputable cases and ignores the majority of the facts”
So you see that your presumption of my views leads you head long into an absurd anti-science assertion.
Further, you go on to assert “That evolution occurs is FACT”, yet but a short while ago in a previous post you were at pains to clarify, in reply to my suggestion it is more accurate to describe Evolution as a theory and not a fact, that “That is why it’s called Science Theory.”
Now you assert boldly that Evolution is a fact. You seem to be flip-flopping somewhat. Perhaps you are not quite sure what you think.
I trust you are not attempting to resort to the usual Evolutionist logical fallacy of attempting to present variation within kinds of animals as proof of common ancestry of all living things? You are aware, are you not, that in my post of Jan 8, 2008 9:41:29 PM, I clarified the term Evolution was being used to mean the common ancestry of all life on earth?
If you are not attempting the usual Evolutionary stratagem of changing the used definition of the term in mid argument, then you appear now to be asserting that the common ancestry of all living things “is FACT”; in which case, if you are presenting the evolution of one kind of biological organism into another different kind as scientifically established fact, you should be able to indicate where it is proven as being a factual occurrence. May I ask you to indicate where it is scientifically proven?
I certainly have a problem accepting Evolutionary theory of common ancestry; it is baseless, unscientific myth. But I need not posit another idea in order to recognise that Evolutionary theory is bunkum.
It is not incumbent upon me to present another idea in place of the idea of common ancestry, the idea is a fantasy propounded in support of a particular philosophy; why should I have to try to refute it by coming up with another desperate attempt to bolster a philosophy I do not adhere to?
Biblical Creationists present another framework entirely, and the propositions they put forward are concerned with establishing scientific facts, not with trying to prop up Naturalistic philosophy.
If you assert the Evolutionary theory of common ancestry is fact, then it remains for you to identify the proof for it.
But whilst it remains incumbent upon proponents of the theory to prove it is true, this is something no Evolutionist has ever been able to do, which is remarkable for an idea which supposedly explains the development of all life on earth. It should be everywhere, but can be seen nowhere. How does that qualify as science?
I suggest that rather than having an open mind on the matter, you actually have a closed dogmatic Naturalist mind. Thus you, by your own admission, become inattentive the moment belief or God is mentioned. Christianity does not contradict reality at all; it contradicts your philosophy; and you cannot countenance exposing your philosophy to factual a critique by people not duped by it.
For myself, I do not have an open mind on the matter. I believe the Holy Bible absolutely. And I think science should be concerned with empirical observation, not unprovable fantasies pretending to be scientific theories.
Further, you say, “I did not lecture you about faith, would not, will not, and resent the accusation” but you clearly did indeed try to instruct me in matters of the faith when you said to me “…it is so important that it is not confused with issues of faith. Use your faith to pray but give to ceasar what is ceasars.” Thus you explicitly told me how to use my faith, suggesting it has nothing to do with science.
So, although you say you would not lecture me about faith, you would and you did.
Resent my responding to your attempted instruction in matters of faith if you will, but that resentment is not my problem, that is your problem. If you don’t want to try to teach me about my faith, then that’s fine by me, but if you do then I think it’s only fair that I am allowed to respond.
And is it really fair of you to think that I may not view the natural world in the context of my faith in Christ whilst you feel you have an unassailable right make assertions about the natural world with reference to the framework of your Naturalistic assumptions while I have to shut up?
Do you feel Evolutionists are dogmatically right by dint of being Naturalistic and need not establish the factual basis of their supposedly scientific assertions?
You previously said, “A scientific theory is BASED on provable fact”, now you seem to feel Naturalism is dogmatically true and it is unnecessary to debate an argument on the basis of empirical evidence. You Evolutionists seem not to like Rationalistic process as much as you sometimes like to pretend.
You say “This is a academic discussion as to the importance of teaching truth without imposing someone’s favorite religion on other people’s children” but, firstly, since when did ABC News become the sole preserve of academia, secondly, I suggest the discussion is actually about the assertion that the National Academy of Sciences presents Evolution as an unassailable truth, rather as you are doing, and thirdly, why should someone’s favourite philosophy be imposed on other people’s children?
Now then, when you initially addressed me you suggested Evolutionary theory, being scientific, is a probable explanation based on provable fact. You later went on to change this to asserting “That evolution occurs is FACT.”
So, if you wish to rationally argue that the theory of Evolution is true, then why not cut to the chase and present the facts which you feel show either of your above points to be true.

