Evolution: Now Showing at a Theater Near You

I haven’t seen a good comedy in a while – I might add this to my list of “silly little movies” to check out.

“only Americans are “debating” evolution in 2008…smh”
Only those still living in the stone ages. It’s too bad that such an intelligent man could drink so much kool-aid.

Well, I guess all the comments about Ben Stein’s intellect can now be put to rest. Biologist don’t get tired of debating/supporting evolution – we just like to discuss evolution with those that will keep an open mind (thus excluding ID folks). Once ID has supporting data and evidence I would gladly debate the merits of ID vs. evolution.

The only appropriate answer to his movie is to ignore it. And then work to improve science education in this country.

Atheism and materialist “science” is a religion. Darwinism is a religion. It takes a huge leap of faith to buy into these materialist philosophies. Evolution, Darwinism and the “BIG BANG” don’t explain why we’re here. It doesn’t explain gravity. It doesn’t explain the size of the universe. It doesn’t explain life outside of earth. It doesn’t explain why we have ingrained morals. It doesn’t explain intelligence and awareness. It doesn’t explain why humans are so completely different than any other life on this planet. It doesn’t explain imagination and memory. It doesn’t explain how life first started. It doesn’t explain what created the first cell, if that’s how it happened. It doesn’t explain how life first started. It doesn’t explain matter and energy. It doesn’t explain how many people can recall past lives. It doesn’t explain mediums who can speak to the dead. It doesn’t explain much at all and confuses the subject of life trememdously. Atheism, Darwinism and modern popular “science” is a religion for materialists and these materialists hijacked a position of “authority” to make it a sin to ask many obvious questions. Is it more likely this universe is an accident that came out of nothing or is it more likely that life and this universe isn’t just an accident that came from nothing?

science=religion…
Of course evolution doesn’t explain gravity – that is a different theory and a different field of science. If you are going to spout such garbage at least pretend to attend college (or even high school first). Additionlly, evolution isn’t design to answer why we are here – it explains how organiosms change over time. Again, evolution is not designed to answer the question as to how life on earth began, but there are theories out there that deal with that specific question. Like my father siad, better to keep ones moth shut and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt…

In response to “EUGENICS” the perversion of Darwianin evolution into some perverse idea of social darwinism in NO WAY invalidates evolution as a way to explain the diversity of life. The two are completely separate topics and ideas.

Who designed the designer? If your answer is no one, he just is, then why is that answer not satisfactory for the universe itself, it just is.

It is very depressing to continue to read the postings of those who have no clue as to science or the scientific method. They do not even know what fields of science study which phenomena. This country needs to improve science education! NOW!
“Science = Religion”, are you seriously looking for evolution theory to answer why people believe they had a past life? Really? Why not look at the theories of psychology that address that topic? Or the theories of neurological science? Speaking to the dead? Really? How can you seriously discuss evolution when you believe in such nonsense? This is why I agree with Jock59801. But I have to take my hat off to Ben, he has found another way to separate a sucker from his money. With the word of mouth advertising he will get from the church pulpits, he will make a mint! All of those born agains will be flocking (pun intended) t see this movie.

Science should be able to stand up to scrutiny. It should be able to handle every angle of an argument. That’s why it’s considered science right? If millions questioned gravity and we wanted to put it to the test, scientists wouldn’t object. They’d welcome it because it’s a chance to prove the validity of gravity. So why are scientists so completely opposed to us common-folk questioning Darwinism? I believe in evolution, don’t get me wrong, but to apply this theory to everyone and everything is just wrong-headed. Not allowing people to question the meaning of life is just oppressive. Is it really that harmful to just ask why we are here and how did we get here and where are we going after this life? It’s everyone’s right to question and no ones right to suppress this questioning.

No god – I have never heard of a “highly intelligent one-celled organism,” and I agree that probably none have ever emerged from any puddles. Primitive life was just that: very, very primitive.

“Is it really that harmful to just ask why we are here and how did we get here and where are we going after this life?”
Naw, not at all. But why wrestle against Evolution since it doesn’t even address those questions let alone purport to ‘answer’ them.
In fact Darwin eschewed the ‘origin’ and ‘purpose’ questions quite explicitly and deliberately. (If anything his ‘Origin of Species’ was deathly dull reading-hundreds of pages and thousands of examples of species as support for his theory-he offered little more then just…evidence!)
So if that’s the latest objection to evolution then….sigh.
“It doesn’t answer questions of philosophy, theology or even epistemology-therefore it can’t be correct-QED”
Double-sigh.
But then I would and have “objected” to some ‘common folk’ questioning Physics when it’s clear they don’t even know what’s already known let alone what they’re talking about.
I don’t ‘believe’ the Bible was intended as a textbook or The Descent of Man as a spiritual tractate so why the animosity when the 2 get confused?

Coming to theatres soon: Ben Stein’s “The World is Flat”

Sean…I think evolution is a good theory, and it has certainly played some part in where we are today.
Finally someone who says it correctly…it is a GOOD THEORY – not FACT. That is my biggest issue with the way evlution is presented in any form it that most that believe in the theory present it as fact and evolution has never made that jump due to missing evidence in the line of evolution.
My other question is why can their not be both ID and Evolution working together?

twiggles – “…it is a GOOD THEORY – not FACT.
Do you doubt gravity because it is just a theory?
Do you doubt the theory of the atomic structure of atoms and molecules (you know, proton, neutrons, electrons) because it is just a theory?
Do you doubt the theory of electromagnetism (radios, TVs, cell phones, microwaves, x-rays, MRIs, etc. etc.) because it is just a theory?
How about the theory of magnetism and how we use it to produce electricity? Do you doubt that just because it is a theory?
Theories are almost as good as science gets.

No God!!!!!!!!!!!! “Modern” science tells us no such thing! It is people like you who demonstrate not even the rudiments of a scientific education that are the poster children for a renewed emphasis on science in the classroom.

I think Ben Stein’s entire point of the movie is being proven by the reaction to it. You can’t even QUESTION evolution. At all. With any alternative theory.
The movie doesn’t promote creationism, it just asks why we can’t even talk about it.
Ben Stein was generally liked by the scientific/educated segment of society before this movie. Now he’s hated and being ostracized. That’s… kinda the point of the movie. I’m sure he expected the backlash because the movie is an exploration to ask why one can’t even question evolution without ruining their scientific career.

Uh, ID SHOULD be expelled from Acadaemia. It doesn’t fit the criteria of a scientific theory for it isn’t testable and makes no predictions.
Even as a philosophy it fails for it really doesn’t ‘answer’ anything, either.
Frankly the ‘Deus ex machina’ dodges from the greek plays read as cop-outs and they’re hardly superior when morphed into science classes.
The interminable and emotional forays into minutae regarding inappropriate cross-references of science Vs theology seem to be exactly the sort of thing Satan would savor and support.
‘As if’ His coup in re-writing the Torah as a nihilistic mandate against Jews wasn’t succesful enough we now have people passionately arguing against God because His mechanics and engineering are beyond immediate ken and understanding. (EXACTLY as He informed Job so long ago. Yet Job got the message and moved on-meanwhile it’s been 150+ years and counting in Kansas.)

Well Aaron, maybe they were terrible scientists who did not deserve a career in the legitimate sciences? Maybe the ID angle just happens to be the only symptom that Stein bothers to mention. Ever consider the possibility that Stein is only out to make some bucks by telling part of the story in a biased fashion? Do you seriously believe that Stein’s “documentary” is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And no, I have not seen it or any other movie in about six months, I don’t have the time.

Dumb Student – But do you believe that an intelligent designer could have designed evolution to be the natural process to develop life? And if not, why not? That is the real tipping point that indicates a creationist trying to hide. While the ideas can be and probably should be separable, I have yet to see or hear any IDers who are able to keep them separate for very long. IDers who also believe in evolution (and the Big Bang) are rare as far as I can tell. The biggest flaw with ID is that none of its necessary assumptions are testable.
Technically I believe in ID also. But I also believe evolution is the natural process God designed and implemented as the way to develop life. Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit philosopher and paleontologist, does what I think is the best job of explaining the concept.

well so wut you people are saying is that we just appeard on this earth like poof no science has already proven that spontainious generation does not happen and we did not just form from puddles we were simple one celled organisms that changed because of our envirornment and this all makes sense if you really think about it and it is just a theory not a law. But this whole heavenly leader could not just have been and always will i mean it does not make any sense if you look into science (not trying to promote scientology) you can find some serious answers not that looking into your faith wont but really look and think about it.

To twiggles and possible others AKA “…it is a GOOD THEORY – not FACT.
Big mix up here, in science a theory is fact, it has been verified and proven times and times over. But to non-scientist and in common english language, a theory is equal to an hypothesis for a scientific, which means it is non-proven and have yet to have facts supporting it. So it is not surprising that most people think that the evolution theory is only a so-so.
Hopes it clarify a bit the communication problems in between science and peoples.

Aaron – Scientists are welcome to question the science of evolution; they just have to do it using SCIENCE. And they have been doing so for over 100 years. Every aspect of evolution has been scrutinized, attacked, defended, and tested, usually many times. Bring it on! Scientists love debates.
ID proponents have been trying for many years to come up with any actual science to support their theory. If they ever do so, other scientists will be happy to look at it just like anything else. ID is rejected not because it questions evolution, but because it is WRONG.

Interesting comments everywhere. I agree the earth didn’t get created in 6 thousand years and I believe creatures do evolution. But does this explain what life is? Not matter or energy, but life energy? Rocks are easier to explain than a human being. Today’s scientists teach, just as they were taught, that there is no such thing as a god. Life and this universe is all just dumb-luck. They’re the authorities on the subject so you better listen up you neandrathals. How dare anyone question their authority? Remember they went to school for this stuff and you didn’t.

PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE – Scientists admit their limitations all the time. That is part of how science works. Science is a self-correcting process. Try to get something published without admitting the limitations and you will get trounced. Nobody loves to criticize science as much as other scientists.

If we all “evolved” from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, and why aren’t there monkeys in different stages of evolution becoming humans? If the schools are so insistant about teaching evolution, then they should teach creationism as well. If both sides are taught, then our children cam make an informed decision as to what they believe.

B K – “I have yet to see or hear an ID/Creationist proponent who is willing to accept the hypothesis that evolution is the natural process that God designed, implemented, and has been using to naturally develop life.”
Clearly you need to spend more time around mainstream, liberal protestants and less time around evangelical charismatics. The ID camp is split between those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old (literal interpretation of Genesis) and those of us who believe you can’t answer a science question with a book that was written thousands of years before the invention of the scientific method.

I have read articles, books and papers written by Darwinist and Intelligent Design proponents. From everything I have read and now know there is no scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution or ID. Both are theories of equal value and should both be accepted as such. The biggest difference is that Darwinist are hostile and very defensive often to the point suppression of free speech and opposing ideas. The ID theorists, I have found, are level headed scientist who listen. Appears the Darwinist do have something to hide from, possibly the truth.

Jordan, I have one word for you, FOSSIL.

Evolution is a fraud just like global warming. Both cannot stand on their own because they have no science to support their claims — just brainwashed elitist sheeple who’re more concerned about what the socialist eurotrash academics think of them than the truth.

Jim – The only “world view” that evolution requires is that science is a legitimate way of studying the world. Science says nothing about other world views.

The keys to understanding why evolution is authentic science are to first understand what qualifies as valid objective evidence, and second to understand what qualifies as sound scientific methodology. Simply disbelieving valid evidence only because if conflicts with previous beliefs does not prove the evidence was not there to begin with. Also, being unable to understand valid evidence does not prove the evidence is not valid.

Why didn’t an intelligent bird species come about? Or an intelligent fish species? Or an intelligent plant species? Or an intelligent dog species? Or an intelligent bug species? Why only a intelligent hairless monkey species? A guess a few billion years just isn’t enough time for the evolution God’s to do what they do. Whatever that is.

Evolution God – Well, plants have no brains, so it would be kind of hard for them to evolve intelligence. Bugs are constrained by their physiology too be too small to evolve intelligence. Likewise birds can’t have a big enough brain because they have to be light enough to fly (although parrots and ravens are amazingly intelligent). Dogs and wolves can be quite intelligent as well, and who knows if they are not becoming even more so? Evolution hasn’t stopped. All sorts of things can still happen and probably will. But just because other animals evolved in a different direction than intelligence, how would that refute evolution?

“I don’t think any reasonable person will be convinced by this trash.”
That’s the problem… there are just too many unreasonable folks around.
This film and the attention it garners are a sign of the decline of science education (and much else!) in this country. Too often these days pseudo-science is considered legit. Attempting to blur the line between facts and belief has long been the goal of the ID camp. “It can’t be true because I don’t understand it” is not a legitimate scientific statement.

PQQAm – You may be interested to know who these “lunatics” are. Over 99.9% of the tens of thousands of biologists in the world know that evolution has occurred and continues to do so. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers are published every year analyzing evolutionary processes. Every little detail has been studied, argued over, and counter-argued for generations. Evolution is the most studied topic in biology because evolution is the fundamental principle of biology. Nothing in biology makes sense without it. The body of knowledge that makes up evolutionary theory is so enormous that it is nearly inconceivable that any one piece of evidence could bring it all down.
Pretty good for a bunch of lunatics, eh?

I love the FSM concept. Who ever thought up that jewel is brilliant.

JUST SEEN THE FILM. THIS IS A MUST SEE FOR EVERYONE. I HIGHLY, HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT.

To Ned Potter…journalism 101, could help you solve the circular reasoning Mr. Bailey would have you believe is evidence. “Ronald Bailey at REASON Magazine has a headline: “Flunk This Movie! Ben Stein’s new anti-science movie Expelled is all worldview and no evidence.” Where is Mr. Bailey’s evidence? He merely posits the theory as factual, as usual.
The fossil record is dated by the geologic column and the geologic column dates the fossil record. This is how a scientist can skip dating fossils that they know will come in under 50,000 years, every time. A major problem for the religion of theories. The only place on earth the geolgic column exists is in science and public school textbooks. C’mon Ned, journalism takes work.

If evolution turns out to be real, then how do I know anything else I learned in Sunday school is true? I must not accept evolution. For if I am wrong then I fear that the afterlife may not excist.

Evolution could be continuing today in the humans.
Maybe the Creationists/ID people will go the way of the Neanderthals. they failed to adapt/learn and expired.
We’ll miss you.

If we follow the ID crowd and in school teach both evolution and the idea that God did it, shouldn’t we carry that over to all scientific topics of study?
Where do babies come from?
A well understood biological process
and/or
God makes them (delivery by stork of course)
How does a volcano work?
Geologic process of magma movement from within the Earth
and/or
God makes it happen
I could go on forever. Maybe we should not even have schools at all, you can just teach children that God does and makes everything. We could save so much tax money on the entire institution of education by teaching everything kids needed to know in a few minutes. God did it.
Actually, we would need to have some school, to teach kids how to read (so they can read the Bible of course)

We should wait to see which comes first, the delivery of the new 787 or a lightning strike that would produce the same (or similar) thing.
Even with the delays, I am 99.999 etc.% sure that Boeing will come through fist.
Intelligent design wins again!

Faith. It’s been stated over and over, most often by the athiest/scientific community that science is based on fact and religion is based on faith. Faith in things that cannot be proven. Proven. A theory by its nature requires a leap of faith. A belief in a religion of sorts to fill in the gaps where facts do not exist, only speculation.
Ironically it is the scientific laws of thermodynamics which most strongly refute the concept of evolution because in a nutshell they say ‘you cannot create something from nothing’. Which is precisely what the Big Bang Theory portends. That somehow, some big explosion happened which created the universe and the basics of life.
That my true Koolaid drinking friends is called faith.
So whether your religion is Global Warming – which relies completely on faith and anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence to explain things, or evolution, we all choose our preferred faith when facts are simply not in abundance.
I’m still waiting for the Gore film that explores how the Jurassic Period was the hottest period on earth, a time when no ice existed anywhere on the planet.
We all know that even Fred Flintstone’s car didn’t emit anymore Co2 than hit breath could put out.

Sorry The Big Bang has everything to do with it. You see you have to start at the beginning which so many evolutionists and global hot-airists do not want to do.
Planet Earth is in the universe. How did the universe get here? Well? Unless you have other revelations, the Big Bang Theory is the best anyone could come up with to refute the ‘creation of heaven and earth.’
So before our little magic microbes could ever morph into humans we had to have a planet and universe, which apparently was created by some massive energy cocktail that erupted into matter.
Matter created from simply, well, um, energy, and uh…stuff….
You see it seems quite obvious to me that like some religions the zealots have gotten hold of the scientific podium, often times with far more socio-political motives than simply the search for truth or the agreement that maybe there is simply aren’t enough facts to go around.

Jerrod: Every scientific theory addresses natural properties of and in the universe. The only one concerned with the Big Bang is – well – the Big Bang. Evolution is concerned with changes in already existing life. Your assertion that every scientific theory must first prove the Big Bang theory is – well – silly.
and why do you keep bringing up global warming? Can you not distinguish physics from biology from climatology? Do you think SCIENTISTS are just one big blurry blob of interchangable people? Or are you just here to pick a fight?

Jerrod: Scientific theories stand or fall on their own. Obviously, you cannot have evolution without the existence of life – but the THEORY does not address the ORIGIN of that existence. Scientific theories are CONSTANTLY challenged – by people that are qualified to do so. There is currently a great deal of controversy among archaeologists about how and when humans first arrived in the Americas – and there are many theories that address those questions. None of them includes anything on evolution, nor do they address how the universe came to exist – because those issues are not part of the questions the theories are trying to answer. An excellent example of a scientific theory being challenged is the one we have all heard (most of us, anyway) that human beings crossed a land bridge (Beringia) and came down through Canada about 10,000 years ago, and became known as the Clovis people. Well – that one is now pretty much history. One theory suggests that some people came across in boats from Europe during the last ice age, following the edge of the ice. There is some genetic evidence that might support it, but it is still very shaky, and considered a “fringe” theory by most anthropologists and archaeologists. There is genetic evidence in South America that some people might have come from the South Pacific – but so far there is insufficient evidence to call it “concrete.” I have to laugh at people that call science a religion. You don’t even DISCUSS a new hypothesis without evidence. There is a reason religion is called faith – because it does not REQUIRE evidence. The principles of science and religion are black and white.

B K: Well, my bad! You are correct, mine is only a hypothesis (I do understand the difference between hypothesis and theory). And at some point I think we would just be arguing semantics here, anyway. In my opinion, evolution is merely a hypothesis, simply because there is a major flaw in the presentation: the circular logic of the geological column. I think you know what I speak of. This does not make evolution a bad hypothesis, but I do believe it needs to be resolved before we promote it to “theory” status and thus de-facto “fact”.
I do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but many people do. God is the greatest scientist there is, but so many people on both sides of the debate don’t get that. We fail to comprehend that He has much better tools to work with, a better viewpoint and by definition, He has superior knowledge. Let’s admit it: we are just trying to catch up to Him and really not doing a good job of it.
But this is only a hypothesis…

Mr. Potter, After writing this sentence in feb (–Dawkins thought he was to appear in a documentary called “Crossroads,” from Rampant Films, and only later did it morph into “Expelled,” from Premise Media.–) did you ask your self this question, Is this what Dawkins would have said in any other documentary regardless of the title or the film company that produced it?
If he thinks what he said was the truth then it shouldn’t matter which documentary it ended up in right, unless of course you think he would change his story and that can only happen if one is telling a lie right. And so whatever Dawkins said in the film is exactly what he believed to be true regardless of where it ended up.
And before i forget here is one from Lawrence(earlier comments in feb): He says, “Anybody out there who believes super-dude breathed into a mud puddle and created man and then, performed unauthorized surgery on the poor fellow to create woman? Anybody? Anybody with a brain, that is.”
I would like to respond by saying Anybody out there who believes a cell appeared from absolutely nothing into a slug and other complex organisms and then, performed impossible evolution on its self (that would be from slug all the way to monkey, all the while missing ALL the vital links) and finally to create that sweet little niece of mine? and of course you? Anybody? Anybody with a brain, that is.

Good Morning, everyone.
“Disgusted1″ — The geological column is indeed a good scientific question that must be confirmed. And it has. The age of rock layers is determined by radioisotope dating, and usually confirmed by several different methods. The fossils that typically occur in such layers are then used as a kinf of “short-hand” to quickly date other layers. But this is not circular reasoning; it is just a crutch. If paleontologists really need to confirm the age of a rock layer, they will go back to the radioisotope methods, but those are expensive and time-consuming, so they will use the fossil “shortcut” until there is any question of it needing to be confirmed.

digusted-1 “I do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, but many people do. God is the greatest scientist there is,…”
Yes, I am not alone! Your hypothesis works for me. God is also the greatest engineer. I don’t understand the people who need to turn God into a stupid micromanaging puppet master who is not smart enough to figure out how to use natural processes to accomplish what God wants to accomplish. I have more respect for the atheists and other faith groups than I do for the fundamentalists. There is no 11th Commandment that says “Thou shall not think, and especially though shall not rationally.”
As I understand it there are primarily two ID camps. One made up of the creationists, and one that believes the universe is more than 6,000 years old. Both believe God did not design and does not use evolution as God’s natural developmental process. Maybe we can form a third camp.

cturple – I have seen several fascinating programs on the History Channel and Discovery channel about the new theories about how the first Americans got here. They do an excellent job of explaining all of the evidence and they provide balance be giving both sides their opportunity. The most interesting one, and the least balanced, is a simulation about how the people from southern France might have accidentally made the journey. That one really depends upon the accuracy of the climate models that show how the ice cap could have extended as far south as the France. The concept seems at least reasonable if not yet probable.

Jock: And science also confirms that the radioisotope methods are subject to contamination and therefore can be inaccurate to a large degree. Carbon dating, however, has proven to be fairly accurate to around 10,000 to 12,000 years if memory serves me correctly. Not nearly enough time reference to accurately date the entire geological column. Evolutionists make ASSUMPTIONS based on the short date. If THIS artifact is such and such an age, and evolution says that eons of time are required for things to, well, evolve, then the next layer down MUST be such and such an age older. I am NOT saying they are wrong, only that they are making assumptions and presenting them as FACT. Please see Frederick Jueneman, “Scientific Speculation” Industrial Research, September 1972, p. 15. Also Dr. M A Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, 1960, p. 53-60.

B K: yep, there are a number of problems with that one. My North Am Arch professor discussed it briefly – there’s about a 5000 temporal difference between the solutrean points of France, and the points that Dennis Sanford is using to support his hypothesis. I have a real affection for this one, though. There is some genetic support for it. It’s on my list of research projects.

5000 years.

cturple – I thought the Atlantic crossing was a cool idea, but obviously one of those theories that needs to be mulled over for awhile. I like the theory of them boating down the Northwest coast from Beringia and Asia. I don’t think there is much specific evidence for it. It just makes sense.

B K
The Basque people of the region of southern France and northern Spain have long beeb thought to have had contact with ancient america because of close language affinities. Early jesuit missionaries that spoke basque were able to communicate with central and south american tribes in a manner somewhat akin to a person who can speak spanish can communicate with another that speaks portugese. The languages are different but close enough to get along. The latest finds of basque-like images in the americas only serves to strengthen this old argument.
But the question of how and why remains, did one group branch off from the other and if so when and in what direction? A genetic study of Basque and Mayan people may shed some light on this.

cturple
You are probably aware that the clovis culture was roughly 12k-10k years ago. The recent finds of pre-clovis culture places humans here to at least 14k years ago, but south american finds going back as far as 40k years have caused quite a dispute. Like all things that do not agree with the consensus the older finds are ignored. Louis Leakey was the first to date humans in California to 40k years ago and he was ridiculed for it. Now there is evidence from north, central and south america but it does not fit the ancient land bridge concept.