Ed, my comment about “apes” was to the point that the non-believers in evolution raise, that it is absurd that we came from apes. Their use, not mine, is the identification with the current general use of the term which is used to describe (incorrectly) all pominids; monkeys, gorrilas, etc. The implication is that we came from apes but apes are still here (you will see that logic several times in these posts). They do not recognize the nuanced meaning of “pithecus”. But I do appreciate the amount of defining of terms that goes on in these discussions (like “theory”). But I like the way you have presented the issue.

Confused
Thank you.
I just gave up on this one, it’s the handmaidens tale all over.
If you get a chance you might want to check out Filler’s Upright Ape website. I found it quite informative and we seem to be of like mind.

[Replying to cturple |-Jan 9, 2008 6:45:44 PM]
cturple,
my statement makes perfect sense. You merely confuse matters.
Scientific method is not limited to natural explanations; scientific method is limited to empirical observation of physical phenomena.
Limitation to only Naturalistic explanation of empirical data is the remit of those of a Naturalistic persuasion, and it leads to an intellectually stagnant culture of fudge and fantasy.
The demand for exclusively Naturalistic explanation is the demand of a particular philosophic framework that only its own assumptions be considered as valid conclusions, but such a demand does not supply the definition of scientific methodology.
Rather, that demand attempts to dictate what conclusions the evidence will be allowed to indicate.
But Science does not belong to Naturalistic philosophy, and it need not be approached with the Naturalistic framework.
One may also approach science using the framework supplied by Biblical teaching.
Thus, my statement pertains not to scientific methodology, but to the framework by which the data is interpreted. And between these two frameworks, as I say, I believe God and not speculative, Naturalistic, unscientific theory.
(In addition, I call Evolutionary theory unscientific because it is not tested by scientific method and it ignores fact, even though claiming to be scientific.)
Biblical Creationism, which is my position, is a framework for interpreting data; just as Naturalism is. But Biblical Creationism does not necessarily demand supernatural explanation for everything by default, as Naturalism demands natural explanation for everything by default.
Concerning origins, in asserting, as you do, “Creationism is a supernatural explanation for natural events” you imply that the origins of the universe, of the earth, and of various life forms on earth were natural events; your assertion in that context demands they be acknowledged as such, even though you have no scientific proof that that is the case.
Why should the science classroom be the preserve of Naturalistic presumption? Surely honest investigation is the better option? Test the differing frameworks against the facts, see which best accords.
I suggest Naturalists are afraid their beloved theory of Evolution will be seen to be the untenable shambles it really is. Which I suggest is why they resort to defending the science classroom with such devoted dogmatic vehemance as trying to define Science as the search exclusively for their own assumptions per se.
But I think honest investigation serves Science better, don’t you?

“Why should the science classroom be the preserve of Naturalistic presumption?”
Dom: Because there is no evidence that the supernatural exists. Do you really want science classrooms to teach American children that there might be ghosts, vampires, and demons? That throwing salt over your shoulder will make you lucky? That you shouldn’t walk under a ladder or let a black cat cross your path? These are the reactions to the human perception of the supernatural, and they have no place in a science classroom. Science most certainly does rely on natural explanations, because to date, there ARE no supernatural explanations that can be or have been observed, recorded, repeated, or verified under controlled conditions. A book is evidence of nothing.

and an interesting article from Science Daily about a precursor to the human eye. 400 million years old.
“The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography at ANU, a scanning technique that creates a three-dimensional image of complex organic structures. “What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm

Dom: “Biblical Creationism, which is my position, is a framework for interpreting data; just as Naturalism is. But Biblical Creationism does not necessarily demand supernatural explanation for everything by default, as Naturalism demands natural explanation for everything by default.”
So Naturalism should reciprocate by allowing supernatural explanations? Whose supernatural explanations should Naturalism allow? After all, we can’t be xenophobic, so let’s allow all the supernatural explanations of all the worlds’ religions.
And by doing so the advancements in understanding achieved over the last 600 years would be rolled back to the Dark Ages, the “glory days” of theocracy. Sounds great to you I’m sure — but I think you’ll hear a resounding ‘no thanks’ from most of us, sir!
Logical constructs built on invalid presumptions do not sound arguments make. Thus naturalism begins by throwing out all supernatural causation. No Thor, Zeus, Ra, Amenhotep, Yahweh, Baal, Shiva, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, or any-god else.
By doing so humankind at last began to throw off the shackles of ancient superstitious ignorance and fear.
Obviously by the writings of many of the posters in this discussion, advancements in scientific education continue to be undermined by the widespread acceptance of superstitious beliefs, perpetuated by widespread indoctrination at an impressionable age.
As we don’t need to worry about being burned alive at the stake anymore (a quaint Christian tradition, yes?) I am optimistic that long-term progress is being made by the enlightenment and knowledge of naturalism, e.g. evolutionary theory, over the darkness of religious dogma, e.g. biblical creationism.
Cheers
Brando

rod-the-farmer
me too but it’s a headache.