Quietman, cturple – I think I will be adding at least anthropology to my list of courses to take for fun. I don’t remember if my school has a basic arch course.
Just out of curiosity, considering the vast amount of knowledge the sciences are generating, are teams of cross-specialist working together to avoid stove-piping becoming the norm? It appears that the archeological field researchers can benefit tremendously from having at least a geologist, paleontologist, and anthropologist on their team along with access to climatologists, biochemists, geneticists, physicists, etc. etc. From the bottom of the academic food chain it looks overwhelming.

Fatesrider – I agree. I actually think this debate SHOULD be in science classrooms. It is obvious that most people have no idea what evolution is, what science is, or what the scientific evidence for evolution is. It would indeed be very helpful to show students WHY scientists have concluded that evolution is the correct theory, and WHY creationism does not meet that standard. And teach it in a way that the students can follow it through and figure it out for themselves. Science classes should never be lectures about facts. It should always involve students in learning how the scientific process works; in essence, learning how to learn.

There are two things the proponents of evolution have going for them.
First, micro-evolution, also know as variation within a kind. This idea is easily proven in the laboratory and by our eyes. We can see the large variety of dogs and we know of breeders creating new varieties of animals. Nobody disputes this idea, and that includes creationists and Intelligent Designers. But micro-evolution is not the same as macro-evolution. We don’t see half dogs-half something else. We don’t see breeders or scientists creating entirely new lifeforms. Evolutionists should stop using evidence of micro-evolution to try to prove Darwinism or macro-evolution.
The second thing evolutionists have going for them is ridicule and insults. They have elevated derision to new heights. If the facts to prove one’s point were so clear, why resort to using this method of confronting an opponent?
Actually, the fact that there are so many posts on this page is an indication that the theory of evolution is far from proven. If we were debating the flat-earth theory or the idea that the moon-landings were a hoax, I doubt we would be seeing nearly as many well-thought-out arguments that we are seeing here.

wpk155 – But macro-evolution IS the same thing as micro-evolution. It is simply micro-evolution accumulated over a longer period of time. And yes, we do have the transitional fossils to prove it.
Also, there are people with all world views who stoop to ridicule and insults. That is unfortunate, but it only says something about the people, not the theories themselves.

jock59801 – There are hundreds of examples of poor science that can be fodder for demonstrating poor science methodology besides using ID. Just pick any topic from natural philosophy that was “proven” almost entirely with rationalism after rudimentary observation. Didn’t Aristotle teach that women were only incomplete men and their only function in the reproductive process was to serve as the fertile recipient of the man’s seed? All of the evidence was available to understand reproduction, but it took what, another 2300 years before humans would begin to understand biological systems in humans?
Right now the History Channel is doing a program about vampire myths and all of the “evidence” people used to “prove” that vampires were real and who they were. This show alone would be perfect, along with a few choice episodes of Mythbusters.

jen-
Vestigial organs like the human appendix and tailbone are a good example, although that is slightly different because they were once useful but are now on their way out.
There are other kinds of traits like eye color that B K brought up, that vary simply because it doesn’t matter. Somewhere along the way some people lost the brown pigments in their eyes and it didn’t hurt anything so their descendants did just fine.
Another example would be traits that are only byproducts of other traits that do have a purpose. The “feeling good” we discussed above would be one of these. Another might be male nipples. Males have nipples because females need them, and it would be a waste to evolve a whole new developmental process to make males NOT have nipples when it really doesn’t make any difference.
But you are right that it would be extremely rare for some new thing to evolve on an animal that had no purpose. That is because natural selection acts against such waste of resources, and since there isn’t any counter-selection FOR it, it doesn’t happen. That is how natural selection produces organisms that are “designed” well.

Quietman: Clovis-First is now considered yesterday’s news. Pre-clovis material is found in nearly every region of North America. And Monte Verde in Chili is considered a given – although the dates generally accepted as truth are in the 12.7-12.3kbp range. Older dates are still be studied. I attended a lecture earlier this year by the principle investigator of the Topper Site in South Carolina. He mentioned dates of 50kbp – but the jury is still being assembled on that.

Quiet – I missed part of your post. Older dates are not being ignored – but they do require a lot of supporting evidence before they are generally accepted as truth. Unfortunately, the media has a tendancy to pounce on a single theory, put it in front of the public, who then accepts it as THE theory. then when something new is discovered, the public gets confused.

Its funny how many creationists accuse scientists of arrogance towards them. But how arrogant do you have to be to declare that you are so incredibly superior to every other life form on the planet that there is just no way you could exist except to have been created by some super god being. To me that is the most arrogant outlook ever. Myself, I am proud to be the smartest primate to ever come out of the forest.
If your child is ever sick with a deadly disease and you take them to the hospital where they are given modern medicine and cured, just be thankful that there are scientists out there who used science facts and methods to figure out those ‘magic’ cures. If it was up to you, those scientists would have been taught in school that deadly diseases are caused by magical god to punish us for our sins.

Thanks to jock59801 and cturple for responding to my original message.
First, I want to say that I regret lumping all proponents of evolution together in accusing them of going overboard on the ridicule part. Most I’m sure have good manners. But it is irritating to read a pro-evolution message that consists of nothing but insults.
Secondly, in recent years I have followed closely the discoveries of alleged transitional fossils and note that it usually doesn’t take long for some mainstream scientists to raise their objections after each discovery.
Feathers on dinosaurs? That currently seems to be highly doubted by many paleontologists. The Indonesian “hobbit” as a pre-human primate? The latest research concerns the discovery of bones of other small-bodied humans in island caves in the South Pacific. According to the report published on the http://www.nature.com Web site from 3/10/08, the discovery was of “true dwarfs–people who got smaller perhaps owing to the islands limited resources or a genetic disorder.” If correct, these little people were fully human but an example of micro-evolution, not Darwinian evolution. What I am saying is that resorting to events that happened millions of years before man appeared to witness them is what is causing so many people to have doubts about the theory of evolution, not to mention the controversies within the science community itself. It seems like an easy way out.
cturple, I am not sure what you are trying to prove by your corn analogy, but I will research the topic. As for “Dogs have already evolved,” what does that mean? What’s stopping them from evolving some more if they evolved the first time?
Have a good day!

wpk555
Microevolution (a term i disagree with and do not use) is by your own definition darwinism. Darwins work on evolution was only within species. Since his time it has been expanded, first to genera and then to order, etc.
The reason that it can be expanded is simple. Time. Darwins concept of “mutation and variation in isolation” is short term evolution and is easily proven as you mentioned. Long term evolution is when species become so far apart genetically that they are not easily recognizable as being related. The perfect example of this is the bear family and the wolf family. The “bear-dog was neither a bear nor a wolf (dog) but closely related to both. Bears and wolves are distinct genera but within the same family. Take one step back and we have evidence of a carnivore that was neither cat-like nor like a bear-dog but again had affinities to both families bringing us to the order level. This is what you define as macroevolution.
There can be no recreation of these levels in a lab because of the distance in time. The farther back in time you go, the greater the distance between animals has become.

Re: “Feathers on dinosaurs? That currently seems to be highly doubted by many paleontologists. The Indonesian “hobbit” as a pre-human primate?”
There is only dissent by a few scientists on the feather issue. It is a matter of interpreting the fossils.
The “hobbit” was never claimed to be a “pre-human” but a “non-human” by our standards (human = homo sapiens). You might call them “near-human” but like a neandertal, not ancestral to us.

cturple and B.K.
And then there is paleoanthropology which is pre-historical and then there is forensic anthropology which is very current. These fields can get very specialized. I am currently reading books on paleontology regarding primate origins in the eocene (our ancestors a little farther back than pithocenes). I find that I can learn more by buying the textbooks and reading them on my own because I can read cover to cover but in classes too much gets skipped. I also get to read more authors that way.
In Paleoanthropology and evolution for instance I can compare the ideas of Darwin to Romer, Pilbeam, Beard, Filler and Ostrom for a more rounded view. I liked the last chapter in Chris Beard’s book “The hunt for the dawn monkey” which he called “Paleoanthropology and Pithecophobia”. Very astute.

Quietman: From my text: “Another point of discussion has to do with the relation of the three traditions just named (Lake Forest Archaic, Mast Forest Archaic, Terminal Archaic) to the Moorhead burial complex. The substantial amounts of red ocher in these burials led early researchers to call the people of this tradition the “Red Paint People.” This complex has long been thought of as associated with the Maritime Archaic, though some researchers have argued that it is a distinct cultural phase that developed out of the Lake Forest Archaic. Using the sequence of occupations at the Turner Farm site in Maine, Bourque considers Moorehead to be distinct from these traditions, exhibiting trading ties both to Maritime Archaic groups to the north and to people associated with Narrow Point/Mast Forest tradition in southern New England.”
What are your sources for this? “Its the fish hooks and harpoons as well as bowls and utensils that connected them to the red ochre graves in europe,”

There is design (in DNA) and there is an intelligent cause for that design. This is observable, not up to debate and it should be taught in schools.
The big question that is “left up to faith” is who’s intelligence, vision and design it is. This is where faith comes in. Where did this intelligence come from. The only reliable message communicated to us through prophetic utterances (for the sake of proving it to us) is that God is responsible for everything that we see.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that what the Bible says is irrelevant.

Darn that science, always getting in the way of my house-of-cards faith. Faith without proof can’t be!

Quietman: Thanks. Your sources are a little old. My text is 2007.

cturple
Re: “My text is 2007.”
When it comes to controversey no text is too old. In 2007 they are still trying to sell us the on the landbridge story.

Quietman: Beringia is being taught as one of several probabilities. Science is not static – it adjusts as new information is uncovered. But you know this.

wpk555 – There are somewhere around 250,000 species of fossils discovered so far. Many thousands of scientific careers have been devoted to collecting, cataloging, and analyzing these fossils. They are painstakingly measured and compared so they can be organized into lineages showing the pattern of evolution for the vast diversity of life. In other words, MOST fossils are transitional fossils, showing the intermediate steps between one form and another.
Many of these fossils have been argued over, mostly to question the relative placement in the tree of life. That’s what scientists do: they argue it out. Using your example, the argument for feathered dinosaurs (not all of them – just some of the theropods) is actually gaining ground these days. But none of the people arguing about it are suggesting that evolution didn’t happen!
The arguments for evolution come from many angles, not just the fossil record. The body of evidence is so overwhelming that it would be almost impossible for any one line of new evidence to bring it all down. There are no “gotcha” arguments left in the evolutionary debate.
Scientists do not debate whether evolution happens because there is no point to doing so. That’s why we have occasionally been slow to respond to the forces of anti-science represented in this movie. But we’re learning… It’s what we do.

wpk555 – Is their livelihood in danger merely for questioning evolution?
Or is their livelihood in danger for advocating ID in a science class?
Or is their livelihood in danger because they are poor scientists, and questioning evolution and/or advocating ID is simply the only symptom of many that is getting any attention?
Realistically, what is the probability that Stein’s movie, I mean documentary, is presenting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a fair and balanced manner without any bias?

wpk555 – I have met Stephen Jay Gould. My brother used to work for him. And believe me he was very angry that he was quoted out of context like that. In a later essay he wrote in response:
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether by design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
In the same essay Gould had this to say about the gradualists who criticized him: “But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion…. If we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.”

wpk555 and Jock
The lack of some transitional fossils at the species level is what led Gould to coauthor the P.E. hypothesis. The idea was actually hinted at by Darwin in “On the origin of species” but he never went into detail as he lacked a mechanism to form a hypothesis. Gould had the advantage of a much larger fossil record and a means of measuring the age to get a clear picture of the sequence. He was, as Jock noted, quoted out of context, but on top of that his writing style is difficult to follow which also leads to erroneous conclusions on the part of the reader. The most current hypothesis (2007) is by Dr. Filler which you can get a sample of at his “Upright Ape” website.
I bought and read his book, and while he also has a rambling writing style it is easy to understand and the hypothesis quite logical. In it he explains just how PE works and can be verified by EVODEVO. Jock, you would probably get more out of his book since much of the proofs fall within your field.

Well, since the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that things go from order to disorder, how can anyone believe that the earth formed from a large cosmic expolsion? It would be like asking us to believe that you can fill a 50 gallon garbage bag up with aluminum cans, shake it up, and have them all neatly stacked one on the other. It just makes no sense. I believe that evolution is an intelligent design as the bible makes reference to woman being created from the rib of man. Who knows what Diety is the true creator, but I think it is safe to say that you cannot create something from nothing. If we are simply animals and follow evolutionary patterns, why is there no living missing link between modern man and the more rustic, and presumably more tough, prehistoric man? And why do we have a conscience? Why would we simply not give into our urges as animals do without feeling remorse? These are the questions we should be able to ask. Do I believe there were humanoid like animals in the past, of course, we have fossil records as proof, but it does not explain away a creator and make valid the big bang theory of the earths creation, or explain all the creatures on the planet. I do believe there is a creator and nothing science offers makes any sense, even by it’s own standards (2nd law of theromdynamics). So why is it so bad to have the debate and teach our children that we really don’t know how this earth was created or how life started, instead of telling them that the BIG Bang theory is the only acceptable view of the foundations of the earth and life? Is it so bad to have open and honest debate regarding this issue?

cturple
Yes, according to Beard, that is also how the omomyids got from China to North America in the Eocene. But New World Monkeys came from Africa to South America later on when Beringia was open sea so somewhere in the Cenezoic there must have been another way to cross. This particular point is what I find most interesting.

Brian
And the way you wany to apply the 2nd law is actually Chaos theory, not evolutionary theory. As I said before, thermodynamics is not applicable to life.

The Big Bang Theory is just that–theory not fact. There is no logical explanation as to how a destructive explosion creates life although scientists can try with their jargon. Many of their theories have been in fact disproven with the passage of time. They don’t even agree as to whether we have ‘global warming’ maybe because most of the record high temperatures still standing were set in the 1930s.

Ron Powell
I think that you are confusing a hypothesis that attempts to explain the creation of the universe with the working theory of evolution. The “Big Bang” is a popular hypothesis but does not qualify as Theory as it can not be tested (at least not by anyone on this planet) and has nothing to do with the creation of life (also only a hypothesis). Evolution is a theory because it can be and has been tested and proven to be true. But like all theories is subject to modification as we learn more.

To be a Republican and a conservative today one has to embrace Social Darwinism while rejecting actual Darwinism.
It’s a trick that requires one to either ignore the facts or to place ideology above truth.
If there is a God, it escapes me how He is served by deception such as Mr. Stein’s propoganda piece.

Godisnowhere – and what evidence do you have to support the fact that scientific evidence is manipulated by scientists? Btw, scientists and people who support them ARE muzzling people on the intelligent design side because their side is a matter of FAITH, not science. ID presumes that a creator of unknown origin designed and created life on this rock. However, ID says that it can be anything from God to space aliens. However, when you trace that logic back you eventually get to a point where you have to figure who created the space aliens that created us, and you wind up with the only answer being GOD. ID is just creationism in sheeps clothing trying to get into the classroom. Faith has no place in class rooms and in science and that why scientists are muzzling ID peoples because the ID are trying to have faith taught in place of science.

I’m sure he’ll make a little money. But there is no god and no amount of debate will create one.

I saw the film with my 22 year old son yesterday. The film is very well done; Ben’s dead pan humor is very effective in keeping viewers interested. My son loved it. Ben interviewed several scientists from both sides of the debate; giving them fair questions to respond to without baiting them or getting in their faces. Check this film out and judge for your self. Saying there is no science in the film is absolutely wrong; there was very solid scientific evidence discussed. There is a limit to how deep you can go in to the evidence in a film like this. If you want very, very deep scientific details after seeing this film, try reading Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe.

Something like 40%+ of Americans doubt evolution, which is really sad when you think about. According to gallup they tend to come from lower education, church attending backgrounds and it’s been about the same for the past 30 years.
Science isn’t sports. You can’t just “have an opinion” without doing some research. The ID movement has yet to propose a scientific theory, let alone defend it. They spend most of their time and money lobbying politicians and school board members, not doing actual science. Its a political and media movement. Read about it, and creationism. They are interesting subjects, but completely false. It’s not even close.

“”‘For evolution to have begun there must have been a big bang. Who lit the fuse?”"”"
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. But, taking up your point. So you propose that the universe is so wonderful and complex that an even more wonderful and complex thing must have started it? That solves nothing, youve just add another question to the chain and then declare we arent allowed to ask questions about his origin. It’s a game.
The truth is that it’s difficult to intuitively understand or predict some aspects of the universe. Under extreme conditions (very small, very fast, very large) our everyday understanding of life doesn’t apply. Causality breaks down, time flows at different rates, etc. The Universe is certainly a mystery, but that doesnt automaticaly make bronze age jewish priests right either.

If one’s argument is that the larger the brain the more intelligent the creature you might want to look up a couple things. First thing is a condition where humans have almost no detectable brain matter or a brain the size of a thumb yet function as anyone else who has a normal or even high IQ. Another thing to realize is that women have smaller brains then men and as a man, I’ll even admit that on average women are much more intelligent than men. Another thing to concede about the brain theory is that starfish have no brains, like plants, yet they still think and feel. Plants do feel and have awareness which most likely means they think also. Lastly, Neanderthals had much larger brains than humans. So it looks like we may be going backwards in evolution according to the brain size enthusiasts. How do you like them apples.

Fantastic Film – You are right that science does not yet have a sure idea of how life began on Earth. There are reasons to think certain things are possible, but that’s about it. For all we know, God could have had something to do with it.
But we do know how life evolved after it began. That’s a different question. For that there is incontrovertible evidence. I see no reason to throw out the overwhelming evidence for evolution just because we are not sure yet how it all started.

Very interesting and enlightening debate going on here; it’s proving exactly what Ben Stein talks about in this film. In earlier postings, people stated there was no science in this film. I posted that I saw the film; there is solid science in it as well as fair questioning of scientist from both sides. I also stated that people should see it and judge for themselves and I recommended a book by Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) for anyone wanting to research the scientific evidence to a much deeper level. The next person posted: “If you want science, read some science textbooks. Michael Behe is a creationist.”
I have read many science textbooks and I have also read Behe’s book. Simply classifying Behe’s writing as inferior by labeling him a Creationist is a perfect example of what Ben Stein is illustrating in this film. Those that are strongly opposed to any possibility of intelligent design fight it off by shouting down, ostracizing or discrediting anyone who proposes intelligent design based explanations for the gaps that Darwinism has no answers for.
Someone else posted, “I’m sure he’ll make a little money. But there is no god and no amount of debate will create one.” This person is right, however the inverse is also true; if there really is a God, than no amount of debate will get rid of Him either, will it?
In reality nobody can escape the fact that the argument here isn’t just about science, it’s just as much about where we come from in our worldview. Persons who believe in God and persons that aren’t sure about God, but are willing to examine the evidence with an open mind and let it speak for itself, will get a lot out of this film; I highly recommend it to people that fall within this range of worldviews.
For anyone that cannot tolerate the possibility that there could be a God, it’s probably better for you to stay away form this movie, unless you have the courage to let your worldview be challenged. Yes I know, you think I’m a moron or something like that. In return, I won’t return the insult, I wish you well.
Peace!

Anyway, for what it’s worth, the debate about evolution is kind of like the debate about global warming. The scientific community is not involved in the debate, for them there is no debate at all. Michael Behe, as mentioned in some of these posts, is a disesenting voice, but a lonely one. Even his own department at the university where he teaches (he’s not a biologist) disclaims his opinions on evolution.

ToddWI – We are not shouting anyone down. Michael Behe’s arguments are well known; he has been saying them for a very long time. It’s just that they have already been refuted scientifically many times over. At the recent trial in Dover, PA, Behe had every chance to air his views in open court. He did so and was blown away by the relentless logic of the real scientists who were also there. He admitted himself that they haven’t been able to find the scientific evidence for ID that they had hoped.

ToddWI: Creationism relies on the existence of a supernatural being. The existence of a supernatural being cannot be supported by scientific evidence. Creationism is not science, by definition. I also would not recommend that anyone who is wants to learn about science should read a book about cookie baking. They are totally unrelated – as are religion and science.

ToddWI: “someone designed this”
“it had to be designed.”
These statements do not constitute evidence – nothing Behe presents is evidence. “Intelligent design” relies on attempts to discredit evolutionary biology. Scientists do not claim to have all the answers yet on how everything evolved, but that does not automatically equate to creation by a supernatural being, whose existence cannot be proven.
I’m an agnostic with atheistic tendancies. If someone were to come up with tangible evidence of the existence of a god or gods – I would certainly be willing to listen. It hasn’t happened yet, and I won’t be holding my breath.

ToddWI – I still don’t think God has anything to do with this debate. The scientific evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that no logical person could possibly come to another conclusion. Bias has nothing to do with it. Now if you want to believe that God had something to do with nudging it along, that’s certainly not testable, but whatever…
The fact remains that natural selection itself has been shown to be a very good “designer.” The question of irreducable complexity is a good one, but it has never been proven. But even finding such a case could not negate the obvious fact that species have evolved through time.

ToddWI – The existence of God is not the only necessary assumption IDers make that is un-provable. Not a single one of the necessary assumptions are supportable with objective empirical evidence. For about two to three weeks now on three different blogs several people have been asking IDers for a single piece of objective evidence to support ID as a viable hypothesis. So far the response has been zip, zero, nada. The only response has been the relentless drumbeat of how evolution can’t happen because it can’t work and there is no evidence.
There is a mountain of objective evidence for evolution. An inability to understand the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. An unwillingness to understand/believe the evidence merely because it conflicts with prior beliefs does not mean there is no evidence. Furthermore, I have yet to see one single IDer CORRECTLY explain how evolution works. IDers on these blogs have been basing all of their rationalizations for rejecting evolution on lies, distortions, propaganda, half-truths, and hundreds of examples that they really don’t understand the process. If the limit of my understanding of evolution was no better than the examples I have seen on these blogs, I would not believe in evolution either.
It is usually a good idea to actually understand a concept before rejecting it. And for the record, I believe in Id because I believe evolution is the process God designed as the natural process to develop life.