[Replying to cturple - Jan 9, 2008 9:07:21 PM, Jan 9, 2008 9:12:19 PM, & Jan 9, 2008 9:15:32 PM]
cturple,
you posit the science classroom should be the preserve of Naturalistic presumption because there is no evidence that the supernatural exists.
But, firstly, you are incorrect to say there is no evidence that the supernatural exists, because logic deduces that meaning is independent of matter, verified by scientific discovery.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Naturalistic explanations for origins of the universe, the earth and life on earth as well as for the variation of that life are correct; so why should they be exclusively expounded in the science classroom?
If you wish to exclude from the science classroom explanations that cannot be or have not been observed, recorded, repeated, or verified under controlled conditions then to be consistent you must exclude the Naturalistic ideas of Nothing initially fluctuating naturally into Something, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common ancestry of all living things via slight gradual mutations.
Thirdly, if by “a book” you refer to the Holy Bible, then you are again incorrect in saying it is evidence of nothing, because the Biblical record provides evidence of divine intervention in the affairs of men. But that is another subject, and perhaps we should try keep concisely to the immediate matter at hand, being, I suggest, centrally whether the National Academy of Sciences is correct in its assertions.
Regarding the links you supply, thank-you for the info about scientific method; I have read about it before, though.
In response, can you tell me, concerning step 4, which experimental tests of predictions have shown that Nothing initially fluctuated naturally into Something, that the Big Bang actually occurred, that abiogenesis occurred, or that all living things have a common ancestry?
Concerning the Science Daily article, why merely present an article full of Evolutionist assumption; but assumption per se proves nothing, does it? Unless you’re getting dogmatic about it.
1) How is it established that the fossilised remains are 400 million years old?
2) How is it established that the placoderms were jawed ancestors of modern fish?
3) How is difference (i.e. “a different arrangement of muscles and nerves supporting the eye”) evidence that it is an intermediate? This is a perfect example of Evolutionist assumption being presented as evidence for Evolution. But it is a logical fallacy for the assumption to be used to prove the assumption, and not very scientific. Yet this logical fallacy forms the substance of argument and is merely repeated throughout the article.
You might find that article interesting, cturple, but it is of limited interest to me, except as an example of Evolutionist argument depending upon logical fallacy. But thank-you for the effort.
All the best,
Dom.

Some people who are commenting on this blog may be doing so without having had the opportunity to read our book, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.”