Speaking of un-provable assumptions. Here is the challenge for every ID supporter out there – offer one single piece of objective support for even one of the necessary assumptions that ID relies upon. If ID is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, let alone a full blown theory, it should be easy for one believer out there to provide one piece of objective data from a repeatable and verifiable test.
* Assumption – A supreme intelligent designer must necessarily exist.
* Assumption – The supreme intelligent designer that must necessarily exist also must necessarily be the Judeo Christian God of the Bible.
** Or, where is the objective data that proves the intelligent designer wasn’t Jupiter, Zeus, Buddha, Odin, Zoraster, etc. etc.?
** Also, where is the objective data that proves the creation stories from every other religious tradition are wrong?
* Assumption – It is impossible for random uncontrolled events, even if given billions of years, to evolve into more complex life from less complex life.
** Or, where is the objective data that proves God could not have or did not design evolution as the natural process for developing life?
* Assumption – There is one, and only one, supreme intelligent designer.
** Where is the objective experimental data that proves there was only one designer and not multiple designers?
*** Maybe plants, mammals, fish, insects, etc. etc. had separate designers. Or each specific plant, animal, and insect had its own designer, meaning there was one designer each for lions, and tigers, and bears – oh my, etc. etc.
*** Maybe each complex system had its own designer, and then different designers combined the systems in different ways to make different life forms.
*** In other words, maybe one group of designer designed the pieces of the puzzles, and then different designers put the pieces together in as many different ways as they could think of.
* Assumption – Only a supreme intelligent designer, i.e. one that is omnipotent and omniscient, is intelligent enough to design all of the life we see.
** Where is the objective data that proves a being, or beings, of lesser or non-omniscient intelligence could not possibly have designed any or all of the life on this planet?
*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people used eugenics and genetic engineering programs to design the life we now see.
*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people cracked the unified field theory and built machines able to manipulate matter and energy at will. Then, instead of using low tech eugenics and genetic engineering, they just had the high tech machines design and create the precursors of the life we see now.
*** Or, maybe highly advanced aliens came here and did it with either of those two methods.
Good luck and have fun.

jock59801:
Sorry; I am a logical person and I just don’t agree that the evidence that life evolved through natural selection from one species to another, to another, to another by itself accidentally is overwhelming. I am not saying that it didn’t happen that way (I remain open minded), but I think to state that the evidence is overwhelming is an overstatement.
Most of what I have seen presented as evidence for species morphing to other species on their own with no intelligent design assistance are great animations and artistic renderings, but I don’t find the science behind it to be compelling any longer; it has become less and less convincing to me with new discoveries of how complex living organisms really are at the microbiological level. What I have seen, looks much more like design to me than a string of accidental incremental improvements, too many complex structures and processes are irreducibly complex.
Then there is the problem of how life got started in the first place; the statistical probability against this happening by accident renders it far beyond impossible. The answers given about this by the scientists with a Darwinist perspective in this movie were just down right silly, they just don’t have a real clue about this. They just refuse to accept the concept that there could be a God.
One of the most ridiculous answers was Richard Dawkins stating that he supposed that it was possible that some other intelligent form of life evolved somewhere else and then came to plant life here on earth. That begs a few questions. How did life get started somewhere else? Is this really a more likely source for life on earth than an intelligent designer? Yes, I know the standard answer here is, well that doesn’t prove anything, maybe there are answers that science hasn’t discovered yet. It takes at least as much faith (I think more) to cling to that position as it does to consider that perhaps there is an intelligent designer.
Niether ID or Darwinism are provable. They can only be assessed for how likely either of them are as reasonable explanations for orgins. When one looks at microbiological evidence as well as evidence from physics (very finely tuned properties that hold everything together – this doesn’t look like an accident, check it out if you haven’t already )
The movie states that Darwinism is protected by the scientific elite; why would they do this? Richard Dawkins is a very militant atheist, he thinks the concept of God is evil, he says so in the movie. It is totally unacceptable for some to accept that there could be a God. You also have to “follow the money”. When any group is in power, it is human nature to use every means at its disposal to defeat competition for the resources and the positions of power that they hold on to.

jock59801
There is absolutely nothing “accidental” about natural selection? Uhmm, could that mean there might be something intelligent beyond the natural directing it?
Well, this has been fun. I respect your very passionate opinions about this, it seems from your earlier postings that you respect mine also, though we clearly disagree with eachother.
I would like to see everyone debate this strictly with logic and evidence, without resorting to the personal destruction tactics that have been used against the scientists and professors in this film that dared to propose the possibility of ID.
Peace

Even if evolutionary scientists were to reach the 100% level of certainty, the half of the ID camp that believes the earth is only about 6000 years old would still reject evolution because it would deviate from a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story. I don’t have a clue about what the other camp of IDers would do.

I just saw the movie and loved it. Ben Stein showed how the real battle is metaphysical, rather than scientific. He showed how the scientific community is rigidly endorsing a metaphysical philosophy and punishing anyone who would deviate from that philosophy. He showed that legitimate scientists are using Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor only to be expelled from the scientific community. He calls on those within the sciences to rise up and confront the “scientific” Gestapo to open up scientific inquiry! I loved it and would recommend it to anyone.

Phil
The wisdom teeth are leftovers from out Eocene long jawed ancestors. Fortunately we are down a few molars since then and not everyone gets wisdom teeth anymore (I never did, nor my brothers or children). Thats how evolution works vis variation but the presence or lack of wisdom teeth is not a significant enough change to make any difference to survival so both modes will continue for a while.
The appendix however is still used, just like tonsils, both act as filters.
Years ago it was thought that since you can live without tonsils or an appendix that they were no longer used. They are actually first line defenders but have a back up system. Tonsils are a pair of adenoids and you have more than one pair and the appendix is a very large diverticulum, when it is removed the smaller ones take over the whole job. I did simplify a little but you get the idea.

sorry about the typos.

Eric
Re: “There exist patterns in nature that do not have natural physical explanations.”
Negetive evidence is not evidence. Just because you dont have an explanation does not mean that there isn’t one.
Why don’t you give an example of a pattern that you don’t have an explanation for and see if any of the other readers has one. I know for a fact that there is more than one biologist posting in Ned’s column on a regular basis and they may have your answers.

ToddWI
ID may be correct but to accept ID is a leap of faith as there is no evidence either for or against a creator/designer. That is why it is not science but faith. That does not falsify ID but relegayes it to theology.

Eric
suggests design? science does not work by suggestion. To prove ID you have to prove the existance of a designer, that is how science works.

Eric – Go to a good museum, evidence is there. Open a good biology textbook, there is evidence there. Read every post on all three related Blogs and you will find a handful of people who given excellent explanations and examples of evidence.
I said objective empirical evidence that is the result of repeatable verifiable tests. Not subjective opinion that relies on twisted irrational circular logic.
*** “There exist patterns in nature that do not have natural physical explanations.”
You can’t serious. An absence of understanding/explanation is proof nothing. Except of course that we don’t understand something yet. By your logic there is no such thing as gravity. Scientist cannot completely explain gravity. We don’t know what gravity is. Therefore by your logic it is not gravity holding us down it is the Intelligent Holder (IH). No wait, the IH is not holding us down; it is the Intelligent Pusher (IP) pushing us down.
*** “For example, footprints in the sand are such patterns that can be shown to be Intelligently Designed.”
This is even more ludicrous than the first one. I don’t know about you, but I don’t design my footprints. I just walk on the sand and because the surface tension of the sand is insufficient to counter the effects of gravity, woops, I mean the Intelligent Holder (or the IP if you prefer), then my weight causes my feet to leave in an impression in the sand. I don’t design squat.
*** “The same method can be applied to life related to a multitude of different aspects of it.”
That is precisely the problem. It the same irrational flawed logic that people use to force what they see to fit with what they already believe.

Quiteman – “To prove ID you have to prove the existance of a designer, that is how science works.”
So you are telling me that if we came upon some unknown machine – a fantastic machine – that we could not prove it was designed unless we knew who the designer was? Come on, lets be real!

Here is the is I dropped earlier.

Eric – “…if we came upon some unknown machine – a fantastic machine – that we could not prove it was designed unless we knew who the designer was.”
Technically that is correct. It would be reasonable to deduce that a machine was designed because machines don’t grow from natural processes – at least not on our planet. On the basis of all human experience, machines are designed and made by other people. They don’t grow, hatch, or come about by any other natural process.
It would be reasonable to deduce that a machine was built for the same reasons. But unless you can actually find the designer or objectively prove the designer exists then no, you can’t prove who the designer/s was. Ditto for the builder/s. Nor could you prove that there was only one and not many designers. Nor could you prove that there was only one and not many builders. Nor could you prove that the designer/s and builder/s were the same. Nor could you prove that it was a person/being and not an automated robot factory.

BK “But unless you can actually find the designer or objectively prove the designer exists then no, you can’t prove who the designer/s was.”
I am not asking to prove WHO the designer was! I am asking if you can use science to establish if something was designed.

Eric – Your kidding right?
That depends upon how much differentiation there is between the object and other natural objects and other artificial objects. It might be possible to determine with absolute certainty. It might only be possible to determine with some intermediate level of probability.
Is it identical to other objects that we objectively know are not natural and human made? Is it identical to other objects that we objectively know are naturally made? Is it made out of a material that is not found in nature? Does it have complex manufactured parts? If it has a serial number and part number on it I think I could reasonably conclude that it was a product of ID. If I see other identical objects hanging from plants in the area it would be reasonable to conclude that it is a fruit or vegetable or seed pod of some kind.
The bottom line is it depends on the available objective data and objective knowledge. What kind of instrumentation is available? If the object is alien in origin it might intelligent itself.
But complexity is not in and of itself proof of artificial origin and an intelligent designer.

Heliocentric – Can I nominate the FSM?

Eric – “ID is all about using science to determine design in nature.”
ID is all about identifying unexplainable complexity, and then using pseudo-science to camouflage religious beliefs as the negative default explanation for what we don’t understand yet.
Where is the objective evidence to prove a single one of ID’s necessary assumptions that I identified earlier?

*** “If the probability was too small, then we could conclude design.”
You would also be wrong because you could not prove that it was not the result of a natural process you don’t understand yet.

BK – “You would also be wrong because you could not prove that it was not the result of a natural process you don’t understand yet.”
But we must use the known natural processes, to be scientific. Now we could re-evaluate the probability if we discovered a new law, once the law was established. But normally, new laws don’t just pop-up over night. This is the power of ID. It requires us to remain scientific, because it forces us to look at the known laws. But the mainline scientific community does not like this, because it forces them to remain scientific and doesn’t give them a free ride!

BK – “We can’t know if we are the first universe that has been here or the billionth.”
But again, you are jumping into metaphysics which is outside of science! I don’t mind you doing this, if you will allow the possibility that there may be a God who created our world and all life. I find it hypocritical to say that your metaphysical statements are allowed while mine are not! This is the problem with mainline science today – they want to rule which metaphysical statements are allowed for science. This was one main point of Ben Steins movie!

BK – “But complexity is not in and of itself proof of artificial origin and an intelligent designer.”
This is true. We have to show that natural processes cannot explain it within the available time that our universe has existed. We have to show that it is is more than being just improbable. Using Dembski’s approach, we have to show some intelligence behind it.
ID can be used to look at different patterns to distinguish design. We could look at a cloud formation and examine the probability of it forming naturally. One aspect of this is knowing the normal and expected clouds found in nature. Another aspect is knowing the physical processes and phenomena behind cloud formation. Using both these aspects, we could calculate the probability of the cloud formation. This is how we could test for design.

Another general misunderstanding is the scientists push knowledge forward by writing “science” books for lay people. Ummmm, no, that happens after theyve done peer reviewed research and want to make a few bucks.
The ID movement has not produced peer reviewed science. They skipped right to the part where they write “popular science” which has such low standards that the scientific community can’t take them seriously.
Its a scam. They decided to skip the research and go right to lobbying the public and politicians.

Goodness, don’t you people ever sleep?
Eric – I just have two points that some of your comments brought to mind:
1) The fact that something is highly improbable is not proof that it didn’t happen. The evolution from one species to another may take millions of generations, and a highly improbably thing could have happened in the first generation as easily as the millionth – or not at all.
2) You said: “Now mainline science does delve into the metaphysics when they say absolutely that God does not exist (or another intelligent being) and cannot be the cause of creation and life!”
Science does not do this. PEOPLE who happen to also be scientists may claim these things, but they are not using SCIENCE to do it. Science cannot say whether or not God exists and doesn’t try.

Eric – “But again, you are jumping into metaphysics which is outside of science! I don’t mind you doing this, if you will allow the possibility that there may be a God who created our world and all life.”
You don’t read all of the posts do you. Either that or you ignore anything that contradicts your preconceptions.
I do acknowledge God as the creator of our universe/world and all life. The Big Bang was God’s way of beginning the natural creation and development of the universe. And evolution is God’s designed natural process for developing life. God is the greatest scientist and engineer ever. If you go back to one of my earlier posts you will see that I go into a little more detail. You will also find the post were I challenge IDers to offer a single piece of objective evidence to support a single one of the necessary assumptions for ID. You will also see that I am intellectually honest enough to admit that it is not possible to objectively support my hypothesis. So I guess that makes only a thesis.
*** “But we don’t have an infinite number of monkeys to explain the evolutionary dogma! We are limited by time and by the mass of the universe.”
Yes, a finite amount of time is available. Yes, a finite amount of matter and energy are available. However, there is more than enough matter and energy for an infinite number of combinations to occur. With infinite combinations available the remaining limiting factor is time. I believe billions of years is sufficient and the objective evidence supports that belief.
As usual you completely missed the point about the possibility that our universe is the billionth one that has been in this neighborhood. The point is that just like ID, it is not testable! However, unlike ID, the possibility was reasonable as a hypothesis at one time because the observable evidence indicating the Big Bang and the eventual Big Crunch made cyclic universes possible. Now that the available evidence indicates that our universe will most likely not experience a Big Crunch our universe will probably be the last one here. But it is sill possible that ours is the end of a cycle rather than the first and only.

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to jinx this one.

PQQAm
Neither your argument nor Erics can prove or disprove anything. Arguments based on faith and/or null arguments are without scientific credibility. You both are arguing theology not science.

God is not a liar. God can do anything that He wants. Have you ever heard of a prophecy or a miracle? They affect this natural world and they change what would “normally” occur. It is not wrong, it is just knowing more.
We know that virtually everything physical can be altered (by us) so why would God not be able to alter what He put in place to begin with?

PQQAm
Re: “God is not a liar”
You are right because the written word was authored by man.

Quietman – They don’t need any proof, that is what makes their beliefs so seductive. With irrational mental gymnastics they can always distort reality to fit their beliefs. Their myopic inflexible beliefs are all they need. I call it choosing a theology of no/avoiding personal responsibility. They can blame everything on God’s will or Satan’s deception.

PQQAM-
You’re adorable.
But why would God suspend the laws of Physics to make the Earth young, then change them again to make it LOOK old, just to mess with our minds? I would prefer a God who made a world that actually WORKED, and who allowed us to understand it.

PQQAm
I do not deny the existance of God, only the fact that God wrote anything down or for that matter bothers to speak to mere mortals. My concept of God is very different from yours but that is a theology argument as well.

B K – Yes, micro-economics sounds real exciting! I’m making boring little maps, so I can use the mental stimulation.

PQQAm
Your bible is not proof of anything other than that someone could read and write thousands of years ago and commit plagerism. I have already pointed out to you that many old testament writings were “borrowed” from Egypt, Sumeria and Babylon. That is why true christians follow the teachings of Christ and NOT the old (hebrew) testament.

Quietman, you really do have to study some more because Christianity is a total repeat of everything that was ever said in the “Old Testament”.
Everyone before Christ believed in the same Christ as people of the New Covenant, which was prophesied in the “Old Testament”.
It all says virtually the exact same thing. The only difference is that the prophecies had come true in the New Testament.

PQQAm – The problem is that the laws of physics prove that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old (based on the half-life of about 30 different radioisotopes). So if God only needed 6000 years, why did he make the Earth that old? Or if it isn’t that old, why did he change the laws of physics just to make it LOOK that old?
I am not questioning the existence of God. But the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and evolution happened. I think God can deal with that. Can you?

Jock – you don’t understand. God faked all of the evidence. It is the only way the illusion would be believable. It has to be totally convincing, so every conceivable contingency was thought of, planned for, and anticipated; any necessary evidence/indicator was fabricated to make the illusion work.

There is nothing “twisted” about the logic that is also found in the Bible. It is all straight forward.
The reason people have a hard time understanding Scripture is because it is their logic that is twisted.
There is even Scripture that speaks to that effect.
“Yet your fellow citizens say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right,’ when it is their own way that is not right.”

jock, what part did you not understand?
You can have the earth to be as many billions of years old as you want because it was made along with the rest of the heavens and the earth.
The creatures on the earth were made 6000 years ago.

Quietman – Wow, I didn’t know you were still following the other two. Has it really been that entertaining for you? I have been saving everything I post and had a friend read them Saturday. He got more than a few good laughs. Or were you curious to see how far fetched and irrational PQQAm could get?
WDJ – Believe me, you have not seen anything yet. Even you read the other two blogs you won’t believe it.

It is life on earth that is 6000 years old. The earth itself is as old as the Universe (however old that is).

Jock – Since you have not been participating on the other two blogs for a while I will get you up to speed. PQQAm is acknowledging that because the first day of creation when God created the heavens and the earth did not begin with a morning then that first day could have been any length of time. But, once there were evenings and mornings, each day has been “one rotation”. The fact Genesis says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day has no bearing on those first three evenings and mornings being impossible.

Quietman – Ah, but you forget that God fabricated all of the evidence you are referring to that indicates age prior to 6000 years ago. Or your dating techniques are wrong, etc. etc.
Okay, I will stop playing the Devil’s advocate now.

PQQAm – “The heavens and the earth were made before the first evening and morning (rotation of the earth) was counted.”
But according to the literal language of Genesis the heavens were empty except for the earth until the fourth day. What is point of regurgitating your irrational and hypocritical ideas on this blog? The other two are still available.

Jock – It isn’t their faith that I find irritating. It is their hypocrisy. They insist on literal interpretation of the Bible; except when it is convenient for them to deviate from the literal language as far as they need to go to fabricate supporting data or assumptions.

B K – I was just trying to be nice.
;)

BK, you are not being rational. How can God “create” an empty heavens and earth?
If that is the case, the earth would not have been made either.
There was darkness covering the surface of the earth. That’s what the account says. If that is the case, the sun moon and stars could not be seen “in the dome of the sky” until the fourth day when God said, “Let there be lights (pl.)”.

I believe in evolution. But I also believe in a creator. I’m I being a hypocrite?

WannaBPreacher
There are many of us that do not take issue with the existance of God and evolution. Not all Darwinists are athiests, even Darwin believed in a creator (his original unpublished notes are now available on the web).

PQQAm
The generations of Genesis are a drop in the bucket of human time, let alone geologic time. China was cultured before genesis begins.

Again PQQAm, which of the TWO creation stories in the bible should we take literally?

I think that both evolution; which has many scientific proofs AND a “creator” can peacefully co-exist. I am deeply committed to Jesus Christ AND I have a brain that can understand and accept facts. It’s obvious to me that the theory of evolution has undeniable proofs; at the same time, matters of faith have undeniable proofs also.

I will have to go back into blackout mode again for a while so I will have to leave you people to your own destructive devices.
So if you can’t find your way, just look to the light of God’s word and let Him show you the way. His Holy Spirit that has come to us through the blood, which justifies a Holy God speaking to us “mere mortals”, teaches us all things. (Without the blood, it is true that God could have nothing to do with us.) That is real true spiritual Science and it is the only thing that can give us a clear conScience!!!

The Bible is very repetitive. It doesn’t mean that God made things twice. It repeats itself for the sake of perspective.

WannaBPreacher
Complete agreement. The issue here is education. Evolution is science and God is theology, thats all. The two should not be mixed on a simple basic principle. In science there can only be one road to the truth. In theology there are many roads even among christians. Most of the argument in these posts are between christians that simply disagree with other christians.
Yes there are a few athiest and agnostics views as well but this is not about theology. We want our children and grandchildren to learn science without someone elses personal beliefs thrown into the mix. In other words keep science pure science and teach faith in the context of theology so as not to offend members of other faiths.

On my father’s side I can trace my genealogy to Pennsylvania and some of the early founders of the U.S. and my mother’s side goes back to Scotland and Ireland.
So I am not all that bad. : )

WannaBPreacher
Yes, in a kind of indirect way I guess that must be a truism.

cturple
I was starting to wonder why I did not see any recent posts from you. Made any progress with your early americans?

PQQAm
What you don’t seem to understand is that most of us do not care how creation functions whether by god or otherwise. The interest is in keeping the theology out of the science classroom, thats all.

Quiet – I had a North Am Arch exam this morning. Have a geomtatics presentation to prepare for tomorrow morning, then a portfolio to finish for environmental issues, then a paper to write for Native American Culture due Thursday. Three exams next week, and a final project to turn in. Not much time to yammer these days.

I think that the exact point is what happened prior to the “first day”, 6000 years ago. Was Adam a baboon or a man? I think the difference is that if Adam was a baboon he would have been soulless – if man, God gave him a soul to question his very existence…and ultimately find his way back to his creator. Hence – we have these silly arguments…

CINCO – If I can glean an actual question from all that, you ask: “how do Big-Bang explosions create Order out of Chaos?”
The simplest answer is: it doesn’t.
The order of the Universe would have been created by gravity and the other 3 fundamental forces operating AFTER the Big BANG.

5
a drawing of a wheel or a circle is just that, a drawing, not a design.

At the end Dawkins gave away the store saying he could imagine the evidence supporting directed panspermia. That IS Intelligent Design! Why not allow inquiry into that question? (i.e. is there good evidence supporting the idea that life (and variety of life) came from some intelligent extraterrestrial source?) If the evidence points to that, then it can be further investigated to try to figure if that is alien intelligence or a supernatural being…God. Dawkins revealed his problem was not with ID…since he was fine with it being ID from ET’s. His problem is with a God who has power to hold him accountable. He is not an unbiased investigator!

David Willis
He is not an unbiased investigator!
Correct.

What is ironic is that when you get an atheist to look at some chipped stones, they see evidence of ID …”toolmaking.” Or if they see something like Stonehenge, that is plenty of evidence of design for them. Yet they refuse to see evidence of ID in our world and the lifeforms we see here. Actually, Dawkins has admitted he has a serious problem with the non-biological “anthropic” elements of the “just right” universe. When faced with them, and no “directing force” such as natural selection, all atheists can do is say “we must exist in just one universe of an infinite number of OTHER universes….otherwise we’d have to conclude that we see design.” Yeah RIGHT.
BTW, I’ve spoken to M. Behe and I’m quite sure he is a theistic evolutionist. Even that idea is “expelled” though.

David
When an anthropologist looks at chipped stones he may see signs of intelligence but his peers may not. Louis Leakey saw signs of 40,000 year old intelligence in california but he was ridiculed for it (apparently california has never had any sign of intelligence) but that is not about evolution, that is about archaeology.

Oh, and “ET designed it” was a snide remark, a hallmark I believe.

In a lecture about a year ago, Dawkins admitted there is apparent design in the non-biological features of our universe. He believes he has good answers for the biological features, but not such great answers for the non-biological features.
There are three possible ways to explain it. 1) it was a one in a billion chance and we happened to luck out. 2) it a one in a billion chance and there are a billion+ universes out there so it really is a certainty that ONE of them would have biophilic/anthropic features. This is what most atheists say. 3) Intelligent Design.
I sure can’t see why 1 or 2 is so much more reasonable than 3. It all depends on whether or not you philosophically rule out all things supernatural. If you do that, then you made a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. As the movie said, your worldview determined what “science” was.

David Willis
The theories about the origin of life are more susceptible to the kind of bias you talk about. People who don’t believe in God may be more motivated to find an alternative explanation because they assume there MUST be one. But that is mostly because we haven’t really figured out a “non-God” explanation yet.
But the evolution of life after it began is a different question. In this case, we DO know that natural selection can design organisms without an intelligent designer. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is NOT an intelligent designer, but it does mean there doesn’t HAVE to be one.

>>The ET idea does not change the question of evolution anyway. All it is saying is that life started somewhere else and then somebody moved it between planets. I’m not sure what the point would be, especially since it took primitve life about 2 billion years to really start diversifying on Earth.>>
I believe Dawkins said it was INTELLIGENCE from space he could conceive of…not just some cometary unintelligent source. That is the “directed” part of “directed panspermia.” I agree that would then require then to explain where THAT intelligent life came from. However, my point is a narrower one. RD COULD imagine that actual evidence of ID could be found to refute an abiotic/evolutionary origin of life ON EARTH. He seemed ok to consider THAT possibility…just not that the ID was from deity. So shouldn’t “science” permit the consideration of that possibility…whether from deity or ET? Why exclude that? If we then DID decide that the better explanation of life ON EARTH is some intelligent design, then our investigation could then take the next step to figure out if it makes more sense to posit that it is ET or God. Let the evidence be considered!…and don’t rule out some answer because of your religious or antireligious worldview/philosophy.