Dom, you seem to be stubbornly oblivious to every rational point myself, Farmer Rod, Ed, cturple et. al. have made via syllogism, allegory and example.
Number one, were not playing your game of presenting evidence for you to deductively invalidate. Evolutionary biology and cosmology are vast bodies of human knowledge built upon inductive reasoning, essentially all of which is freely available to anyone who cares to seek it.
If you’re too blinded by your faith in that malevolent, genocidal misogynistic old book to realize its teachings are just as superstitious and xenophobic as those of any of a dozen other ancient Middle Eastern sky-god religions, who are we to deny you the comfort of your self-imposed delusion?
But after bits and pieces of what you say begin to show some coherence as rational thought, you blithely toss us a screwball like this:
“Advancements in scientific education require the admission that Darwin was wrong”
Have you ever read “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin? Honestly, have you ever read it, in its entirety cover to cover?
By my estimation if you claim to have read it then you’re beyond reason, because no reasonable person who has actually read this book would make such a patently false statement.
“On the Origin of Species” is one the most important works of original human thought ever published — perhaps one of the top five, in the company of Newton’s “Principia Mathematica”, Einstein’s “General and Special Theories of Relativity”, Aristotle’s “Physica”, and Maxwell’s “A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism”.
Charles Darwin eloquently and comprehensively provides example after example of observations he has made of species all over the world, and of the variations noted amongst them.
Synthesizing the work of predecessors and contemporaries, among the many accomplishments of “On The Origin of Species” is convincing documentation of evidence supporting the hypothesis that new species supplant and drive other species to extinction. Here’s just a brief summary excerpt, which also provides a lucid explanation of why transitional species are absent or rare in the fossil record (anyone who is interested can read this fascinating work in its entirety online at Google Books):
“On the Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties: As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications each new form tends in a fully stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent form and other less favored forms with which it comes into competition. Extinction and natural selection go hand-in-hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some unknown form, both the parent and all transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new form.”
So Dom, do you hypothesize that the hand of Yahweh is allowing rabbits, foxes and cane toads to supplant the indigenous species of Australia? Or do you agree that Charles Darwin, who wrote the above passage in the 1850s long before this problem ever became apparent, is correct and prescient in the statement “extinction and natural selection go hand-in-hand”? “On the Origin of Species” is a work exemplifying the highest levels of human achievement, laying the groundwork for great advances in genetics, medicine, and biology. That Charles Darwin is vilified by Creationists like you Dom is a sad testament an ideology bereft of significant recent contribution to the betterment of the human condition.
Or consider this absurdity:
“The real question is why should Naturalism have any place in science class room? It relies on fudge and fantasy, not science.”
Let me read that one back to you, Dom:
“The real question is why should Creationism have any place in science class room? It relies on faith and fear, not science.”
Rationalistic freethinkers find a paradigm for the way the world works based on the unknowable doings of some one-true-and-everlasting supernatural entity to be indulgence to the extreme in intellectual anorexia.
For it is only by feeding the mind a consistent, healthy diet of well-balanced knowledge that the lesions and decay of superstition, ignorance and fear can be kept at bay.
Alas for some, it may well be too late. As I’ve always maintained, one of the great things about this country is that you are free to believe any number of unverifiable claims about reality you so choose so long as you’re careful to make it part of your religion — and not attempt to impose that religion upon everyone else.
Judge John E. Jones said it better than anyone else:
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005
“[W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. . . . Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”
It’s bad enough you get indoctrinate your own children, but you don’t get to indoctrinate mine. And that quite simply is why Creationism, by the Constitution of this great country, will never be allowed in the public-school science classroom.
Hope that answers your question! ;-)
Brando

From Belgium: Not to mention the singlemost important question – why would an all-powerful super being NEED to have them marched up onto a giant boat? Why not just snap the almighty fingers and recreate them? Why bother with a complex optical structure when we could all have magic marbles for eyes?

Logic is the key to knowledge, without logic we will never be knowledgable. Science is based on logic. The biologist, chemist, and other scientists and engineers all use logic when they make observation. Hence we advance in science. I was a field engineer, without logic I would have been a pretty poor one. This thread has been several of us exponding logic and a few countering with illogical statements based on faith rather than logic. Excuse me, I have to go bang my head against the wall some more, I seem to still have my senses.

Barbara Kline Pope
I found the first chapter somewhat enlightening as I had thought that the current pope was not so hot on evolution and his predecessor.
I was also surprised at the statements of the other denominations. Show much progress!
I also liked the section that talked about EVO DEVO but feel that a little more depth could have been added on HOX sequences and saw no mention of Homeobox sequences.
Overall, however, a very nice book for the layman. Simple basics.

It is simply unfathomable that in 2008 there are people who dispute evolution. There is NO doubt that evolution is a scientific fact.
====
Scientific fact has to be observable and replicate-able. You argue from an emotional and religious zealotry position. What is fact is that there are fossilized records of dino’s and man walking together on the same strata. This proves you are wrong. Period. On a sidebar this fact may also be the source of the dragon slayer myths. Man indeed may have been the reason for dino’s decrease in population. I say decrease because there seems to be some evidence that some dino’s still exist. Shocking as many thought some of these to be long extinct. Oh well, off to slay another dragon….

Re: “What is fact is that there are fossilized records of dino’s and man walking together on the same strata.”
There are photographs on various web sites that show “human” footprints with dinosaur footprints, shoe and heal impressions. On the same pages are the explanations of what each has actually been proven to be. NOT ONE MEETS THE CREATIONIST CLAIMS. Rather then arguing blindly I suggest a search for “Paluxy” as I did and look for yourselves. They are not all fakes but the ones that are not fake were originally identified as non-humanoid..