“The point is that something with no evidence can be considered as part of science” should have been “The point is that something with no evidence can NOT be considered as part of science”
Sorry, I was thinking about contracting it and lost my train of thought.

“”"”At the end Dawkins gave away the store saying he could imagine the evidence supporting directed panspermia. That IS Intelligent Design! Why not allow inquiry into that question? (i.e. is there good evidence supporting the idea that life (and variety of life) came from some intelligent extraterrestrial source?) If the evidence points to that, then it can be further investigated to try to figure if that is alien intelligence or a supernatural being…God. Dawkins revealed his problem was not with ID…since he was fine with it being ID from ET’s. His problem is with a God who has power to hold him accountable. He is not an unbiased investigator!”"”" —Chris
Who is stopping inquiry in this direction? It’s up to the ID movement to start researching and publishing. Don’t hold your breath.
One problem is that many creationists have a problem with understanding what evolution is or is not. It doesnt cover the origin of life. It deals with changes over time in that life.

…one more question.
If science is a process of hypothesis, experimentation, observation and conclusion why is it that life cannot be created in a lab mimicking the conditions of the early earth?

cturple, there is no problem at all with Science unless people who call themselves Scientists attempt to disprove the historical record found in Scripture. To that, I say, provide a more reliable source for your information, for which there is no more a reliable source than Scripture for determining what actually happened.
My source is a historical record. What record do you have that is more reliable than Scripture. Fossil records don’t tell you what happened. They only show what resulted.
All the so called geological layers are all out of order from what Scientist say they are supposed to be. All the dating methods are in conflict with each other. All fossilized material becomes part of its surroundings which means that the dating is of the surrounding area and not of the fossil itself and is therefore unreliable.
The end result is that there is no reliable dating method for dating anything other than historical records and genealogies. This means that it is not possible to dig up bones of any man of any period and determine how old it is by radio dating methods. Historical and genealogical records must be used to determine the age of civilizations.

>>There is zero evidence of creation, natural or otherwise so the argument is moot. You can believe anything tou want to believe. >>
I disagree of course. But there IS zero evidence of multiple universes (to explain biophilic/anthropic features) or life originating from non-life…yet “science” still asserts those as postulates. The whole theory of ev. DEPENDS on such. You can claim the theory begins with life and doesn’t have to explain it, but that is bogus. If you rule out God and ID then you need some theory to get to the point of life from non-life.
It 100% a philosophical predisposition causing ID to be “expelled.” Those who say “get your research, make your publications”…that IS being done, however as the movie showed those who attempt to do that are castigated and punished.
Here’s some evidence…10 samples of coal were tested using C14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometer method and all 10 got measurements in the 60,000 year range…not the 200 million year range they expected. It was not contamination or limitation of the sensitivity of the instrument. Those results were consistent with results in the peer reviewed literature. When such “research” brings about evidence inconsistent with atheistic evolution, it is squelched…just as the movie said.

David -
Are you saying that evoloution is bogus?

David
Re: “Behe’s concept … IS evidence”
A concept is never evidence, it is an idea, a thought, an opinion.

Thanks, Quietman.
I got it…so let me get this straight – Creation doesn’t enter into the discussion about evolution? It sounds like we could all call a truce. I can easily align with an evolutionary process – after all, there IS hard and fast evidence of things of this world changing over time.
Then ultimately, if we all cut to the chase, the argument is over the existence of a designer….right?

WDJ-
Among all the scientific evidence you present can we agree that the design, at a minimum, was intelligent?…and if it wasn’t an intelligent design where in the heck does intelligence come from?

WannaBPreacher, to give a metaphor, you can view natural selection a sieve, not a sculptor.
The “sculpting” itselfs happens by genetic mutations. Negative mutations will have a harder time passing trough, neutral mutations stay unaffected and beneficial mutations get an advantage. Repeat over many generations over a population and you will observe a gradual change.

Bubba – Good Stuff!
So – By natural selection an organism has designed a new (unique?) organism – right? If so, the organism that designed something new needed to design the new organism for a purpose (?)…or did the original organism just design a pal – for the heck of it….
…design indicates purpose…

WannaBPreacher
“So – By natural selection an organism has designed a new (unique?) organism – right? If so, the organism that designed something new needed to design the new organism for a purpose (?)…or did the original organism just design a pal – for the heck of it….”
Umh…neither. By mutations we don’t mean something like growing a new limb on the spot. An animal that looks like a freak wouldn’t be that popular with the ladies so to speak :)
Now, to give an example, say if a plant eating animal would have a slightly longer neck compared to the other animals of his species, he could reach at more leaves in the trees, which in turn increases his chance in survival. He has therefore more chance to pass on his genes to his offspring who in turn also have slightly longer necks. Rince & repeat many generations and you might get something like a giraffe

WannaBPreacher, isn’t that just giving birth? ;)
Or in what context do you mean?

Its called speciation. A group splits into two groups which no longer breed for some reason (geographic isolation, sexual preference, etc). As their genes mutate they begin to change. They no longer share genes the changes build up and eventually they can’t breed at all even if they wanted to.
Grizzly Bears and Polar bears for a recent example. They have many biological differences but originally were one species. The Grizzly bear didnt just decide the make the Polar bear, it just happened naturally after the population split.

WannaBPreacher
Correct. Sorry I took so lomg to answer I had to drive up to the VA today.

WannaBPreacher
Ok, I caught up to the thread. The explanations that have been posted are all good ones but assume that you were aware of the missing pieces. So I will try to fill them in for you.
Darwin developed the original hypothesis for natural selection through mutation and variation in isolation. What this means is that every child is like its parents but not quite the same as either parent, ie. a variation. Through small mutations (or genetic drift) the amount of variation is increased (blue eyes and blond hair are my favorite examples).
The variation may be harmful (extra organs, two faces) and the parents would normally destroy it as a monster (we are not talking civilized here) or if not, it would be viewed as unacceptable to a potential mate so the monstous mutations die without reproducing.
The variations that are beneficial you have the example of the longer neck (classic) or extra body fat to live long enough to reproduce during an ice age as another example.
The variations that are neutral are actually the most important. The extra fat I mentioned is neutral in a temperate climate so it remains a viable but unimportant variation. It becomes a survival trait when the ice age starts.
Other neutral variations can be benefical in attracting mates. While not essential to the survival of the individual it becomes a means of speciation via sexual attraction.
Note that none of the above is done with intent. It is pure happenstance.
Darwin only went this far (as described above), but the Theory of Evolution has itself evolved by refinement, ie. the idea of genetic drift rather that mutations in all cases. In Darwins concept, there needs to be a seperation of the species by some physical means, mountain ranges, seas, etc. so that the two groups can no longer share their variations ie. in isolation. Things would have been easier for him if for one he knew about continental drift and for another he had not attended semenary college (he had a definate conflict of interest which is why he put off publishing for many years).
If you need more detail, just ask. The group that have been answering you as well as myself, love discussing this subject. We also learn from each others observations, so please, continue.

>>I got it…so let me get this straight – Creation doesn’t enter into the discussion about evolution? It sounds like we could all call a truce. I can easily align with an evolutionary process – after all, there IS hard and fast evidence of things of this world changing over time. >>
The movie made the point that ID’s don’t object to “change over time.” That is not the right def. to give to the idea of the General Theory of Evolution. The question is whether all the species we see today came about by a process of random mutations and natural selection.
Behe’s “concept” of irreducable complexity is indeed an argument…based on the evidence of the intricate microbiological structures he observes. There is no way to “select” or accumulate the separate “parts of the mousetrap” when one part alone has no benefit. That is pretty logical. It is true that a feature like blue eyes is not likely selected as beneficial. However…getting complex intracellular machines put into place is a quantum leap above a color option.
Why not let the discussion take place in science without trying to club to death anyone who dissents?

WannaBPreacher
There is no objection to saying that God did it. Many of us feel that way.
The objection is that the answer is not currently within the realm of science. To teach science we need to avoid even the mention of creation becasue the first question is “How do you know”, and since you or me or anyone else on this planet can only answer “I believe”, it is not a fair way to treat the student. It covers phiolosphical beliefs and personal opinions which have no place in a science classroom.
Absolute honesty is required in teaching, so if you don’t know the answer, the honest thing to do is to say “I don’t know”.

The other problem is that there are parts that he does not understand that other scientists do, enough to form a hypothesis, but lack the technology to prove and become a theory. One hypothesis was recreated in a lab environment but could not be duplicated so remains a hypothesis. To become theory the results must be repeatable.

WannaB – The problem scientists have with the “God did it” hypothesis, is that there isn’t anything you can DO with it. One can only believe it or not believe it. There is no scientific test. So scientists get much more excited about the possibility of being able to explain the origin of life without God. True, some of them are doing it because they don’t believe in God so they assume it MUST be “natural.” But others are doing it just because it would be really boring otherwise.
Since we have shown that evolution can occur without divine intervention, many think it is reasonable to hypothesize that the origin of life could as well. There are reasons to believe that complex molecules can develop spontaneously from simpler ones. But since we haven’t discovered the process yet, that IS just an assumption at this point.

Jock
Re: ” it would be really boring otherwise.”
I LOVE IT

David
Jock said that because YOU said it was carbon dating (C14) which we all know can not determine dates that old.

David
Some fossils, particularly mid-jurassic, are radioactive. Try to date one of those by C14 and see what happens.

“And the pope and all those people in the survey believe God did the designing and then used some gradual process over long amounts of time to bring variety of life to earth. That is not atheistic evolution. That is ID!”
ID as presented by the Discovery Institute denies evolution.
And as I said before, irreducibly complexity has been debunked

Re: “Why then don’t the atheist-scientists hush up about multiverses?”
Scientists are not a definable group, but rather a lot of seperate definable groups. Paleontologists and Anthropologists and Biologists are not knowedgeable about other non-related fields generally. Some are but that is a matter of personal interest. For example I am retired from the auto industry but I have studied paleontology for the past 40 years on my own. The medical training that I got in the Army helped me get started, along with another medic that had biology schooling before he was drafted.
But I know very little about astronomy or climatilogy because I lacked interest. We are all only human, regardless of what our degree is in and we tend to learn what fields we find of interest.
Other than science fiction, I have no interest in mutliverses or big bangs.

David
I think you misunderstand. The reason C14 dating is inaccurate beyond a certain point is not that there won’t be any but that it becomes unreliable beyond a few 10s of thousands of years and must be organic. It can not be used to acurately date things that are 10s of millions of years or that were inorganic to start with (and no I am not saying the coal is inorganic, I am saying that it is too old for a C14 date). They might have tried an O18 date.

Especially so when coal deposits are pretty much carboniferous and restricted pretty much to the mississippian and pensylvanian.

David
The rate of decay is stable down to a certain point and then the rate changes. I do not believe that a zero C14 reading from an organic is even possible. Half life is not actually half in time but half in content.

Another issue with C14 is natural radiation bursts that change the amount of C14 available at the time the organic was alive. This is one explanation to radioactive fossils. SO before you can determine the age of an object you need to know how much radiation it was exposed to (it is not a constant). I think that a good geologist could explain this much better than I.

Can’t you follow the logic guys?
Yes. But you are still ignoring the fact that your reasons are exectly why they do not use C14 dates that old.

I am so surprised, or not, by the blind faith that so many put into the religion of evolution. I use to be one myself. I believed what I was taught in public school. As an analytical person, I like to question everything. As I looked into evolution and its claims I found issues with there claims. I found what we were taught were people’s interpretations of evidence and not shown the evidence. As I discovered the evidence, or lack there of, I found the the doctrine I was so zealously taught in school, did not match the evidence. The theory ( and I use the term loosely) of evolution does not hold up to claim I had been taught. The leap of interpretation from a few bones or no bones in any other area of expertise would have been reported as a result of mind altering drugs. I also heard reported that creationism is not science. I questioned this also. I found a surprising amount of science in creation, so much that I found creation was more science and less faith. I found evolution to be more faith and less science. You can question your beliefs and what you were taught. Evolution turns out to be a racist, hateful, demoralizing religion. Its followers are mostly not those following science but those wanting the eliminate any chance that there might be God. It is no surprise that evolutionists are hostile and intolerant to any other view. — Once you rule out a supreme being, you rule out any moral code that applies to all and any responsibility to do good. You are are feel to pretend that you can create any code, and be as irresponsible as you can be. I am glad I question everything. I dare you to consider other possibilities, or you can just keep believing what others tell you to believe. Know what you believe and why you believe it.

>>If I remember correctly, the cut-off for carbon dating is 10K years.>>
You don’t remember correctly. Look it up, and then come back when you have your facts straight.
But it is irrelevant anyway. The “cut-off” is more like about 60,000 years or at the most about 100,000. (It used to be shorter but they got better instruments, able to measure smaller amounts). The point is that if there is ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT (eg. like the candle still burning in the box) then that tells you the sample can’t be even ONE million years old or even 250,000.
I don’t mean to be rude, but guys, this is not that difficult. The sort of responses you are giving should be seen as pretty lame if anyone out there is seeking the truth.
BTW, would anyone here describe himself as an atheist who is inquisitive and very willing to change to theism if good evidence were shown? Just wondering.

JWM – If you had stuck it out in science classes just a little longer you would have seen a lot more evidence. There are not just “a few bones.” There are over 250,000 species of fossilized organisms discovered so far.
But evolutionary theory is not dependent solely on the fossil record anyway. The evidence from genetics, comparative embyology, systematics and really just about any other field of biology points to evolution as the only logical interpretation. Every little detail has been studied, argued over, and counter-argued for generations. More insight is coming out all the time. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers are published every year on different aspects. Evolution is the most studied topic in biology because evolution is the fundamental principle of biology. Without it nothing in biology even makes sense.

Huh? There are many members of the ID movement who do not subscribe to conventional creationism. Behe for one. Here I’m using creationist as in Scientific Creationism. The yahoos at ICR, AIG, etc. Those who defend a global flood, young earth, etc.
You can find creationists being critical of the ID movement for giving away too much of the store by not defending the bible page by page. And you can find ID members who seem a little embarrassed by the creationism of old. There is a common purpose
You arent being persecuted David, as much as you may desire martyrdom for christ. You are just a guy on a forum with a thing for grandiose rhetoric.

>>The evidence from genetics, comparative embyology, systematics and really just about any other field of biology points to evolution as the only logical interpretation. >>
Did I hear you say “comparative embryology?” Is your view the old “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” baloney? Do they still TEACH that?
Also, regarding systematics, pardon me if I don’t buy into the idea (based on protein sequencing systematics) that an elephant shrew is closer to an elephant than it is to other shrews. That is what systematics says! (Look up Afroteria).

Sorry…that is “Afrotheria”. I really doubt that Darwin would have bought into that classification either. The non-correlation of amino acid sequences of proteins in presumed close relatives on the phylogenetic tree (based on comparitive anatomy) is a major difficulty for the General Theory of Ev.

>>In this case there is extra incentive because it turns out that coal WITHOUT C14 is needed for some physics experiment that I don’t pretend to understand (something about neutrinos), and the scientists were trying to figure out why the heck it was so hard to find some. >>
Interesting. Can you give more details?
I am not sure that finding coal or oil with no C14 is as damaging to YE (young earth) as finding them WITH C14 is to Ancient Earth. There should be TONS of it with no C14. ALL of it!

comparative embryology has been replaced by evodevo.

Afrotheria was based on genetics that were not available to Darwin. Does it bother you that our ancestors moved to a predatorless africa from asia in the eocene?

jock
I know a young girl that still has gills but they are not external (no slits). Genetic throwback (I know they say it does not happen but it does).

Afrotheria specifially refers to animals that evolved in africa at a time when there was no land connection.
There were no mammal predators at the time in africa, they evolved in laurasia and moved south once africa made contact with eurasia. The question arises as to how the ancestral anthropoids got there from asia.

It was thrown by Tristan who was blindfolded. He aims for the middle.

>>I person might well say that it is “probable” that a person put the dart there on purpose (your “design scenario”) but that is not PROOF that it happened that way.
You didn’t say what your alternative “chance scenario” was. I would say that it could very well have got there by someone throwing it from a fair distance away, but not form across the stadium because human beings can’t throw a dart that far.
It all depends on exactly HOW improbable something is, and also on how LONG a time there is for something to keep trying to make it happen.
>
I certainly agree that “proof” is a difficult thing to establish, so really all we can do is to choose what seems more likely to us…more probable.
I really wasn’t intending to get into what is too far for a human to throw…just a simple probability question. It is odds of a million to one that it was chance…so the better choice is design…I hope we all would agree. There is still a TINY chance it was NOT design, but if you had to bet your life, you should say, “I am betting it was intentionally put there.” Right?

David
Well, my point was that superorders can be large and diverse and subject to change, but yes, according to the currently accepted taxonomy, the elephant shrew is more closely related to everything in that superorder than to anything out side it. So?
I don’t get the “problem” that you are trying to explain. You can get slightly different taxonomic trees depending on exactly what set of traits you use, but that is mostly because some traits are more conserved than others, and some more susceptible to convergent evolution. Believe me, scientists have been arguing vehemently about that for generations (e.g. the cladistics “wars”).

Life and the universe aren’t darts or apples or watches. If you were somewhat slow and raised on an apple farm you might find a reddish rock and assume that it had seeds or grew on a tree. Applying familiar frames of reference to the unknown doesnt always make a good comparison.
But anyway, you are arguing fine tuning and the counter to fine tuning is the anthropic principle. Round and round. It has little to do with evolution though as evolution, as mentioned, doesnt delve into ultimate origins.

David,
Well, it’s generally best not to bet your life on probability games, for obvious reasons. But I want to make 2 points:
A million to one is a pretty good chance if we get to have millions of attempts to get it done. And there are often millions of generations separating even fairly closely related species. That’s why the number of trials is just as critical as the probability for whether or not something could have happened.
The other major problem is that you can’t put a probability on “God did it.” Either you believe God did it or you don’t. So it’s really hard to compare that to any other scenario. Basically, if you believe in God, then it is fairly likely that “God did it.” If you don’t believe in God, then it is quite unlikely. But neither one is PROOF.

David
Thats an old article. Live Science and National Geographic also did nice pieces on it. Pretty cool find for a scientist that did not go to college huh? Only goes to show that the sheepskin doesn’t mean you are smart.
That was the first one. Since horners discovery there have been more (nobody ever bothered to look). It all depends on how much of the animal was actually fossilized. There is a good explanation as to how it was possible. The concept of degradation of tissues was simply wrong under some conditions. The chinese mummified fossils are similar. Dont get your hopes up. They got protiens but no DNA.

PQQAm
Very nice. Whats your opinion on Al Gores movie?

bubba
Sounds like someone is using the wrong approach, no?

The evidence that it is actually accelerating is pretty interesting. Its a funny old place, whatever it is.
>>bubba
Sounds like someone is using the wrong approach, no?<<
Hope they don't catch on.

>>BTW, lest some complain, the subject of “Expelled” is broader than just Evolution.<<
Right, well I'm not up enough on the expansion perspective to comment. But in general your dart example is known as the fine tuning argument. That so many things need to be just right for life and everything to exist. It's a perfectly fine philosophical argument. It's counter is the anthropic principle and it just goes round and round like most philosophical arguments.
I don't rule out a creator or multiple creators or a chain of creation or co-creation with universe and creator exising as equals. I just don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. The universe is a mystery to me.

>>David
Thats an old article. Live Science and National Geographic also did nice pieces on it. Pretty cool find for a scientist that did not go to college huh? Only goes to show that the sheepskin doesn’t mean you are smart.>>
Not sure what you mean. Mary Schweitzer is a PhD.
>>They got protiens but no DNA.>>
That is not the point. Proteins are ENOUGH. That should sufficiently prove that they could not have been in the ground for 65 million years. Pointing to some OTHER dino in China doesn’t HELP your view…it damages it more. I know that they AT FIRST thought it was an annomoly…I think it was first noted in 1998 or so and everyone (including Horner) blasted MS for thinking there were proteins. Then they started busting open MORE dinos and found them in about every one. I saw a Discovery show from 2005 which had MS and Jack H. pulling a giant dino bone off a shelf and chiselling into it…and sure enough they got soft tissue AGAIN.
Don’t try to pretend that this does not pose difficulty to ancient earth (AE) scientists. The Smithsonian article was named “Dino SHOCKER” for a REASON.
BTW, I think they DID get DNA from some bacteria in a stomach of a bee in amber….about 30 million years (supposedly). NOT LIKELY!

>>Try as hard as you like, you’re still losing in scientific circles, still losing in court and now losing the kids.>>
Strange…the data I’ve seen is that the % of population holding to creationist views is INCREASING. (Maybe I’ll hunt up the quote I saw a while back on that). Why can’t you atheists scientists get people to buy into what you are peddling…even WHEN you stack all the cards in your favor by “expelling” those who dissent?

Other than your say so, what evidence do you have the proteins couldnt remain intact for so long? I mean, I could say, “What, the sun burning for x years? Thats not very likely as we all know suns don’t burn for that long.” But unless I provide evidence for my claims about the sun….
So how old is the earth David? 6k? Have any evidence for that specific date? Where did you get it from then?

David
We are not athiests, we just dont put the bible in gods place, he goesn’t care for false idols.

>>That so many things need to be just right for life and everything to exist. It’s a perfectly fine philosophical argument. It’s counter is the anthropic principle and it just goes round and round like most philosophical arguments.>>
I guess I don’t get how the anthropic principle solves the problem when it comes to non-biological biophilic features of the U itself. If you were to suggest MULTIPLE U’s then maybe so. Then you could say, “it only appears to be designed because this happens to be the only one of many millions which accidentally ended up being just right.” But when you say there is just ONE U…then you have a problem not solvable that way. That is what Dawkins was admitting to I think. Any time you discuss the non-biological design, atheists always have to admit it and then they pull out the multiverse wacko idea to “solve” it. Talk about FAITH!
>>I don’t rule out a creator or multiple creators or a chain of creation or co-creation with universe and creator exising as equals. I just don’t have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. The universe is a mystery to me.>>
Sounds like you would want there to be free and fair study provided for both sides with no one “Expelled”…like the movie called for.

>>David
Horner dropped out of college to become one of the top paleontologists. It was his find and his recommendation to the field to start looking.>>
No kidding? I thought I saw “Dr.” in front of his name in a few places.
Ah! Found this:
Due to struggles with the learning disability, dyslexia, Dr. Horner does not hold a formal college degree but was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Science from the University of Montana in 1986.
I think Dr. Mary Schweitzer (who found it first) got her degree the old fashioned way.

David
You still dont get the point. If it cant be proven it is not acceptable to teach as a fact let alone a theory. One misleading point is the popular use of the word theory. People will say I have a theory about something when in fact all that they have is a concept or an idea, often not even a hypothesis. The Big Bang Theory id wrong, it is the Big Bang Hypothesis. They have a concept, made observations and have no proof. It sits at the same level as ID. Concept and observation to form a hypothesis but no proof. Big Bang is philosophy and so is ET did it. God did it is theology. What’s so hard to understand?

The other thing that you will find in science papers is co-authoring. If I found a fossil whose osteology was totally new and it had tissue I would get hold of someone like jock to co-author a paper because I am not a biologist (my brother is but he’s born again).

Quietman-
Some of those Stephen Hawking type physicists seem to think they have some real evidence for the Big Bang, with all of their residual cosmic radiation or whatever. I have no clue what they are talking about, but that’s what they say.