So Dom, I thought you said it was your last post for awhile… what happened ?
Frankly it sounds like you’re becoming more than a little defensive about my assertion that the Abraham sky-god paradigm of how the world works just might be a grandiose self-delusion.
As postulated in my previous post, though you have admittedly not read “On the Origin Species”, regardless you seem well beyond reason. You are indeed playing a game, but only with yourself.
Let me quote a couple of your recent statements:
“Advancements in scientific education require the admission that Darwin was wrong”
“I have not read any of Darwin’s books through; I think I might have tried once and found his tone somewhat dreary. But I’m not sure what you hope to achieve quoting Darwin at me.”
Do you recognize a certain inconsistency in your thought processes? In one moment you advocate dismissing one of the most important works of the science in the history of humankind, and a short while later freely admit that you haven’t read it. Do you see why rational thinkers have a hard time taking you seriously? By the way, what I hoped to achieve in quoting Darwin to was establishing the fact that you haven’t read “On the Origin of Species”, and that you are guilty of passing judgment on this important scientific work based on the hearsay of others, not based upon your own sound judgment or critical thought processes.
You didn’t answer my questions, so we’re even:
1) Demonstrate to me that Jesus was born of a virgin.
2) Prove the existence of heaven and hell.
I’ll even let you off the hook from quantifying exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who says atheists can’t be charitable? ;-)
As a fellow student of the philosophy and history of science, as last we have reached some common ground. Somehow I’m not surprised it wasn’t in actually reading important books of science such as “On the Origin of Species”, which are just so dull and full of dreary observations and thoughtful reasoning and such.
Natural philosophers today myself included find Karl Popper’s arguments limited by the paradigm of deductivism, which holds essentially that deductive reasoning is the standard to which all reasoning should aspire. Essentially “that which cannot be deduced, cannot be certain of truth.”
However deductivism is limited in terms of the knowledge that it can produce. For example, “If A then B, and if B then C. Therefore, if A then C.” Greater, deeper understandings our world and the cosmos are limited by syllogistic reasoning such as this. And the “testability refutations” of Popper are just that — a demand that deductive reasoning be applied to all claims of scientific knowledge. Frankly it is not surprising your subscription to Popper, a man who achieved notoriety essentially by recapitulating Descartes. But no worries, you’re in good company — even Einstein couldn’t get past Descartes when it came to quantum mechanics.
Science and philosophy have moved on, far beyond the early 20th century philosophical foxhole that you seem to be sniping from while waiting for the end of Times. Do you not perceive a certain rational inconsistency by not demanding the same deductivism of your theosophy that you demand of naturalism?
Perhaps we’re actually both inductivists us at heart, each demanding deductive proof of the others core philosophy, which we know the other cannot provide. Or perhaps one of us believes a superstitious myth based on the hearsay of others, and one of us harbors no such illusions.
Inductivism utilizes probability to extend the envelope of human knowledge beyond that which is obtainable from mere deductivism. Consider the following statements, and the probability for each of them being true:
1. Jesus was born of a virgin
2. DNA provides evidence that high-order apes and man share a common ancestor
From your foxhole, I would not be surprised if you claim that Statement 1 is 100% true (did you not mock me for believing in abiogenesis?), and Statement 2 is 100% false. In contrast, I evaluate Statement 1 as having a less than a one in one-trillion chance of being true, and Statement 2 as having a greater than 99% chance of being true. Essentially this is the nexus of our disagreement, and illustrates why I can no longer continue this parody of a rational discussion until you to take both the time and the initiative to educate yourself about the scientific basis for evolution, inductivism and probability theory.
If you’re truly interested in educating yourself on the above topics, and while I find it unlikely that you have the discipline required considering your reaction to reading Darwin, nevertheless I suggest the following Wikipedia articles, which in turn will reference you to reputable publications for continuing study:
1. Physical Cosmology
2. History of Evolutionary Thought
3. Speciation
4. Natural Selection
The articles cited above are merely a starting point. Fundamentally no one can educate you except yourself, and to do so effectively many philosophers and scientists find intellectual liberation in dispensing with all baggage of preconceived superstitious paradigms concerning mythological deities, Abrahamic sky-gods and their alleged martyred progeny included.
Cheers!
Brando
PS: I’m moving on to the ‘Florida E-Word’ discussion…

“It is a theory loosing steam.”
Flat out lie. Every new evidence reaffirms evolution and more importantly, there’s never been evidence AGAINST evolution
“Yet, many parade their tenets of evolution as fact when the theory is grossly wanting”
Sure, because you say so
“The greatest joke concerning evolution is the severe shortage of evidence.”
In the Dover trial more then 12000 (!) of lab tested, peer-reviewed, articles, AND results of those tests were presented. You simply choose to ignore it. Meanwhile experiments done by creationist = 0