>>I don’t understand what our position in the Universe has to do anything. Fist of all, there is no evidence that we are in the exact center. IF you are right that the expansion would not look the same from every galaxy, we could still onoly say that we were somewhere in the central part of the universe. We can’t see the edge so there would be no way to measure.>>
It is the redshift that informs us of that. Counting the galaxies and finding the same amount in all directions might be due to what you said (we just can’t see all the way). But the redshift looks exactly as if all galaxies are receding from a central point….US. Now, the simplest interpretation of that (Occam’s Razor) is to say it looks that way because it IS that way. There is also a “quantization” of the redshift…it is in discrete shells around us at certain intervals or jumps in redshift. Not very likely EXCEPT if we are at the center.
The point is that if you are open to all possibilities and have not RULED OUT design…as some do…then the simpler explanation is that we were PUT here on PURPOSE.
BTW, I have read that besides redshift we also seem to be at the center of the “gamma ray burst” universe as well.

I think Horner is considered a decent scientist, if perhaps nothing special. He made his name by discovering baby dinosaurs (eggs and nests) which was mostly luck, but he had the wit to turn it into a successful research program, so more power to him.

Jock
I have a copy of the book he wrote shortly after that, a very easy writing style. I was very impressed. I only fault him with arguing with Bakker about T. rex speed and diet. I think Bakker got it right.

>> The Big Bang Theory id wrong, it is the Big Bang Hypothesis. They have a concept, made observations and have no proof.>>
When you speak about origins I’m not sure the word “proof” EVER could be used. If someone claims that Evolution is “proven” then they have only “proved” they don’t know what “proof” means!
>>It sits at the same level as ID. Concept and observation to form a hypothesis but no proof. Big Bang is philosophy and so is ET did it. God did it is theology. What’s so hard to understand?>
I pretty much agree with this. But you and most scientists don’t want to allow ID to be on the same level to be tested and investigated. You want to stop all challenges to atheistic evolution as a way to explain what we see…or at least you seem to be saying that to me. That’s the problem. That is at LEAST as dogmatic as any flat earthers Galileo faced.
“Was the Designer God” (or we may say WHICH God/god was He?) is indeed another question. Hopefully if people concluded there was a Designer, they may want to try to see if they can put some of the possible candidates to the test…just in case He (whoever He is) has some expectation of those who were designed by Him.

David,
We have nothing against ID being tested. But people have been claiming they have good evidence for it for a long time and we have yet to see it. Since there IS good evidence for evolution, forgive us if we say that until you can show it, we’re tired of hearing about it.
Scientists are naturally skeptical. Give us ANY hypothesis and we’ll start looking for alternatives. And argue with you about each one. Don’t take it personally; it’s just how the process works.

jock
I didn’t know it was on (I only watch TV on Sci-Fi friday) Thanks for the heads up.

David – “But you and most scientists don’t want to allow ID to be on the same level to be tested and investigated.”
Test away and investigate away. Unfortunately, none of the necessary assumptions upon which ID depends are testable. That is why there is currently no objective empirical to support ID.
*** “You want to stop all challenges to atheistic evolution as a way to explain what we see.”
I don’t want to stop diddly when it comes to challenging evolution – challenge away. I don’t want to stop diddly when it comes to investigating ID – investigate away. The only thing I want to prevent is teaching religious beliefs and concepts in science classes. Now, if you want to advocate for discussing ID in religion or legitimate philosophy classes go for it. I have made that suggestion several times on three different blogs. Why is it that not a single ID advocate has agreed with that suggestion? Why is it science class or not at all?
Constantly referring to evolution as atheistic reveals your prejudice. Evolution is neutral about God so it can’t be atheistic. Many people who are not atheists believe in evolution. I am not an atheist and I believe evolution is the process God designed to naturally develop life. Teilhard de Chardin is the first person I know of who was a major advocate for evolution being God’s natural process for developing life, and Chardin was a Jesuit priest. How can evolution be atheistic with all these non-atheists believing it, especially those of us who believe evolution is God’s process?

David – “It may astonish some to realize that the data tells us that we (Earth, the solar system, our galaxy) are positioned at/near the center of the universe.”
There is no center to the universe, we are no where near it, and the data tells us nothing of the kind. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to take a balloon and blow just a little air into it. That little balloon represents the universe when it was small, and the balloon represents space-time. Next take a marker and draw some “galaxies” on the balloon. Now continue to blow up the balloon. Every galaxy will be moving away from each other and none of them are near the center. Space-time curves around such that if you took off in a space ship and flew straight without ever altering course you would eventually end up back where you started. That is why we see the same number of galaxies in every direction. Every direction we look we are looking through/around curved space-time. If we could see far enough we would be able to look back on ourselves. And don’t ask what is inside the balloon because I have not yet been able to ask someone who could answer. It took me over two years to find someone who could answer my question about where virtual particles come from.

Quietman – Chardin was a paleontologist in addition to a philosopher. Some of his ideas were a little radical for his time so the church gagged him. Consequently he spent a lot of time doing digs in China. I think he is dead now. I learned about him in my intro to philosophy course and then did more research about him last year for an essay I wrote. It was an essay for my Honors Comp II class about; you guessed it, ID. The title was, “Keep Subject Matter Content Relevant to the Subject Being Taught: Intelligent Design – Stealth Religion, Not Science.” Until I learned about him I thought I was the Lone Ranger for believing that maybe evolution is God’s process.

BK>>I am not an atheist and I believe evolution is the process God designed to naturally develop life. >>
Then why are you opposed to ID? You just said “God designed”…is that not intelligent design?

In several previous posts I have gone into more detail. The only caveats are that I would require every high school freshman to take a semester of logic. We can’t expect students to think critically unless we teach them how. Then I would require every sophomore to take intro to philosophy for a year. Basically the same college course I had, just stretch it to a year. Again, we can’t expect students to think critically unless we teach them how and have them practice those skills for a while.

Another strong evidence against evolution. Two words: Fermi Paradox.
Another way to say it in 2 words: No ET’s.
If evolution is true, we should have tons of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligent) civilizations out there. We keep hearing how they MUST be out there, but so far the evidence is supportive that they AREN’T…even though we’ve been searching for 50 years or so and today have capability easily 1000 times greater than when the search began. If we ARE alone, then that would virtually PROVE evolutionary theory cannot be right. SO FAR the evidence is that we ARE alone.

>>I am not apposed to ID. I am apposed to teaching ID in science classes. ID is not science.>>
It may not be when you define science as merely “naturalism.” If you define it as “the truth about our world” then you SHOULD want ID taught or at least included as a possibility. If science is simply “what OTHER way can we explain things instead of the BEST way which includes the supernatural”…then I guess God and ID don’t belong in such “science” classes. Why would you not want science to include considering that there is no naturalistic explanation to give for everything? That sure doesn’t keep “science” from making up wild tales about how life began or where the Big Bang came from or what force caused it to expand. There are no naturalistic answers they have for those.
If you think there may EVER have been an actual MIRACLE done by Jesus or any other person, then you must agree that “science/naturalism” won’t give the correct answers for everything.

David – “If evolution is true, we should have tons of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligent) civilizations out there… SO FAR the evidence is that we ARE alone.”
Totally meaningless and irrelevant. First, it proves nothing. There are many reasons that could explain lack of contact. And a lot of anecdotal evidence that we have had contact but the government is covering it up to protect the most religious people from loosing their minds. Maybe nobody out there is more advanced than us. Since we are a third generation solar system, maybe tens of thousands civilizations have come and gone before our solar system even existed. Maybe they have a prime directive against contacting primitives like us. An absence of evidence is evidence of nothing. The key words are “so far.” Besides, so freaking what?

Woops, here is the if I dropped from the second sentence.

I am not sure how much time I can devote to this tomorrow or the next day…but I’ll try to write as much as I can w/o neglecting my work. Just letting all know that I am not discontinuing the discussion.

David
Life, let alone intelligent life, needs very special circumstances. So far we have not detected any of these circumstances outside of our own little solar system. That does not mean that they do not exist, only that we are still too primitive to learn about them. I think that they do exist and that they do visit us on occasion but attempt to keep their visits secret. I have seen a ufo (once when I was still dating) and that is when I became aware of how bluebook handled things. The morning after my future wife and I saw it, there was a picture of it on the front page of Newsday (a popular NY paper) clear as day. The following days paper printed a retraction along with an explanation from the Air Farce. I have never seen another mention of it.
I know of plenty of sitings ny cops that went unreported because of the pressure from their captains. That is why I said ET ID is possible but I do not think it probable, because given the rarity of habitable planets why not just colonize instead of seeding?

David – “It may not be when you define science as merely “naturalism.” If you define it as “the truth about our world” then you SHOULD want ID taught or at least included as a possibility.”
Who’s truth? Which kind of truth – Objective truth, Subjective truth, or Moral truth (sincere belief)? Most people only see what they believe instead of believing what they see. So most people don’t give a rat’s patootie about objective truth if it differs from what they already believe. For most people rationalizing away objective evidence is easier and less painful than changing beliefs.
Include ID as a possibility in philosophy classes until someone figures out how to actually test it. If something is not testable then all you have is dueling opinions. Explanations that rely entirely upon rationalism are never knowable, and can never have certainty. The best we can achieve in those circumstances is probable knowledge.
*** “If science is simply “what OTHER way can we explain things instead of the BEST way which includes the supernatural”…
Who gets to decide what is the best way? That standard is ridiculously subjective when there is no objective support. The natural is objectively knowable, the supernatural is not.

“It may not be when you define science as merely “naturalism.” If you define it as “the truth about our world” then you SHOULD want ID taught or at least included as a possibility. If science is simply “what OTHER way can we explain things instead of the BEST way which includes the supernatural”…then I guess God and ID don’t belong in such “science” classes. Why would you not want science to include considering that there is no naturalistic explanation to give for everything? That sure doesn’t keep “science” from making up wild tales about how life began or where the Big Bang came from or what force caused it to expand. There are no naturalistic answers they have for those. ”
Offcourse science should only deal with naturalistic explanations, since it’s based on observable evidence, not supernatural explanation.
If not, you could just as well include Zeus and Poseidon in meteorology as an equally valid supernatural explanation.

I believe David and PQQAm think they win just by having this dialogue. So they will ignore anything we say and just repeat themselves ad nauseum.
But, if they havent noticed, the idea of sustaining the debate on the internet isn’t getting them anywhere. Science isnt driven by amateurs who read popular accounts and who then spam religious cant internet forums. That won’t magically become a scientific theory or evidence to support it.
It’s just not working.

“”"”"Another strong evidence against evolution. Two words: Fermi Paradox.
Another way to say it in 2 words: No ET’s.
If evolution is true, we should have tons of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligent) civilizations out there. We keep hearing how they MUST be out there, but so far the evidence is supportive that they AREN’T…even though we’ve been searching for 50 years or so and today have capability easily 1000 times greater than when the search began. If we ARE alone, then that would virtually PROVE evolutionary theory cannot be right. SO FAR the evidence is that we ARE alone.”"”" —David
The theory of evolution says nothing about ET intelligence because the theory of evolution isnt about the origin of life, which we have told you about 1000000 times. To say whether life is common or not is speculation at this point.
But soon we will have some telescopes (within 15 years) capable of imaging light from earth sized worlds out to 40ly. This means they can analyze the atmospheres of planets similar to earth and see if they have certain biomarkers like oxygen (via ozone), water and CO2. Having all three on a planet with a similar configuration to earth would be strong signs of life. It would be similar to our own oxygen-CO2 cycles in nature.
Depending on the number of such worlds like that, it will be some kind of actual physical evidence regarding the frequency of life. At least life similar to our own.
And that information isn’t very far away.

BK:>>Life, let alone intelligent life, needs very special circumstances. So far we have not detected any of these circumstances outside of our own little solar system. That does not mean that they do not exist, only that we are still too primitive to learn about them. >>
If evolution is true then there MUST be more ETI’s out there. That is what is a very fair prediction of the theory. The only question is whether we should have heard from them or not yet. We should have. That is what the Fermi Paradox says. It says that (using something like the Drake Equation) if there are (I think the number Sagan got was) 10 million ETI civ’s in our galaxy, then one of them (at least!) would have found a way to colonize the galaxy and make its presence known. That does not even consider radio signals at all. That absence of any evidence of other ETI’s in our own galaxy (not to mention 100 billion others!) is a very good reason to doubt evolution. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it certainly lends toward that conclusion…at SOME point.

Good morning David,
Evolution would take different
paths on different worlds. There is nothing to say that intelligent life would be the inevitable result. But you are saying the fact that there are not 10 million planets with intelligent life, at least one of which has figured out how to circumvent the laws of physics in order to colonize the galaxy with faster-than-light travel, is some how proof that evolution couldn’t have happened on OUR planet??? Despite the fact that 250,000 species of fossilized organisms suggest that it did?

BK – “Include ID as a possibility in philosophy classes until someone figures out how to actually test it. If something is not testable then all you have is dueling opinions.”
ID can be tested. One example could be the following: Construct a system that examines patterns in sand. It would be used to determine if sand formations are natural or designed. There would be three aspects to it. The first aspect would be to compare the sand formation data against known natural sand formations. You would have to generate the database containing this information and write a program to compare pictures. The second aspect of the system would be to examine the known physical processes related to sand and see if any of them could account for pattern. This part of the system could range from very subjective to highly detailed in analysis of the known physical processes. The third aspect of the system would be to look for information in the sand formation. Using probability, you could establish the probability of the system being natural. If the probability was low enough, then you could conclude design.
This type of system could be expanded upon to search for life on other planets.
ID can be used to distinguish the natural form the designed. It can be used on simpler systems and expanded to evaluate life itself. One of the powers of the ID method is that it forces us to stay in the realm of science — we look at the known laws of science! If our knowledge is incomplete, then it will force us to develop knew laws of physics to explain the natural processes. It will be a tool that either leads to support evolution or to show that life was designed. This is why ID should be brought to the science lab and embraced by the mainline science community.

>>You can take that logic in the other direction too. If we conclude that a designer was NOT needed to evolve the variety of life, then the odds go way up that the origin of life did not need one either. >>
No, that is not logical at all. I can say that if something is powerful enough to do/explain some GREATER effect then it can also explain a LESSER one. It is not as likely that a cause sufficient to explain a LESSER effect will also be sufficient to explain a GREATER one.
Agreed?

David – “Consider the absurdity of this circular argument:
“Science can only consider naturalistic explanations, so saying that life cannot come from non-life by merely naturalistic means is a non-scientific assertion and therefore ipso facto must be untrue.”
The statement is only an absurd/fallacious circular statement if one either misunderstands or misapplies the statement’s intent. The intent of the statement is to be an analytic proposition/statement evaluating the legitimacy of a concept as a valid scientific thesis or hypothesis. Therefore, by definition of what constitutes legitimate science, the statement is perfectly valid. It is not making a statement about the nature or objective truth of unobserved and unobservable objective reality. By definition, the statement is untrue as a function of what constitutes valid science.
However, if someone tries to use the original statement as an analytic proposition about the objectively true nature of unobserved and unobservable events, then you are correct. In that situation the original statement is fallacious circular logic.
Consider the process of the scientific method:
Observations are made. Thus we have a posteriori information. And yes, I am intentionally making a distinction between information and knowledge.
Then someone forms a hypothesis. Thus we have an a posteriori hypothesis without a priori confirmation. Basically we have a hunch or a WAG.
Then someone tests the hypothesis to generate objective data. Next they reduce, analyze, and interpret the data to turn data into meaningful information. Next they reduce, analyze, and interpret the information to turn information into knowledge, or true information. Moral truth is not valid here. Subjective truth is not even sufficient. The goal is as much objective truth as we can generate.
Repeat until we confirm or refute the hypothesis. Modify the hypothesis as necessary. Now we have an a posteriori hypothesis AND a posteriori confirmation.
Repeat until we have sufficient knowledge to formulate a theory. Now we have an a posteriori thesis with BOTH a priori AND a posteriori confirmation. Why is this? Because we continue testing the theory! When we are lucky we generate enough objective knowledge to develop a scientific law. I wonder if more Nobel prizes have been won by confirming theories or by refuting/changing theories?
Anyway, repeat the testing process we went through for testing the hypothesis until we have enough a posteriori knowledge to confirm, modify, or refute the theory.
IDers want to completely skip the testing part of science and go straight to an a priori unconfirmed/unconfirmable theory. That is not legitimate science. That might work just fine for natural philosophy, or supernatural philosophy, or metaphysics, but it is terrible science. God is not necessarily a valid negative default explanation for everything or anything we do not yet understand.

>>Anyway, repeat the testing process we went through for testing the hypothesis until we have enough a posteriori knowledge to confirm, modify, or refute the theory.
IDers want to completely skip the testing part of science and go straight to an a priori unconfirmed/unconfirmable theory. That is not legitimate science.
>>
So, I guess hypothetically, if someone claimed to have miraculous power and then created life from non-life…or raised the dead or made a lump of gold from nothing….the “science” could not tell us anything at all about whether that took place. Is that correct? Is it only able to tell us it did NOT take place…but never could tell us it DID?
What good is THAT…if you want to really KNOW what happened? I realize that know what happened in the distant past is harder to examine than what happened TODAY…but in principle it is much the same.
And besides…it is untrue that science does not try to come up with its own answers which are in total conflict with all we know about the natural world. Thermodynamics2 tells us that the U cannot be eternal and T1 tells us it cannot naturally come from nothing and biogensis tells us life only comes from life. That tells us, using SCIENCE that we have to consider the possibility (or LIKELIHOOD) that some supernatural event happened. At least to those who have not ruled out that possibility by their philosophy.

David – “>>The theory of evolution says nothing about ET intelligence because the theory of evolution isn’t about the origin of life, which we have told you about 1000000 times. >> That is a nice dodge attempt but it is bogus. Here is why. This movie/thread is about ID. The origin of life is indeed a part of that topic.”
True (that the thread is about ID) but irrelevant. The real issue is whether or not ID is a legitimate scientific anything. Constantly bringing up origin of life issues is a red herring fallacy IDers use to divert the discussion away from the real issue – ID is not legitimate science.
It also doubles as a straw man fallacy because when evolutionists point out that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life (that is a totally separate biochemical hypothesis) you people say; well see, evolution can’t be correct because it can’t explain the origins of life. Both fallacies are only two of many intellectually dishonest ploys.

David -
I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak, or at least found the nail:
“Maybe one realm of “science” should be “how to explain things if all we include are naturalistic causes”. ”
David, that IS the definition of science. You are right that science insists on talking about naturalistic causes because that’s what it IS. It is a logic system that can only work with concrete evidence.
And you are also right that science is not the only way of getting at the “Truth.” The realms of religion and supernatural causes are closed to it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no supernatural, it only means that we cannot prove the supernatural scientifically, BY DEFINITION.
That is why we keep saying that there doesn’t have to be a conflict between science and religion. We are talking about two completely different “ways of knowing.” What Gould called “non-overlapping magisteria.”
The ONLY time there is a conflict is when people try to apply one “way of knowing” to the other. Either by trying to disprove God scientifically, or in the other direction by claiming religion says X, so science should say X too even if their is no scientific evidence for it. PEOPLE can choose X, but science cannot.

David – “if you conclude that there was indeed a designer needed to initiate life, then odds go WAY UP that the same designer had something to do with its variety.”
The “conclusion” that there was indeed a designer is totally rationalistic and is not testable. That is a belief, not an objective conclusion. Therefore any thesis or hypothesis that depends upon it cannot be a legitimate science. If your only motivation is for open and honest discussion, why can’t discussion in philosophy classes or metaphysics classes or religion classes be sufficient? Why is it so important that the discussion only be in science classes?

Its possible that intelligence is incredibly rare. Or it’s possible that the development of radio waves is soon followed by destructive technologies that end civilizations, or it’s possible that the origin of life is so rare (and possibly even divinely inspired) that there is no life anywhere else. There are other possibilities as well and the search for life is a field that is in it’s infancy. Soon we’ll have more data, and eventually we will have landers checking places like mars, europa and io for life in our own solar system.
Why do you jump to the third conclusion based on such little evidence? So much for an open mind or waiting for some actual data.
I guess everything we need to know was delivered to us in the bronze age and we should just quit now.

David – The challenge was to provide OBJECTIVE empirical data to support the assumptions. Not provide more rationalizations. The point is that ID is not testable and therefore is not a legitimate science. Debating what ifs does not solve or address that core issue.

>>David, that IS the definition of science. You are right that science insists on talking about naturalistic causes because that’s what it IS. It is a logic system that can only work with concrete evidence.
And you are also right that science is not the only way of getting at the “Truth.” The realms of religion and supernatural causes are closed to it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no supernatural, it only means that we cannot prove the supernatural scientifically, BY DEFINITION.
>>
Hang on there. I just don’t agree that we have to relegate “truth” below “science/naturalism” in the way you seem to suggest. Let us suppose for instance that there were some brand new discovery in science that permitted us to resolve totally the age of the earth and it actually DID say that it was…say…100,000 years old or less. Let’s say that those blood vessels and soft tissue of Dinos somehow were proven to be NOT from 65 mya but rather it was in the range of 100,000. Or let’s say (just hypothetically) that someone DID find a human skeleton in the belly of a T-Rex. I know that there would be major sidestepping to try to keep evolution alive…suggesting we just don’t know what we thought we did about how fast evolution can happen (yada yada) but the real result of something like that would say that the naturalistic explanation needs to be tossed. Isn’t it fair that science at least keep open to that possibility?
Finding humans tracks at Laetoli or C14 in large amounts inside coal and diamonds, or a large cat track in Cretaceous substrate or human skeletons in Cretaceous substrate … are pretty close to doing that. IF something like a brand new aging technique which puts the actual age at 100,000 years or less WERE to be found and validated…wouldn’t THAT be a legitimate area of inquiry for science, even if it forces one to reject naturalism?
If not, then all we are saying is that “science/naturalism” is a religion which must not be messed with no matter WHAT we might learn.
BTW, it appears that some in this thread are wanting a flame war rather than discussion and if that is what it turns into it will end my participation. If that is what you non-ID’s want instead of discussion then keep up the flaming.

BK>>The “conclusion” that there was indeed a designer is totally rationalistic and is not testable. That is a belief, not an objective conclusion. Therefore any thesis or hypothesis that depends upon it cannot be a legitimate science. >>
I don’t agree that it is not testable or objective to look at evidence of design or apparent design. Once that is observed (i.e. features which are “just right” far far too many times to be due to just chance) then a theory needs to be found to explain it. I don’t believe ONLY naturalism should be the ONLY possible explanation. If someone thinks the best explanation of biophilic features of the U is to say that all those just happened to work out right for the one and only U there has ever been (which defies reason) or that they all worked out right for this ONE but didn’t work out right for a billion OTHER U’s supposedly out there…then in my mind they are not being very rational or objective. (Same goes for the pure chance needed to get to the first cell of life.) And of course those very irrational naturalistic ideas for apparent desing in the U are not “testable” either, but they sure get discussed as possibilities in “science” anyway!

SUPPOSE science had a way to search throughout our entire galaxy and found NOT ONE other life form on ANY other planet…would that disprove a naturalistic cause for the origin and variety of life on earth… (at least to a reasonable mind)?
Someone (Arthur Clarke I think) said that EITHER finding out we are not alone…OR finding out we ARE alone are BOTH frightening thoughts. If science would search for ETI for 10,000 years and did NOT find it…would that be a basis to reasonably conclude that life and variety of life had to have a creator/designer rather than being only a product of blind, random, naturalistic forces?

Bubba>>Its possible that intelligence is incredibly rare. Or it’s possible that the development of radio waves is soon followed by destructive technologies that end civilizations, >>
You really should read and understand the Drake equation before writing about it. They DID factor these ideas in. That is how they got from 100 billion stars down to only 10 million ETI civs.
>>or it’s possible that the origin of life is so rare (and possibly even divinely inspired) that there is no life anywhere else.>>
Naturalism claims to have an answer to the origin of life, whether the non-ID’s on this thread will admit it or not. They would scoff at someone suggesting it was “possibly divinely inspired.” If you said that in a class you were teaching, they would take your tenure away and “expel” you. Should they?

BK>>”That is a preposterous statement. DNA doesn’t “know” anything. Changes occur and they improve survivability, harm survivability, or are neutral. The neutral changes and the changes that improve survivability are passed on to descendents. There are many things that can cause changes to DNA: Inaccurate copies, damage from chemicals in the environment, damage from normal background radiation are just three. Evolution is primarily reactive, not proactive.”
If DNA “doesn’t know anything”, I am wondering how it was smart enough to go from a single cell to a human being, much less going from dirt, water, and air to something. You say “changes occur” but do not explain how. This broad stroke is continuously used by evolutionists to simply an enormously complex process. Wasn’t it Dawkins who thought evolution was as simple as digestion?

I’m sorry, I meant to say Darwin, not Dawkins implying that evolution was as “simple” as digestion.

>>Complexity in and of itself is proof of nothing besides something is complex.
I agree with David on this one in that chipped stone tools show evidence of design – and even Richard Dawkins agrees on this point.

>>So either the Bible is occasionally wrong, or the laws of physics and all of the evidence we can see before our eyes is wrong. Your choice.
>>
Third choice: Naturalism is wrong.
It is a bad religion.

I don’t get it. Either there was a world-wide flood or there wasn’t. Either the earth is young or old. What is the third choice?

>>What if the ET’s arrived and said, “you mean you didn’t figure out we had to be out here? I mean we designed the Earth to be just “so” and we put all these complex creatures we designed on it…and you COULDN’T see we (or something LIKE us) had to exist even though we were invisable to you???”
I don’t think people some WANT to see. It is much easier to say that everything is a result of random events (no “need” for God) and then have no accountability for our lives on earth.

David
If T2 tells you that the universe can not be eternal then explain what lies beyond.

B K
The literal creationists are pithecophobic, they will simply not accept evolution. The intent is to derail science so that they can do their indoctrination of mythology without interference.

Jock59801>>”1. If there is variation within a population of organisms that allows some individuals to leave more offspring than others, AND if that variation is inherited by the offspring, then the next generation will be more like the individuals with the preferred trait.”
With that argument, there should have been mammals without synovial fluid in their joints; there should have been humans with low-def vision (low number of rods and cones); there should have been mammals whose blood overclotted repeatedly, causing instant death;- there should have been hominids without the carpal tunnel (or tarsal tunnel), there should have been mammals without the ear canals having three perfectly orthoganal loops for balance, etc. I honestly don’t know how long this list is, but looking at all the bioscience and medical research that mankind has done, we can find millions of functions and features that we take for granted, and to assume that creatures were “culled out” through “natural selection” if they didn’t have these features is not only absurd, it is false. Creaturess would have survived without these features, although it would have been uncomfortable, and at times, miserable. I am not aware of any fossil evidence showing any of these features missing. Culling is not a creative process and does not “produce” anything.

Species are known to change relatively fast within its species. It can only change so much and it is more like a cycle than a continual changing. It can only change with what it (already) has to work with. We cannot say that a species does things that we have not seen it do. That is not science. It is fiction and it not even something that “could have happened” because the information is not there to make those kinds of changes.
Any mutations are “bad mutations”. It is losing what it had. A creature is designed to to certain things and by design are not able to do other things. It is either one thing or another. (A rhino cannot fly and a bird cannot charge a lion.)
Man, on the other hand was made to emulate his Creator although man too cannot be everything that God is because of the limitations of this life. Darwin had an idea but that idea is basically flawed because each individual species does not have all information.
Creatures were not made to be transformers. Their transformations are limited to various realms of flying walking hunting swimming etc.. That is the way that they were made. To deny this is to deny reality and even your sanity. So take care.

David,
It is simply a matter of scale. The smaller a period of time involved, the less likely it is for a representative fossil to be formed and then discovered by us. That’s a very rare occurrence. We have found fossils for less than 1 percent of the species that ever lived.
So even under a purely gradualistic model, it will be unusual for us to get two fossils very close together on the sequence. It can happen, but it is relatively rare. You can simulate this pattern by picking a sequence of random locations along a line. All Gould was saying is if evolution happens faster during speciation events, then we would be that much less likely to catch a speciation event in our small sample.
The other problem is that you can’t tell that a fossil is from a speciation event just by looking at it. A fossil was simply an organism minding its own business like all the others. Or looked at another way, ALL fossils are transitional forms between something and something else. But if you want to show that your fossil is from a rapid speciation event, you would have to show that it is a very rare form between two other closely related forms that are more common.
Yeah, it gets complicated.

If evolution was something, then there might be a reason to fear but evolution is nothing because it is not even true. It is totally baseless and denying the truth. So evolution can only hurt those who believe in it. It is like believing in and giving credit to a rock. That is insanity.

>>That’s a very rare occurrence. We have found fossils for less than 1 percent of the species that ever lived.
>>
That is an interesting statement. How do they know they lived if nothing has ever been found? Is this another one of those circular arguments ev’s are so good at?
What if you kept looking for the next 1000 years and still had not found the other 99%…I suppose those are the transitionals that “ought” to be there. At that point would you say they aren’t there because THEY NEVER LIVED…or would you say “let’s look for another 1000 years because we KNOW they are there because we KNOW evolution is true”?

David
Re: “Hang on there. I just don’t agree that we have to relegate “truth” below “science/naturalism” in the way you seem to suggest.”
There are two ways the word “truth” is used in these posts. Science IS about the search for THE truth, meaning FACTS.
The philosophical truths used in faith are not involved here.
Seeking “truth” through logic or through faith is not the same thing.
The truth can not be resolved in science without sticking to the laws of nature. It isn’t “naturalism” it’s natural law, there is a difference. Naturalism refers to a philosophy while the natural laws are the laws of science. If you can not accept the laws of science then there can be no discussion.

“How do they know they lived if nothing has ever been found?”
We can’t know the real number, of course. We can only estimate the probability of a species being fossilized, and mutlply it by an estimate of the probability that we would discover it if it was. A very rough estimate to be sure. The only thing we can say for sure is, that with our tiny sample of the world, we can’t possibly have all of the species accounted for.

>>The truth can not be resolved in science without sticking to the laws of nature. It isn’t “naturalism” it’s natural law, there is a difference. Naturalism refers to a philosophy while the natural laws are the laws of science. If you can not accept the laws of science then there can be no discussion.>>
What about this idea…would you allow for evidence to be considered in a science class which challenged the validity or reliability of the age of the earth? That is not directly teaching “design” but it may have indirect implications. For instance, the C14 in coal results….if those were studied and given the same fair hearing that other results are given (including any challenges to their accuracy etc.)…would that be legit for science? Or does the fact that it would have implications against naturalism cause such a study to be not “fit” to be in a science class?

“I don’t believe in twisting the Bible to “make” it fit science.”
Yes, it is a very dangerous situation that the fundamentalists get themselves into, when they seem to think that either the Bible is literally true, or God does not exist at all. How silly. Most religious people throughout history have been fine with the notion that their sacred stories, even if divinely inspired, were written down by mortals and they may have gotten some of the facts wrong. After all, they couldn’t have known how old the earth was unless God told them directly, and He might not have bothered because it really wasn’t important.

“would you allow for evidence to be considered in a science class which challenged the validity or reliability of the age of the earth?”
Of course, but we could only evaluate the alternatives using science. Are decay rates reliable? Are there alternative ways to produce C14? Etc., etc.
In fact, I actually think this debate SHOULD be in science classrooms. It is obvious that most people have no idea what evolution is, what science is, or what the scientific evidence for evolution is. It would indeed be very helpful to show students WHY scientists have concluded that evolution is the correct theory. And teach it in a way that the students can follow it through and figure it out for themselves. Science classes should never be lectures about facts. It should always involve students in learning how the scientific process works; in essence, learning how to learn.

Jock
One of the issues is also tying up the class with an argument in creation at the cost of a proper education.

“Evolution is an example of mythology. It is not being honest with the facts.”
Now that is the pot calling the kettle black if I’ve ever heard one.

Quietman, any one can say anything. Where is your backing? Where is your support for what you are saying?

Quietman, you didn’t answer anything.

David
Re: “If evolution is true the whoever wrote the Flood account in Gen. 6-9 deceived us.”
Not really. There were local floods that covered evetrhing known to the primitives of that time. That was their world and so that is how they told it. In the middle east, long before moses, the sumerians had a myth of a world flood. Instead of Noah, the surviver was Utnabishtim (or something close to that, it’s been a good 30 or 40 years since I read mythology). The Babylonians much later had modified this myth into the legend of Gilgamesh.
As you know from the bible, the reason the jews left babylon is because the people were being corrupted with babylonian customs and ideas. The story of Noah is one of those ideas that entered into their belief system that they found useful as it carried a good moral message about god’s wrath.
So no, its not being deceitful, its just a matter of the story passed by word of mouth amongst a people with no script slowly changing as it gets retold.

The flood is not a myth. It is one of the easiest things in history to prove. Also, it was easier to flood the whole earth back then because that was before the mountains were “pushed up”.
A comet is a real possibility for not only causing the rain but also for opening or releasing the water that was below the surface of the earth …just like the Bible says.

Quietman, fiction is not backing. You need to be able to explain, in your own words, what it is that you believe.

The thing about the flood, if there was water below the surface of the earth like the Bible says, that means that the earth’s surface would have literally sunk below the surface of the rising water.
As a reminder, the next time the earth will be destroyed, it will be by fire.

Quietman, Christianity started when Adam and Eve sinned when God first spoke of Christ. That is when faith in Christ began.

: )

PQQAm
I really wish that you could meet my brother, he’s born again and ID. You would get along really well.

jock
You’re right, as usual.
BTW I caught Hot Topics, learned a few things about Gore I wasn’t aware of. Glad I didn’t vote for him. Too bad about Whitman, she was a great governor when I lived in NJ. Would have liked to see her run for higher office.

>>>Once you conclude the U can’t be eternal then you have really only two choices,…it popped into existence from nothingness spontaneously (now that’s REAL scientific!) or it was created by an intelligent and powerful supernatural being.<<>>That sort of is my point…that you can’t try to pass off this mutually compatible “non-overlapping magisteria” of naturalism and the Bible. <<< –David
You are entitled to your opinion but a great many christians disagree with you here.

PQQAm
God only knows

bubba, it is not about how many there are or who is winning. It is about who is right and who is deluded.

wonderer57-
The likelihood of any one particular species being fossilized and then discovered is quite low. I discussed this more in a previous comment (6:33:35 PM) if you are interested.
I’m not even sure what particular snapshot in time you are looking for. there is no one “missing link.” Every fossil we find is a link between mutiple forms, but since we found it, it is no longer missing!
We have fossil samples of quite a few species in the course of human evolution. Not enough yet to be sure of all of their relationships, especially because it is clear that there was not a single straight line of evolution. There were a lot of side branches so it gets very confusing. And there were almost certainly times when there were multiple hominid species occurring at once

jock
Chris Beard talks about the same issues with early primates from the Eocene and Oligocene. He feels that he is on track to the ghost lineage in eosimias.

bubba, in order to learn something you have to learn from someone who knows what they are talking about. Don’t assume anything. Be logical and rational. Don’t believe everything you hear.
With that, I have to leave you and the others to try to figure things out without me for a while.

bubba
yep, that describes my brother as well.

The weird part is that I am trying to type replies and explain to my wife what I’m laughing so hard about.

QM:>>Yes, I believe that it is eternal and that the BIG Bang even is actually a local event, but thats my opinion, we are all entitled to our own opinions. >>
Are you saying you believe something even though it is in direct conflict with “science” and has no evidence to support it and lots of evidence seeming to refute it? (i.e. T2 says the U is “running down” so it could not be eternal).
QM>>But I could not teach it in a class, now could I.>>
>
I would defend your right to challenge the BB and offer up reasoning and evidence for your view. It may be true that you too would be “expelled” with such a view, but the question is SHOULD you be?

>>Instead of Noah, the surviver was Utnabishtim (or something close to that, it’s been a good 30 or 40 years since I read mythology). The Babylonians much later had modified this myth into the legend of Gilgamesh.
As you know from the bible, the reason the jews left babylon is because the people were being corrupted with babylonian customs and ideas. The story of Noah is one of those ideas that entered into their belief system that they found useful as it carried a good moral message about god’s wrath.
So no, its not being deceitful, its just a matter of the story passed by word of mouth amongst a people with no script slowly changing as it gets retold.
>>
Like I said…it should not be twisted like this.
If a book PURPORTS to be actual history of a global flood and then I find out it didn’t happen, then I KNOW it was not divinely inspired and it cannot help me toward God or life beyond this life. So as I said, both cannot be true…and there is no “non-overlapping magisteria”. All Gould was doing was to water down religion and relegate it to being subordinate to science…HIS religion.

David
Ideas like the Big Bang are only a hypothesis. There is evidence that could indicate it happened but could easily indicate otherwise. And I would be wrong to tell someone my idea was true only because I may share that idea in common with some other people, regardless of how many. As an example, I see eye to eye with jock on most subjects but not on climate change. I remain skeptical for exactly the same reason that you are skeptical about natural creation. Lots of evidence but all circumstantial and no way to test it. Not that I don’t accept that there is change but that the reason for it is not well enough known. Does that sound at all illogical to you?

David,
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “transitional incomplete organs,” but we do have quite a bit of that sort of thing. For one thing, “organs” makes me think of soft tissue, which doesn’t fossilize.
In the living animal world, we do have, for example, all kinds of eyes representing many different stages, from primitive “light sensitive” clusters of neurons, to compound eyes and other advanced forms.
For fossils, we have some wonderful series showing, for example, the progression of the reptile jaw articulation migrating to become the inner ear bones of mammals, including one species that has BOTH the reptilian and mammalian jaw articulations in the same individual!

Jock, if I’m not mistaken you seem pretty “up” on hominid evolution. For 35 years we were told that Lucy was ancestral to man…and most today still believe that. And yet I think her position was built on a house of cards. They used the Laetoli tracks to support the idea of her being an efficient biped…because they were dated about the same as she, and the tracks were identical to modern humans. They did not have any foot bones so they figured the tracks were hers (her species) and made paintings and statues of her with human-like feet. All that was fine for 25 years or so and all the kiddies were taught to believe she was the missing link. Then they found a foot. (STW 573…”Little Foot”). NO WAY that foot could make the Laetoli tracks. And no OTHER hominid could either. Only a human. If humans lived alongside of Lucy, then that comes pretty close to upending the whole idea of evolution.

I forgot to address this from Jock:>>I don’t understand what our position in the Universe has to do anything.>>
If we ARE at or near the very center of the actual U, wouldn’t you agree that is a very very unlikely place to end up being just by chance? Odds are at least a billion to one against that (if you use the diameter of a galaxy as the size of the center “point”). If indeed it were learned that we actually ARE at the center (and the data supports that…only “we couldn’t be that special” philosophy refutes it)…then I would suggest that is good evidence for design.
If you say it would NOT be, please explain why. I am not saying absolute and total PROOF, but just “more reasonable” to say it was design and not just chance. Wouldn’t you agree?

David
In Dr. Filler’s words: ““humanity can be redefined as having its origin with Morotopithecus.
There are several good articles on the web and Dr. Filler’s “Upright Ape” website.

>>And I would be wrong to tell someone my idea was true only because I may share that idea in common with some other people, regardless of how many. >>
Of course I would agree…but I would not say that is a fair way to describe ID’s or creationists. That is your rather unflattering way to “diss” the position. Just address the arguments and refrain from the disses and we can maybe make some headway here.
>>As an example, I see eye to eye with jock on most subjects but not on climate change. I remain skeptical for exactly the same reason that you are skeptical about natural creation. Lots of evidence but all circumstantial and no way to test it. Not that I don’t accept that there is change but that the reason for it is not well enough known. Does that sound at all illogical to you?
>>
No, but BOTH sides are not able to “test” in the manner science usually seeks to test things. The process is not replicatable. Evolution is not observable in process (I know some THINK it might be, but that is a stretch). It all depends on interpretation of fossil evidence and maybe a few other lesser types of evidence. That is not saying it is unknowable (to a reasonable certainty). Each view has some “predictions” the ability of a hypothesis to make reliable predictions is part of what makes it believable. For instance, evolution predicts that all types of evidence of YOUTH for the planet must be explainable. I don’t believe that prediction has been proven true. Polystrate fossils are a good example. I have a photo of a polystrate tree about 50 feet tall passing through 3 limestone layers and 2 coal seams. I cannot see how that can be explained in an AE way.

“No, but BOTH sides are not able to “test” in the manner science usually seeks to test things.”
I think that is what we have been saying. Even if we could show to everyone’s satisfaction that complex organs could evolve through natural selection, it still doesn’t prove that God didn’t have anything to do with it. That is still a matter of faith, and untestable by science.

>>Lucy is an example of one species of Australopithecus, there were others. Also there were other homonids before and after and coexisting with Lucy. You may recall that I mentioned Morotopithecus before. Here are some good cantidates to look at over at ScienceDaily:
Early Apes Walked Upright 15 Million Years Earlier Than Previously Thought, Evolutionary Biologist Argues
ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2007)
>>
Perhaps there were other “hominids” or “pre-hominids” (I think upright bipedalism is the standard to be hominid, right?) alongside of Lucy and before her…but NONE was ever touted like she was…of being a modern walker. NONE. I’m sure no one would try to suggest those you mentioned were efficient modern walkers like the Laetoli walkers were. The main reason Lucy was suppose to be so modern in her walk was due to the Laetoli tracks and MAYBE her pelvic structure and knee valgus angle. But the FOOT had to be right to make the Laetoli tracks. And there is not a single known species other than MAN with a foot like that. They TRIED to make Lucy have one, and for years it “flew” because no one had found a foot (just a few tiny toe bones) But with STW 573 it was clear they were wrong…and yet most STILL continue the lie about Lucy. The statue in St. Louis still has her with a human foot. It will still be in the textbooks like that 50 years from now, no doubt.
(Actually, STW 573 was thought to be A. africanus which some think is MORE recent than Lucy, and it still had an opposable hallux. Tobias (the discoverer) would put both in the same species though.)

Quietman=
“…that allows us to transfer our weight straight to our legs, something that other apes are not capable of with any comfort.”
I certainly would not have wanted to be the FATHER of the first ape who could do that!

David,
“But with STW 573 it was clear they were wrong…and yet most STILL continue the lie about Lucy.”
I don’t know if you are talking about scientists or the media. Scientists often get things wrong, of course. That is how science works. If there is evidence they were wrong, the experts in the field would acknowledge that (after lot of argument, no doubt), even if other scientists and the media are not aware of it yet.
The media have a particular problem with science. They try, but they often don’t understand it enough to really explain it well.

jock
That giant step in evolution is mirrored in that ape in Isreal that stopped knuckle walking after an injury, and always walks upright now.

>>including one species that has BOTH the reptilian and mammalian jaw articulations in the same individual! >>
Wouldn’t that tend to disprove the idea that ear bones were relocated and resized jaw bones?

David
When one thinks of jaw bones one thinks primarily about the lower jaw. Before I get to involved I need to know how up you are on osteology and morphology so I know what parts I can skip over. Are you for instance, familiar with the concept that all of the bones are modified vertebra?

David
The last sentence in the abstract that you linked to reads “Morotopithecus may be the only well-documented African Miocene hominoid with a close relationship to living apes and humans.”
But if you would see a little more about it I strongly suggest going to the source at Dr. Filler’s site. He has the full paper available to download.

“Wouldn’t that tend to disprove the idea that ear bones were relocated and resized jaw bones?”
No, I probably wasn’t clear. Mammals and reptiles have different bones that articulate with the upper jaw. First the shift occurred from one to the other (hence the transitional form with both – obviously you can’t have an animal with NO jaw articulation). THEN the old bones that reptiles had used, no longer having a function, migrated up to eventually form the inner ear bones.

Re: “Pardon us theists for still thinking this is damaging and diminishing.”
Sorry that you use your circular logic to arrive at that conclusion. We certainly said nothing of the kind.

Quietman – Thank you. You can use anything I write. And I don’t even care if you provide any attribution. :)I needed to run off to work earlier. Then I had a test tonight. I can see that I got way way behind. No way to get caught up.

>>Before I get to involved I need to know how up you are on osteology and morphology so I know what parts I can skip over. Are you for instance, familiar with the concept that all of the bones are modified vertebra?>>
I am not familiar at all with ev. theory about which individual bones came from which. I would I guess assume that if you go back far enough where the only bone was the backbone, then all the other bones WOULD have to come from a part of the backbone…or else be just formed from soft tissue.
But my point is that finding the presence of BOTH jaw and ear bones in the same individual would tend to DISprove the theory that ear bones are relocated jawbones…at least that would seem logical to me.

If the heavens and the earth were created before the fist “evening and morning”, there is no “need” for a “young earth”. The only thing that is “young” is life on earth, which is about 6000 years according to genealogical and historical records.
Do you know what that means?
It means that everything the Bible says is true!

The existence of God requires the responsibility to accurately represent everything about God (tell the truth).
People who misrepresent God’s (true) word are in serious danger of being wrong forever for which a perfect God will demand justice for.
The good news is that God took our judgment on Himself but we still have to speak the truth.

David
OK, I understand where you are at then.
The backbone is derived from a notochord which is soft tissue so it sounds like you have the basic idea.
As the backbone developed in did so bilateraly so the left basically mirrors the right. As vertebrates became more complex the foremost of the vertebrae slowly morphed into the bones of the skull and various of the vertebrae slowly morphed into appendages. The key to your question on jaw bones is understanding that the skull is multiple vertebra that each became specialized and the jaw bones were originally only on top. Early vertebates were “jawless” fish.
Skipping ahead a bit we have several bones fused into the both the lower and upper jaws, and the upper jaws fused to the skull, but not like ours. These fusions were incomplete, leaving gaps or holes. The location of the gaps are used to divide the major classes. The anapsids had no large openings behind the eye sockets, synapsids have one large opening behind each eye, diapsids have 2 large openings behind each eye.
The number of bones forming the skull does not change from anapsdis through diapsids, but how they are fused does.
Mammals come from the diapsid line, reptiles such as turtles are still anapsids , dinosaurs and birds are diapsids. The anapsid hinge is very simple (vertical movement only). In order to chew food this had to change. In dinosaurs and mammals this change went in very different directions as mammals can move the lower jaw in three planes while the dinosaurs were stuck with only the old reptilian vertical movement but the lower left and right jaws split on the herbivores allowing a horizontal sissoring while the mammals, in rearranging the bones at the hinge backwards to become earbones could move the lower jaw forward and side to side as well as up and dowm. The bones moved out of the way, no longer needed for the jaw were no longer fastened to anything and became the earbones.