Wow! So many posts on this.
I think the argument from the creationist side is that EVERYTHING in the Bible is quite literally true.
Tell me, from your Bible, who was Joseph’s father?
How can Jesus be Messiah, when he is only descended from Mary (the Torah shows that he must be descended from David on his Father’s side)?
If the flood was fresh water, it killed all of the salt water fishes. If salt water, it killed off all of the fresh water fishes. Did Noah have aquaria on board? Wouldn’t the weight have sunk the Ark?
Do you people have ANY idea of the number of species you are talking about?
But, no, you would rather have an illusion that, somehow, there existing a God will make your life worthwhile. Wouldn’t our time be better spent making the World a better place while we are here, and after?

I just tried to find a lumber calculator on the web, that would tell me just how much wood is required to build an ark like Noahs. I was not able to get a good one, but the amount of lumber required is staggering. Maybe an experienced boatbuilder can figure it out. Where did it come from, and how was it transported to the building site, and by whom ? Just try building a HOUSE that big, let alone a boat, which has to be much stronger, plus the entire outside and all the multiple decks are covered in wood. According to Wikipedia, the largest all-wood ship (for which there is reliable data) was around 102 metres, and suffered structural problems. Ships over a certain size start to flex in rough water, as the length is enough to bridge two successive wave crests, The centre of the ship is then in the trough, and may be exposed to heavy stress from lack of support due to lower water levels, causing the spine or keel of the ship to break. This happens even to modern ships made of metal. Any really large wooden boat requires steel reinforcement, if not a steel hull instead. Noahs’ Ark was supposedly over 130 m, and had no sails for propulsion or a rudder for steering. This would mean it would have been at the mercy of the waves. How it stayed afloat for what, 150 days (?) is a big question. Other perhaps un-answerable questions include ….how many workers took how long to build it, where did THEY come from, where did the boat-building skill & experience come from ? Noah is not listed as having been a boat builder of note. Where did the food come from to feed all those animals, when farming in those days was not much better than subsistence level. What was the reaction of neighbouring farmers, to whom Noah said “I need all your crop for the next xx years, and no you can’t come along”. Far too many questions, all to jam a square peg (the idea of the ark) into the round hole of common sense.
Conclusion ? Fairy tale. QED

Dr. Jr.: Arm? Aggression? Who arms and protects children from the aggressive brainwashing of the faithful?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a wonderful lesson, for any child of any nationality, which if taught universally would help make this world a better place in which to live for us all.
But to deliver this timeless wisdom along with the message “believe in our jealous Abrahamic sky-god because anyone who doesn’t will suffer the torments of hell forever” promotes the sort of intolerance and xenophobia at the root of factionalist violence plaguing humankind all over the world and throughout much of history.
“Joshua 6:21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”
When Jewish and Christian children are asked about the morality of Joshua in killing every living thing in Jericho because the Lord told him to do it, they are in almost unanimous agreement that it was the right thing to do.
But when the story is changed a bit, from ‘Joshua’ to Chinese emperor ‘Qin Shi Huang’, from ‘Jericho’ to ‘Guangzhou’, and from the ‘Lord’ to the ‘Jade Emperor’ — these same children are in also in almost unanimous agreement that was wrong for Qin Shi Huang to kill every living thing in Guangzhou just because the Jade Emperor told him to do it.
Religion permits us to suspend our humanity toward one another. The earlier we are indoctrinated, the more likely it is we will believe, without questioning, the unconscionable.
G’day
Brando
PS: For a clearer understanding of Einstein’s views on the wonders of the cosmos and mysteries of our existence, just Google ‘Einstein quotes god’.
Here’s a favorite of mine:
“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

John1959 said:
“The most UNFORTUNATE thing is that too many so-called scientists are ignorant of the Bible, the doctrine of GOD, and too many Christians know too little about science and the Ways of GOD.”
That’s why I like being is the ASA group… a bunch of people who are scientists and Christians. They know all the angles, and are trying to make it all fit together.

Don
Agnostics (like myself) believe in God, Athiests do not. We agnostics just don’t believe in mythology.

Don,
Science can at best give indirect evidence of God — e.g. the dense information content in the genome is evidence of an intelligent designer. To say, “I can’t touch, feel or hear God so he must not exist” may not be a valid statement.