David – “That’s a nice thought but it won’t work because the Bible is not silent about origins or even age of earth. It makes for instance a claim that there was a recent global (not regional) flood which killed off all land life. It is present not as myth but as history. So it is one or the other which is true…not both”
Yes, both can be true. You are correct that both cannot be fact (objectively true). But both can be true. It all depends upon how you define truth. If we assume that the authors of the books in the Bible sincerely believed what they wrote, then it would be reasonable to conclude that everything in the Bible is moral truth, or sincere belief. If we also assume that from the perspectives of their value and belief systems they completely trusted their sources, we could also reasonably conclude that everything in the Bible is subjective truth. Now let us make the worst case assumption that everything in the Bible is factually wrong, does that then make the authors liars? No, because they had no intent to deceive because intent to deceive is a necessary condition for lying. Does than then mean there is no truth in the Bible? No, because even if everything is factually wrong, that does not change the reality that the writers completely trusted and believed their sources and thus everything they wrote is still subjective truth; and because they wrote what they sincerely believed everything is still moral truth. Just because they recorded things that they sincerely believed does not necessarily mean their beliefs and or perceptions were factually correct.
*** “If evolution is true then whoever wrote the Flood account in Gen. 6-9 deceived us.”
Not necessarily. Deception must be intentional. Again, intent to deceive is a necessary condition for lying/deceiving. Even if every element of a statement is factually correct a statement can still be a lie – that is a lie of omission if key elements are intentionally left out knowing that the result will the wrong conclusion. If they sincerely believed what they wrote, there was no deception. Perception is reality to the perceiver, even when perception is inaccurate. Just because they were factually wrong does not necessarily mean they were trying to deceive anyone. If you read the other two blogs you will see that this is old territory and has been gone over extensively.

David – “Once that is observed (i.e. features which are “just right” far far too many times to be due to just chance)…”
Prove it. Where is your objective evidence?
***”… then a theory needs to be found to explain it.”
Well then, form a hypothesis and test it. After you gather enough data to support a theory, be the founder of a theory. Don’t let a little thing like the impossibility of testing your claims get in your way.
*** “I don’t believe ONLY naturalism should be the ONLY possible explanation.”
Well, that is your choice. How about this, evolution works because God designed it to work as a natural process precisely the way it works. Don’t you think God is smart enough to figure out how to design and then use natural processes to accomplish what God needs them to accomplish? Why do you need God to be a micromanaging puppet master?

“Take a look at this picture and tell me if it appears to go through the layers to you.”
I’m not sure you can tell much from a picture. The bottom sure looks like a different layer, but then that could have been the root bole, which would have been covered earlier. There doesn’t have to be a lot of time between layers anyway, like if there were frequent floods or whatever (but completely different kinds of layers would have been from different processes.)
I think a geologist would have to look at clues from nearby formations, or take the time and expense to do some actual dating.
But then I’m not a geologist, so I am free to kind of make it up as I go along. ;-)

Realist “You say “changes occur” but do not explain how.”
Wrong. Read it again. I gave three possible eplanations after, “There are many things that can cause changes to DNA:
Get your facts straight.

David
The photo in the article I have isn’t very good so I can’t even make it out as a foot. But just because one is older than the other does not mean they are a linear progression. Thats what the argument over habilis and erectus is all about. Bosei is now classed as an authropithecus as well.

David,
If afarensis is older than africanus it doesn’t necessarily mean that one evolved into the other. There were apparently many branches and they could have been on different lines. We don’t seem to have enough material to really sort it all out for sure anyway. So there is lots of room for fun arguments!

You all seem to be more up on all the hominids than me anyway. I don’t always keep up with the details; just the general picture. For one thing they came changing their minds anyway.

came = keep Not sure how THAT happened. It must be time for bed.

Thanks to QM and Jock for describing the ev view on how ear bones were formed. I understand now how having both jaw and ear bones in the same creature (oops…make that non-created-organism) would not nec. tend to disprove ev.

>>In short, evolution is God’s process.>>
That makes you ID. If not, please explain.
It is untrue that you can believe in God originating matter and life but using an apparently naturalistic process (ev.) to produce variety…and yet be NOT ID. Theistic evolution IS ID.

jock, you really need to reevaluate what you call “evidence”.

>>I looked at the tree (that is one great photo) but it does not appear to be going through layers to me, it looks like it is lying under the sediment. I asked jock and BK to take a look to see what they think as well. Thank you for the link.>>
I was told by a geologist (yes a creationist) that it passed through 2 coal seams and 2 limestone seams. As you can see there is no evidence of folding or intrusion or relocation. It was found in a strip mine location…now destroyed (reclaimed land)..in Cookeville TN.
If seeing a better photo may help, I can email it to someone.

“If seeing a better photo may help, I can email it to someone.”
It probably wouldn’t help me much. I would want the opinion of a couple different geologists before I believed any unexpected conclusions.
Science is about a “body of evidence.” The entire edifice of evolutionary theory is not likely to be brought down by one “gotcha” that we can’t figure out how to explain.

There sure are plenty of “gotchas” that still need an explanation.
Keep in mind that many different kinds of races of man (giants and things) have come and gone.

If right and wrong was so obvious, we wouldn’t need laws or police. It is something that needs to be carefully taught. And it takes a good while to learn so many things. Many things are not even understood until you go to a church or really study the Bible. In fact it is the Spirit of God (truth) that teaches us and if He doesn’t teach us, we will never learn. God gets the credit for everything.

jock, it still does not mean that we are related.

David,
Geologists gave up on the gradualistic interpretation of geology a long time ago. There are powerful forces in the earth that can mess things up pretty good.
Then there is the famous case of the Lake Missoula floods. The valley I am sitting in right now used to be filled with water during the ice age, because it was blocked by an ice damn downriver. When the ice dam broke, a volumn of water equivalent to about 60 Amazons was suddenly dumped into eastern Washington, carving out huge channels in the earth that can still be seen today. (It helps that they think this happened at least 40 different times). Such a force would have moved boulders the size of houses, and dumped them hundreds of miles from where they started.
The world is a very cool place.

BK, just because you are able to say the word “massive” doesn’t mean that I have actually shown anything. Don’t just say that I have been shown, show me. I have yet to see anything.
Any doubts as to the fallacy, error and lack of evidence of evolution, watch Ben Stein’s movie again.
Don’t just say it, show it.

>>>Science is about a “body of evidence.” The entire edifice of evolutionary theory is not likely to be brought down by one “gotcha” that we can’t figure out how to explain.
>>
Ok…but at least file it away in your mind as part of what should be considered. Maybe at some point the scale could tip the other way for you. In other words don’t just dismiss it because it can’t do the whole job all by itself of convincing you. Maybe toss it in with the C14 evidence in coal. Hey, I just saw a pic of a metal oil lamp or vessel of some sort found incased inside a block of coal. Maybe that should be filed along with the rest of it too.

Re: “God gets the credit for everything.”
I don’t have a problem with that, but it is still not a subject for a public school or college. Private schools can do what they want.

PQQAm
That is exactly why I retired to the country. ;)

No offense meant to PQQAm or other creationists but I will agree that one can have a morality basis without having to get it from God or the Bible (or any religious source). However, the movie made a good point when the guy in Paris said that (atheistic) evolution is not a SUFFICIENT cause for Nazism/genocide but it is a NECESSARY one. IOW, not all ev’s are going to be genocidal but probably the reverse is true.
Of course atheists will retort that major massacres etc. were done by those who are theists. Not sure the morality line of argument will help solve things much.

“Evolution is not observable in process.”
Oh, David, my friend, there is so much wonder in store for you. Evolution has been observed in real time, and MEASURED. Read “The Beak of the Finch.” Way cool.

David – “Whoever the REAL Creator is may not be diminished if it were found that the history of the Bible is false…but it certainly DOES diminish the God OF THE BIBLE.”
Ridiculous. Determining that any of the history of the Bible is false WOULD NOT in any way diminish the God of the Bible. That would only diminish some belief systems and some to many beliefs that many people have. It would only diminish flawed human perceptions translations and interpretations and inadequate understanding. That is the biggest potential flaw of worshipping the Bible. But it would NOT DIMINISH GOD.

David, I would have to say that the “morality base” is not enough.
We have to speak the whole truth.

David
Many people prior to WW2 jumped on the “Survival of the Fittest” and said that they were quoting Darwin. Those words were never used by Darwin but came from business people who twisted it into a “social darwinism”, something very ugly and having nothing at all to do with evolution.
The Nazi’s practiced extreme racism through genetics, again not evolution. Their science was based on Mendal’s work in genetics, not Darwin’s work in Natural Selection.
The Nazi’s justified their atrocities by saying that they had divine right.
Their state religion was based on old norse paganism and Hitler was the head of their church. Himler, the top man in the SS was a mystic, an interpreter of Gods word. The indiana jones movies were set in the pre WW2 era because it correctly depicts what the nazi’s were doing at the time.
Ben Stein is old enough to know better.

David
No, I meant that the rock was put there by the glacier as terminal moraine. The mud was from the glacier melt as it receded and later became a mountain range (off hand I dont remember when)
then those mountains wore down to a flat plateau and the canyon was starting to be cut in the late cretaceous but did not resemble what we see now until about the Miocene.
There are some good articles on it at ScienceDaily, National Geograohic and LiveScience.

PQQAm
Religion is not allowed to be taught in public schools. It can not be taught in a history class and it can not be taught in a science class because it is NOT history and it is NOT science. It is philosophy or theology. The key word is PUBLIC.

Quietman – My first impression was that a tree fell and splashed mud, and the mud froze in mid air. Then I went back and read your entire comment to find out what I was supposed to be looking for. No, it does not look like it went through layers. Because of the V-shape it looks to me like it compressed the layers resulting in a V-shaped depression. If the minerals are different maybe it could have eaten its way through. Sort of like electolytic corrosion when two disimilar metals are in an electrolytic solution, like sea water. But I don’t know if that is possible with something like a petrified tree. It looks more like displacement than going through.

But the greatest study of contemporary evolution is still the Grants’ work in the Galapagos, popularized in Jonathan Weiner’s “The Beak of the Finch.” The book not only describes the ongoing evolution really well, but also shows the tremendous effort that scientists put into piecing the story together. I would strongly recommend it to anyone truly interested in this.

David – “If the Bible is full of lies/falsehoods (whether sincere or not) then it still invalidates the claim of the Bible to be of divine origin…”
In the absence of intent to deceive they are not lies.
How? Who’s claims? Where does the Bible ever claim God dictated it? Where does the Bible ever claim any degree of accuracy? Where does the Bible ever claim anything about itself?
Which is it – Divine origin or divinely inspired (as in maybe God just said write what you know)?

David -”and hence the God of the Bible is “diminished”.”
No, it does not diminsh God. It only diminishes fallible human beliefs. And it diminishes Bible worship.

PQQAm – Says the Constitution.

You can probably teach ABOUT the Bible in public schools, but you cannot teach it and claim it as “truth,” because the government cannot favor one religion over the other.

jock, where does the constitution say that we cannot teach History?

Quietman, where does federal law say that we cannot teach History?

David – “That makes you ID. If not, please explain. It is untrue that you can believe in God originating matter and life but using an apparently naturalistic process (ev.) to produce variety…and yet be NOT ID. Theistic evolution IS ID.”
I never said I don’t believe in ID. What I did say way back at the beginning, and in the other two blogs, is that I have yet to meet an IDer who is willing to accept my version of ID because I believe evolution is God’s process.
Another thing I have repeatedly stated is that even though I believe in ID, I am intellectually honest enough to admit that it is not a valid science and therefore it should only be taught in philosophy classes or religion classes. I won’t repeat my caveats/conditions. If you really want to know, you can find them.
Again; I NEVER said I don’t believe in ID; only that it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

The government cannot and should not teach faith. I am not talking about faith. I am talking about physical evidence and History.

Quietman, not religious doctrine, History.

PQQAm
It is your version of science and history but the world disagrees with you. Read the comments from foreign posts in these blogs. They think we are all crazy to be arguing about it. We have a reputation for ignorance and poor education because we are still in the philosophical dark age.

PQQAm – “Quietman, Oh, so public schools can’t teach History now???”
They can teach history. They just can’t require students to learn religion. I don’t have a problem with them offering religion classes as electives. Provided they are required to take logic and intro to philosphy first.

BK, no, the government should not be teaching religion at all.
They should only teach things that have physical evidence, like History.

History of the Tribes of Israel? This is America, it calls for American History and World History. They have college electives for biblical history, isn’t that good enough? The college I attended also happened to be a semenary college. I could take all kinds of biblical and theology courses as electives or major in them if I had chosen to. Why must you insist on puching these advanced concepts on grade school or high school students in the first place?

The reason why government and secular schools can’t teach faith is because they teach it all wrong.

David – Just in case you still have not been able to find it. I tried having IE search for it but that didn’t work.
There is a white moth native to the British isles. An occasional mutation causes some of the white moths to be born black. But the black offspring don’t survive long because the trees the moths live in have white flowers and so predators spot them easily. However, during the 19th century the Brits were burning so much coal that coal soot and dust covered the white flowers and made them dark grey or black. Consequently the black moths survived and the white ones were eaten. Eventually black became the normal color for the moths and white was the mutation. Then when coal usage declined the flowers got white again and now so are the moths.

Quietman, I am not against teaching significant history. I would say that we should teach the most significant history first (which history has affected us most).

PQQAm – “BK, no, the government should not be teaching religion at all. They should only teach things that have physical evidence, like History.”
I never used the word should. I said I don’t have a problem with public schools teaching religions classes as long as they are electives. It is legal for public schools to teach classes about religion as long as they are electives. It just depends upon the purpose and content of the course. Teaching a specific faith’s beliefs are off limits, but classes about religion or religious topics per say are not necessarily illegal.

BK, I do have a problem with government teaching religion.

I wonder in how far Ben Stein believes his own lies. Maybe he just realized you can make a good buck by pandering the religious right

>>Again; I NEVER said I don’t believe in ID; only that it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.>>
So are you saying that if God (or ET or whoever designed) did leave some physical evidence of a supernatural act, you would not think it should be examined or discussed? I am not a believer (but I’m open) in the Shroud of Turin, but should it be considered by science?
Or another way to put it…suppose that it was indeed a designer that created life from non-life and created variety (without using naturalistic evolution)…do you think that challenges to naturalistic evolution “belong” in science classes? For instance, suppose there were human skeletons found halfway down the Grand Canyon incased in rock (not intrusively buried) which is supposed to be 100 million years old, during the time of the dinosaurs? Is that something that belongs in science?

Good morning David,
Of course if there is scientific evidence of something, it should be taught in science class. So the argument usually revolves on what exactly IS scienitific evidence.
In your example, most scientists would be skeptical at first like they would of any unexpected find (science = skepticism). But if it can be shown that there is NO way the human fossil could have gotten there later, AND there is no way the dating of the rock could be in error, then they will accept it eventually. Of course some people may still assume that something must be wrong if it remains the ONLY human fossil ever found older than a couple million years. (On the general principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).

QM>>When you look at that tree I would hazard a guess that it came down in the mississippian and the alternating layers of coal and rock were put down by the pensylvanian glacations. >>
But that isn’t reasonable! If the lower part was Miss. and the top part was Penn…how did the tree not disintegrate while it was exposed waiting for 20 million years for the Penn. “glaciation”? BTW, that is NOT glacial morraine. It is a sedimentary FLOW (limestone).

>>I didn’t see your post on the moths, but I assume you were talking about Kettlewell’s classic study. Actually, I have heard that there were a few things wrong with his original description, but I think the basic story remains valid: There were white moths in Britain that were camouflaged against the white bark of trees, and black forms were rare. Then the coal industry turned the bark black, and the birds found and ate the white moths instead, and the black forms became dominant.
Nothing really that profound. The same idea as dog breeding or anything else, but it is always nice to have examples from nature.
>>
I am astonished! No offense, but you guys think that moths and dog breeds exemplify how new species originate by mutation and selection???
Before the “selection” there were white and dark moths. It was just what was already within the genetic information. Then white ones got eaten more than dark ones (supposedly, I’m not sure it is a true story, since birds don’t pick moths off tree trunks based on color!) How is that some observable proof of the claim made by General Evolution?
And dog breeds??? Come on guys. The info was in the genome…then humans teased out the traits. Most of the breeds have come in the past 500 years or so. Are you saying that is EVOLUTION???
If you placed all the dog breeds on an island and came back in 200 years you’d be back where they were 500 years ago. No breeds…just mutts and hounds. That is not an example of evolution!

“since birds don’t pick moths off tree trunks based on color”
Don’t they? Let’s find out. Which is exactly what they did. They conducted a scientific experiment (this was more than 50 years ago) by putting white and black moths on white and black tree bark, and let the birds loose on them. And the birds did find more white moths on black trees and vice versa. It’s not that they are “choosing” a color; it is simply that they are less likely to find the ones that are better camouflaged.

Sure, natural selection doesnt imply genetic material has recently appeared but even without looking into our genetic history you can find evidence.
It’s pretty easy to demonstate the generation of alleles (from whatever mechanism). A given locus on the genome can store 2 alleles yet today we know of places in both humans and animals where there are hundreds and thousands of variant alleles spread across that population.
If Eden is true then Adam and Eve could only store 4 alleles at a given locus
If the Flood were true then the animsls would have a similar bottleneck.
Yet today we see far more variety.

BK>>>If the minerals are different maybe it could have eaten its way through. Sort of like electolytic corrosion when two disimilar metals are in an electrolytic solution, like sea water. But I don’t know if that is possible with something like a petrified tree. It looks more like displacement than going through.
>>
I agree it is NOT a good explanation to say it ate its way into the hardened rock. If it was “depressed” into the area then that means the material had to be SOFT. And it still has to mean the tree lasted 20 million years!
Plus, there are many other tree polystrates where it is clearly fully inundated…not just “depressed”. Any polystrate…especially something as easily deteriorated as a tree…implies RAPID deposition. If it was just ONE type of deposition you could maybe imagine a single flow burying a whole tree with ONE deposition. But this is several types of deposits, supposedly of totally different types of environments.

“If you placed all the dog breeds on an island and came back in 200 years you’d be back where they were 500 years ago. No breeds…just mutts and hounds. That is not an example of evolution!”
This has been done naturally, in Australia. That is exactly where dingoes came from. Actually, it happens the same everywhere. In most “third-world” countries, the dogs tend to roam around free and breed at random, and you seem to always get pretty much the same thing. Not EXACTLY like a dingo, but with the same short hair, tan coat, and long skinny tail.
Technically, this is still “evolution,” because “biological evolution” is defined as any change in gene frequencies, so even if the change is random and directionless, it is still “evolution.” But what we usually think of as “evolution” is adaptation by natural selection, because only natural selection can take evolution in a meaningful direction, such improving the “fit” of animals to their environment.

QM>>B K
That was my thought as well. I guess it leaves David without that particular anomaly.>>
You sure are quick on the trigger to dismiss good evidence. Could you please tell me again what the explanation of that polystrate tree is? Is it that it was somehow pressed into the layers or it somehow dissolved solid rock layers? I am not real clear on this great explanation that is supposed to cause me to stop using this as a good example. Run that past me one more time, ok?

So QM, you are REALLY satisfied that that quartzite block bears the typical traits of an erratic boulder left behind by a glacier? REALLY? Come on now. Does it REALLY look to you like it is surrounded by glacial till?
And don’t glaciers carve up the landscape and leave lots of up and down features…instead of the perfectly flat stratum horizons we see in the GC?
It sounds like you are in a BIG hurry to dismiss any counterindicative evidence you are shown. I would hope someone (especially anyone claiming to be an INQUISITIVE agnostic) to be a bit more restrained before dismissing evidence.

I wrote:>>So are you saying that if God (or ET or whoever designed) did leave some physical evidence of a supernatural act, you would not think it should be examined or discussed? I am not a believer (but I’m open) in the Shroud of Turin, but should it be considered by science?>>
In other words, is it fine for “science” to examine the Shroud so long as it DEBUNKS it…but NOT if it confirms it was a supernatural event?
How is that fair? Does it work this way…if science disproves a supernatural claim it has done its job well, but if it can’t disprove it then is should never have been asked to get involved since that would be “unscientific”???

>>David – “All it is is an effort to placate some foolish theists who don’t like to be at odds with naturalists.”
No, it is an effort to demonstrate that we don’t have to sacrifice independent rational thought. There is no 11th Commandment saying, Thou shall not think.
>>
That part is fine…disagree. But don’t try to pan off the idea that science is not destructive of religion (i.e. “non-overlapping magisteria”). THEY OVERLAP! And science want to subordinate religion so they can tell all of us what REALLY happened to cause things to appear as they do.

Realist,
Explain how Adam and Eve, with fours alleles maximum (2 each) at a given spot on the genome have billions of descendants today who share in some cases thousands of alleles, spread over that same locus.
WHere did the alleles come from?

Jock>>>A book doesn’t have to be infallible to be useful and important. If the Bible shows you a way to live that feels right in your heart, isn’t that useful and important?>>
I guess so…on the level of a Dr. Phil book maybe. Unless Dr. Phil was claiming to have divine knowledge of how to avoid hell and get to heaven…which is what the Bible claims. If just some man said that I would toss that book. Such a claim needs to be true or else the book is worthless for what it claims. Telling me that you didn’t really devalue the Bible by your putting it on a par with a Dr. Phil book is just not going to fly.

bubba>>A mathmateical model based on a great many estimations is not a scientific theory. It has never been presented as a scientific theory, its just a rough estimate. It is a highly, highly theoretical model. At the time the model was created we had yet to even detect a single extra-solar planet, let alone know how common earth like worlds might be (which we still don’t).>>
Alright let’s try it this way. IF the Drake equation result is right…or at least very very reasonable or even CONSERVATIVE…and there SHOULD be 10 million ETI civ’s out there…and yet we have no evidence from any of them…is that a fair dispositive point to make? In other words, let’s say you had a new invention that could somehow scan the galaxy for life and you found ZERO…except us….wouldn’t you agree that would be a strong indicator that natural forces are not the best explanation for life and variety of life? I would hope so. And IF so, then so far the evidence points in that direction…IF you are courageous enough to fairly consider it.

“It’s just that they don’t WANT to see evidence contradicting their age of earth assumptions, so it gets tossed.”
This is only partially true. The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Science is based on a “body of evidence.” If we have one anomalous piece of evidence, we DO have to take into account (and some scientists are better at this than others), but it has to be pretty darn solid evidence if we are going to believe that it disproves all of our evidence. The body of evidence for evolution is so vast and comprehensive that it really is hard to conceive of it ALL suddenly turning out to be wrong, so yes, if you are going to make that claim, you had better be able to rule out ALL possible alternatives to convince me.

Wrong, those values plugged into what Drake describes as his “estimate”, not theory, are very outdated. Astronomical observations and cosmology have come a ways since 1961. So those values in his equation now yield many results. IIRC Drakes only values are currently around 10k for this galaxy. Others plug in numbers that yield 2. There is a range and always it is still speculation. Several of the values are pure guesswork and as we learn more the values constantly change.
So your premise that the Drake equation is considered a strong theory or estimate is wrong.
You conclusion is also wrong. First, even if we eventually conclude that intelligent life is very rare, it says nothing about naturalistic causes or the origin of life or anything else. It leaves many questions and to jump to one answer without any evidence would be wrong.
But astronomy is still in its infancy and soon we will know more. As space based interferometer telescopes come online (and grow larger over the next 100 years) we will be able to get some idea for how common life might be. No reason to jump to conclusions when the evidence is yet to arrive.

bubba – I think we are all jumping around between topics quite a bit. It’s just the nature of the forum. But you are right it does make it easier to drop things just because we don’t like the direction it is going. That’s pretty typical human behavior.

Wrong again David.
As I said, those were the 1961 numbers. His equation is the same (for what it’s worth) but the inputs have changed considerably as we learn more. Drake has supported the alterations to his input values as we learn more but for some reason you are stuck on science circa 1961.
You seem stuck on something you read on a creationist website and are unable to adjust to, or even recognize, new information.
Drake himself last estimated 10k civilizations but there is quite a range of estimates using the same equation.

>>And the birds did find more white moths on black trees and vice versa. It’s not that they are “choosing” a color; it is simply that they are less likely to find the ones that are better camouflaged. >>
I believe I read that they pinned the moths on the trees for their experiment…or some how the integrity of the experiment was in question.
HOWEVER, I am not disputing at all that a trait could get one type eaten and another type not eaten. I am guessing if you put Chihuahuahs and Pit Bulls on an island the C’s would get eaten more too. BUT WHAT DOES THAT DO TO PROVE ANYTHING about a species coming into existence?
And another thing….before an evolving leg-to-wing becomes a good wing it becomes a bad leg. I am not saying ALL transitions are like that but I’d think a lot would be. Imagine how a feathered but flightless lizardy thing would compare to a sleek naked sport-model lizard in running from a predator!

“And another thing….before an evolving leg-to-wing becomes a good wing it becomes a bad leg. I am not saying ALL transitions are like that but I’d think a lot would be. Imagine how a feathered but flightless lizardy thing would compare to a sleek naked sport-model lizard in running from a predator!”
The feathered lizard could have an advantage in a colder climate

Bubba>>If Eden is true then Adam and Eve could only store 4 alleles at a given locus>>
I doubt that. Suppose you had a couple of hounds with all sorts of traits in their genome. Could you tease out variety by selective breeding? Isn’t a “race” and a “breed” the exact same thing?
So if you took two humans with rich variety in their genetics and put them on an island could you come back 1000 years later and find distinct races? Sure. We know it also works the other way…take distinct races or breeds of dogs and put them together and you get the mutts/hounds again.
Adam and Eve (i.e. a single original couple in the past 100,000 or less years) are not inconsistent at all with our having distinct races today.

David
There are 3 and only 3 major mountain chains in NA. The youngest is the Rockies, the oldest that still exist are the Appalachians and the oldest is so old that it was covered by a sea between the two newer chains for much of the Mesozoic. The fossil discoveries Horner has been making are on a Mesozoic shore in Montana.

“If you placed all the dog breeds on an island and came back in 200 years you’d be back where they were 500 years ago. No breeds…just mutts and hounds. That is not an example of evolution!”
Actually it is. Since Dogs are wolves, placing the wolf variations in isolation on an island, with that much variation, they would evolve farther away from the remaing wolves and coyotes and form a new species.

“race” and a “breed” are not taxon but are essentially the same thing.

Bubba>>If Eden is true then Adam and Eve could only store 4 alleles at a given locus>>
It turns out that a single pair of animals has something like 80-90% of all the genetic variation in the population. That is partly because most loci only have one or two alleles. The only thing that gets lost are the rarer alleles at some loci (which may or may not be important).
But that variation can be lost rapidly if the population remains small for several generations. So if you have two founders, you have to expand the population as rapidly as possible if you want to maintain most of the variation.
Sorry for the jargon, but I hope you still get the idea.

So you really doubt speciation? I didnt think there were any creationists left willing to claim that. The creationists over at Answers in Genesis will suggest you don’t say that.

Jock>>The body of evidence for evolution is so vast and comprehensive that it really is hard to conceive of it ALL suddenly turning out to be wrong, so yes, if you are going to make that claim, you had better be able to rule out ALL possible alternatives to convince me.>>
Sounds like you want the deck stacked MIGHTILY in favor of the AE view and Evolution. Why not have the same standard for either view?
If you use the same instrument to test for C14 and all the same procedures and then you get a date of 60,000 years for 10 different samples from all over the US…then let the data SPEAK! Don’t construct a wall so high that you in effect innoculate yourself from having any evidence make it through to you.

David – “Defining a breed/race as a species is part of the problem. If evolutionists want to claim we can see evidence of speciation don’t do the bait and switch…show speciation, not breeds.”
OK, since this is the heart of the problem, let’s get into it. It is only the creationists that demand that breeds and species are completely different things, because they need it to separate the evolution that they have to admit to, from the evolution that they don’t want to believe.
Biologists don’t think like that at all. If you want, I can get into the details of what we mean by “population thinking,” but the essence is that everything is continuously evolving and gaining gradual differences. “Breeds” and species” are simply snapshots in different places along that continuum.

David – I already told Bubba that we are all “jumping around,” so it really wasn’t a very fair criticism.
No worries, mate.

Hey Bubba…here’s a way to MASSIVELY increase contributions for SETI. Set a target date. And promise that if nothing is found by X date, then SETI would come out publically to say that the science supports the idea that we are alone and that life probably did not come from non-life by natural means and then evolve into intelligent life here on earth. Now THAT would be a FAIR science project, and you could get a good number of creationists to probably help fund it. As it is, it is just atheists sticking to their guns because they are SURE it MUST be out there…IT’S JUST GOTTA BE!!!

Darwinists confuse themselves with their own definitions. – The devil is in the definitions.
A “new species” of cat is not the same as a new species (something different than anything that we have seen).

David: “…you get a date of 60,000 years for 10 different samples from all over the US…then let the data SPEAK! Don’t construct a wall so high that you in effect innoculate yourself from having any evidence make it through to you.”
This is still the same problem with assumptions, interpretation, and the burden of proof. You are right, it is fundamental to the legitimacy of science.
Your statement that “if it has C14, it must be less than 100,000 years old,” is dependent on the assumption that there is no other way to create C14 than within living plants. This assumption works pretty well with samples less than 50,000 years old, because the C14 from the original plants is enough to make any other potential sources seem negligible.
But it appears that there are in fact other ways that C14 can be created. We discussed this before. It was something about byproducts of the radioactive breakdown
of Uranium (I forget the details). This appears to be the reason that there are variable amounts of C14 in fossil fuel deposits.
Are we sure about that? Of course not. But it is enough to convince us that this anomaly is not something that is a high priority to pursue in order to defend all of evolutionary theory.

…and there is nothing scientific about a guess.

Re: “Defining a breed/race as a species is part of the problem. If evolutionists want to claim we can see evidence of speciation don’t do the bait and switch…show speciation, not breeds.”
A breed or race is NEVER defined as a species, it is considered speciation which means on the road to becoming a species nut the taxonomic terms are subspecies, tribes and subtribes. Anything below a species level can cross-breed and prosuce viable offspring. If they can’t they are a seperate species by definition.

Quietman – I’m pretty sure the exoskeleton is not homologous to vertebrate skeleton, but your point is still valid. I think a lot of the vertebrate skeleton developed in situ, but I know a lot of it derived from vertebrae and other bones as well, and I don’t remember the details enough to say much. For example, I do remember that the jaws are modified from the first gill arch, but I don’t remember where gill arches came from!

SETI is a big waste of money!

>>But it appears that there are in fact other ways that C14 can be created. We discussed this before. It was something about byproducts of the radioactive breakdown
of Uranium (I forget the details). This appears to be the reason that there are variable amounts of C14 in fossil fuel deposits.>>
I believe the was atm. C14 is made is by cosmic rays (in upper atm.) hitting N14 atoms…changing it to C14. If there is another way to make it when a C12 is near uranium…then I would accept that possibility. However, don’t ask me to believe a sample DID have that happen if it is nowhere NEAR any uranium! U is pretty rare and I really doubt much of it is inside coal mines. So if we exclude the poss. of U being the cause (and also contamination) would you accept the evidence THEN?
BTW, is there some lab experiment they did to prove U can make C14 from C12? Anyone know?

NASA, looking for life is a real big waste of money too.

C14 has nothing to do with dating the earth’s age…why the c14 hangup? heh. In fact C14 is used quite often to date biblical sites. I dont hear any complaints then.

Realist
I personally have been a student of evolution for 40 years, but it was never any part of my profession, which while in research (automotive R&D) was not connected in any way. I have never made a penny from evolution, I just enjoy the work (this is my retirement so I can devote more time to it). So please don’t say it is about money.

“So if we exclude the poss. of U being the cause (and also contamination) would you accept the evidence THEN?”
It would have to be looked into more, you are right. But pardon me if I’m not holding my breath in anticipation that such a “gotcha” is going to bring down all of evolutionary theory. After studying biology for 30 years (if you count high school), I am quite confident that the existing evidence cannot be explained by any other cause than evolution.

Jock
Yes the protiens act as on/off switches, Filler discusses this as well.

bubba>>As I said, those were the 1961 numbers. His equation is the same (for what it’s worth) but the inputs have changed considerably as we learn more. Drake has supported the alterations to his input values as we learn more but for some reason you are stuck on science circa 1961.>>
I will grant that the equation should be updated as better evidence comes in for what the factors are. Would you agree that the latest evidence of finding planets lends support to a quite liberal estimate for the guess on how many stars have planets…perhaps even HIGHER than they first estimated?
And given that we believe in our own solar system there are several places where life COULD be formed…even if you limit it to only carbon-based life like our own…that supports a liberal estimate of how many planets are life-supportable. Plus you have moons also.
And given that we (supposedly) had abiogenesis almost as SOON as the conditions on the surface were right…that there is good reason (so far) to think life should arise from non-life fairly easily…on its own with no designer.
And then it is just really a matter of time for life to evolve…right? We’ve seen (supposedly) many extinctions here and yet it springs back. So the evolving and eventual developing of intelligence is not that improbable…(IF ev. is true that is).
And the final factor of only 1% surviving is surely more than fair. We seem so far to have made it past a pretty dangerous time ourselves…so far. And of course even IF you figure on a near extinction (like nuclear or asteroid) if the survivors were able to save information, they could have radio up and going again soon anyway.
So all we really need to do is figure which stars are in a zone in the galaxy which would not be blasted constantly with radiation or in a situation (like dual stars) where they would prevent life from forming. I think we can arrive at a fairly good estimate for that, don’t you think? I think it is pretty likely that the 10,000,000 estimate (out of 100,000,000,000 stars) is more than fair. One in 10,000 stars has an ETI civ which “survives adolescence.”
The point is this….if you are REALLY seeking truth from science, you need to be open to the NON-confirmation of your theory and at SOME point reaching a conclusion that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. That is only fair. You may disagree as to whether we are at or near that point, but you should allow yourself to contemplate that possibility. That would indeed be a good test of the theory. Falsifiability is indeed the main criterion for any good theory, and SETI seems like a good way to try to do that….if the ev’s will allow it.

David
Sorry to jump around, I am trying to catch up.
The Cambrain was a world of shallow seas and islands. The ice age was the longest known but remember that an ice age has interglacials. The part of the world where the grand canyon is now was under water and was covered in ice during glacations. The glacier recedes, dumps a rock which is then covered with more sediment.
The tree is not upright in that photo. The fossil tree is only seen near the bottom of the picture. The SHAPE of the tree is seen above it covered in sediments. Look at it again carefully.
I saw this immediately but wanted a second opinion before I said more about it. I see this a lot on my property in PA (with a lot less coal) but not on the scale of that photo.

Its all pure speculation. Soon we will have more data.
As has been pointed out, even if we scanned the entire galaxy for 200 years and found no radio signals that doesnt rule out lower life as it’s difficult for us to place a number on the chances of intelligent life emerging from life. So there needs to be a search for lower life as well. Both with landers to candidates and with interferometer arrays that can image planets around other stars. Once both tracks have produced sufficient data, we can start to draw some conclusions on frequency.
You seem to be in a hurry but this search has just begun. in some cases it has yet to begin.

PQQAm
Re: “jock, have you ever considered the possibility that the reason there are similarities between species is because it was the same Creator that made them?”
That is a given. Once creation occurred that organism begat all other organism therefore they all have the same original creator, regardless of what you would like to call that creator.

Sure, it could happen. New species can be created the same way.
But here’s Adam and Eve and their alleles on some random loci.
Adam Eve
Aa Bb
Their kids will have some combination of those alleles. You could come up with distinct appearances and whatnot without generating any new alleles if the breeding worked out that way as there are many pairs to vary. Sure.
But what you won’t find is anything more than those 4 alleles at that one spot unless more alleles get added in somehow.
Today there are places where 100s and 1000s of alleles are found at a specicic loci on the genmoe of humans or animals spread over a given population. Neither Adam, nor Eve, nor the ark animals could store all that stuff at that given location. They can only store two each.

“that it would be impossible to tease out highly distinctive racial traits?”
Well, race may be a bad example for this argument. “Race” in humans involves many, many different genes. In fact, it is so variable that the term “race” is really rather meaningless.
But if your point is about specific traits in specific populations, then yes they should be subject to selection.

jock, accidents don’t create anything.
Quietman, the historical record says that all life on earth was made in six days. If you have evidence to the contrary, I want to see it.

Another thing I am pretty sure of is that I am really going to regret not getting any work done today. I’ll probably have to work this weekend. But this is too much fun!

Mitochondrial Eve represents a specific variation with a desirable dominant trait. It disregards an Adam altogether.

Extremely small populations today have a great deal of trouble as there are genetic diseases which become more likely to get expressed. Cheetahs being an example or maybe people from the Ozarks. heh. It’s why you don’t marry your cousin.
That’s related to but seperate from the allele population question.
Alleles are a fact, they are measurable and countable. A very small population could not store the variety we see today.

“But what you won’t find is anything more than those 4 alleles at that one spot unless more alleles get added in somehow.”
True, but new alleles are created by mutation. But it is still very unlikely that normal mutation rates would be enough to produce all of the variation we now see in only 6000 years.
In fact, the variation produced by neutral mutations are often used as a sort of “biological clock” to estimate how old a species really is, because neutral mutations tend to accumulate at a more-or-less constant rate.

PQQAm
You are using a single book, open any science textbook, there are thousands of them out there.

“Can you summarize any qualitative differences in the Finch example vs. the moth or dog breed example?”
There is no difference. They are all examples of the same thing. It is what creationists would call “only” micro-evolution, not realizing that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty much the same thing.
The wonder of the finch research is that they have measured the beaks of EVERY finch on the island, and know all of the geneaologies, as well as exactly what size seeds they are actually eating, for something like 40 years now.

Quietman, that’s right, just start throwing really big numbers around so that no one understands anything.

The information is not there and it will never get there no matter how long you wait for it.

David: “…proving you can only get SO much variety by cross-breeding”
This apparent limit occurs because selection rates are often much faster than mutation rates, especially if a breeder is imposing really intense selection on a populations. IN that case, yes it does run out of variation (the same idea as draining a bucket faster than water is being added to it).
But mutations continue, slowly and inexorably, and eventually variation is replaced. That is one of the main reasons why you need millions of years for significant evolution to happen.

Re: “Someone said Grizzlies and Polar Bears are different species. ”
By definition, they are not seperate species if they can produce viable offspring. They were undergoing the process of speciation via isolation.
Bears (From Wikipedia) Family: Ursidae, “Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives.”

PQQAm – “The information is not there and it will never get there no matter how long you wait for it.”
Alternatively, the information IS there, and it will never go away no matter how long you ignore it.

Quietman, even if offspring is not possible it could still be the same species because there are “species” that cannot even reproduce themselves if I recall correctly. They need the help of man.

Bubba>>To say that intelligence is rare (by x date) doesnt mean that life itself isnt there. It just means that radio signal sending intelligence is rare. The question of lower life would still be open.>>
Certainly. But the Drake eq. culls out everything BUT intelligent life capable of radio. If evolution is true there should not just be lower life forms “out there.” Don’t you agree? Is it not a fair prediction of the theory to say that our galaxy should have MANY ETI civ’s? Don’t act like that is NOT a fair prediction. IT IS.

jock, imagination is not information.

PQQAm
You are thinking of man-made hybrid. Not a true species. And that defines the two parent species as seperate and distinct. That is in fact ID via breeding. Mules are the most common example. They do not occur in nature.
That is why the definition of species is being able to produce Viable offspring.

David
Radio communications does not need to be a universal concept. We may be looking at extraterrestrial communications entirely the wrong way.

jock>>As you may have guessed, part of the reason I am not so concerned is that I don’t agree with your next assumption that whether are not we are alone has any bearing on the truth of evolution on this planet. Yes, if we could show for certain that there is no life ANYWHERE else in the Universe, that would certainly give me pause, bt there is no way we could know that, so I have to work with the evidence we DO have.>>
I have trouble with the reasonableness of saying that if you KNEW we were alone even in our GALAXY…that that would not persuade you to abandon naturalistic evolution. To me that is dogma, and near religious devotion to Gen. Ev…. not open-minded scientific inquiry using a “most reasonable” standard and including both possible answers, rather than philosophically excluding one.
You SHOULD be willing to say that if we are alone, you are most likely a product of God designing you…with a purpose. And you should seek then to figure out if any of the religions can give a reasonable basis to believe He has revealed Himself and His will for us. I believe when the Bible is examined with an open mind (after a person is at least a tentative theist) then it will show evidence of it being from God.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be too loose with the notion of “no set theshold.” Scientists generally can come to some agreement on what would be a reasonable threshold for “acceptance”, but that only works if all of the probabilities involved are known, which they are not in most of the things we are discussing.

…and the thing with lizards (and dinos) the variations could have been extreme. We know this just by looking at sauropods and how many variation there were.

So you support c14 dates in the 40-50k range?

Oops, sorry. I remember you did comment on this. And yes I was wrong that the plants don’t make it themselves. They just take it up at the same proportion it is in the atmosphere.

PQQAm: Sorry. You are right that the fossil becomes part of its surroundings, but that does not throw off any dating methods and the layers are usually in nice chronological order

>>I’m not at all sure about this, but my impression was that the C14 is not made from C12, but from the U atom actually splitting, through nuclear fission.>>
No way. If the radioactive particle from U decay whacked a C12 atom maybe somehow that would work. Suggesting C14 is a dtr element of U is pretty “out there.” I’d have to see the quote.
BTW, if you “split” a U atom by fisson, you get an A-bomb.
I thought it was creationists that were always guilty of shooting it from the hip.
You may THINK you can postulate (with no evidence) that U is available within a few meters in the mine of EVERY SINGLE COAL SAMPLE TESTED,…but I’m not buyin’ it, Jock. That is just not a reasonable solution. I understand that you want to explore other explanations, but wacky ones don’t count.

… and the a fossil becoming part of its surroundings is total “contamination”.

Ok, so if you c14 date coal or diamonds (for some reason) youll come up with dates of around 40k-60k, which is similar to dates produced by limestone.There are several ideas about how the samples could be contaminated which I wont pretend to understand.
So, we have 40 different types of radiometric evidence that cross confirm each other as well as cosmology to suggest that the universe is old whereas you have some anomolous coal.
Ok. So you place great faith in these dates, meaning you support a 40-60k age for this material? Or do you dispute that as well?

From what Im reading they find a wide range of c14, sometimes none. Which makes sense if you are dealing with some kind of local contamination.
They arent coming back with the same amounts my any means.

jock, yes, flipped is one thing. Out of order is another issue and a big problem for you (and your current belief).

PQQAm – “so the date is from the surrounding area and not the fossil itself.”
Yes, but we can surmise that the dates are the same, because fossils can only be formed by being quickly covered up with sediments. So the sediment layer has to have been laid down at the same time the animal dies (or may have been what killed it in the first place, in the case of mudslides or ash flows.)

PQQAm – “flipped is one thing. Out of order is another issue and a big problem for you (and your current belief).”
I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you have a specific example?

PQQAm
Not “out of order” but sections in REVERSE ORDER which are common in the newer mountains like the rockies.

Another issue to caves and burrows and other recesses that are filled in later so that there are mixed results on a level of strata but it is not that hard to figure out what happened. That is common in chinese eocene fossils.

Bubba>>Thats a common misunderstanding. Mitchondrial Eve is a common ancestor, not the only one.>
The article on Wiki said plainly every human had her (supposedly) as their ancestral mother. And it said that the nearest common ancestor (not just by mother) could be as near as 3000 year ago. That means every human on earth came from someone 3000 years ago…or at most 140,000 years for Mit.Eve.
That clearly means (regardless of what you say about alleles) that all the racial info of every human today was in the potential of the human pair 3000 years ago.
I did not get a clear answer. Do you agree or not (yes/no) that you could take a mixed race couple and repopulate, and isolate traits to get distinct races in 1000 years or so? I think it should be obvious that is true since we KNOW that happened with dogs.

Re: “You guys just don’t LIKE that data…so the data you don’t like gets tossed.”
If the data can not be verified by using another method then it is tossed.
Why do you think that it is not used for older samples in the first place? It is a simpler test but unreliable for older strata. Creationists love C14.

PQQAm- “what are there? forty some layers (not necessarily in the same location)?”
No there are many, many layers, laid down over the eons. A rock layer is often localized, if it just came from a mudslide or something. But many of the largest sedimentary layers were created at the bottom of inland seas, so you can sometimes follow the same layers over large distances.
The Grand Canyon is one of the more famous examples. Those layers are quite visible and are in chronlogical order, but there are large gaps in the time sequence, when the climate must have been dry and not much sediment accumulated, or else layers were eroded off and the buildup had to restart.

Let me point out that background radiation will carbon date someone buried during WW2 will give a radically different date than someone buried in 2008. Would you care to attempt the explanation?

Mt. Saint Helens provides a modern snake oil example.

Quietman, : )

PQQAm
The log does not cut through but is surrounded, there is a difference.

jock>>This apparent limit occurs because selection rates are often much faster than mutation rates, especially if a breeder is imposing really intense selection on a populations. IN that case, yes it does run out of variation (the same idea as draining a bucket faster than water is being added to it).>>
Then those are not examples at all of evolution “in progress”…which is what you claimed originally when you told us “moths” and “dogs” would be instances of that.
Come on, folks. Showing examples of teasing out traits from an existing genome is NOT evidence of macroevolution…and you know it. Not a single mutation of the dog genome is needed…not the LEAST little bit of “evolution” is needed…to get tons of variety out of one pair of hounds in just a few hundred years (or less!). And after it is all said and done you still have just a bunch of fancy hounds or wolves. No new species!
Hey, can we all try to use a name and provide the quote of what we are replying to? Sometimes it is hard to figure out.

PQQAm – “where do these “layers” KEEP coming from that cover “large distances”?”
Layers are being laid down all the time. Go out to any lake and stick your feet in the mud at the bottom (but don’t get stuck or you might get fossilized!). That mud could well become a rock layer some day. In the case of large distances, we are simply talking about large seas rather than small lakes, assuming that the sediment is laid down on the bottom fairly evenly.

David – “Not a single mutation of the dog genome is needed…not the LEAST little bit of “evolution” is needed.”
I’m sorry, but that is how evolution is defined. Any change in gene frequencies. But as we said, you are right that the “evolution” can only go so far if new variation is not added. Some of the variation in dogs over the last few thousand years probably HAS been from mutation, although most of it was probably always there because mutation rates are not very rapid.

bubba>>Thats not putting it another way, you are saying the same thing again. My response, again, is that ruling out intelligence that uses radio signals doesnt rule out life. Both need to be investigated.>>
Postulating that only one ETI civ…US…figured out how to use radio is about as absurd as saying we are totally alone. If that is your best answer to the problem I posed, then you should give it up. Is it really reasonable that life arises naturalistically from non-life then evolves and much of the time produces great intelligence, maybe greater than ours…BUT NO ONE BUT US FIGURED OUT HOW TO USE RADIO? That does not compute!

David – It is actually arguable that dog breeds may in fact be different species. I don’t hear that said very often, but the criteria are all there: A Pekingnese and a Great Dane are certainly more different morphologically than any other set of “natural” species, and they certainly can’t interbreed
But that is the problem with species designations. It can be difficult to judge when we can say two forms are different enough to be different species. The interbeeding criteria is helpful, but even it breaks down occasionally, because two groups that are clearly different species can sometimes still hybridize.

…and the sea floors that we have today do not appear to be laying down very much sediment.

Jock>>As for the nuclear fission products, I clearly stated that “I am not at all sure about this.” I know very little about nuclear fission, except that it DOES break the atom into smaller byproducts. (That’s what FISSION means).
>>
Well, when you split a U atom it gives off energy…an explosion. I think you may have read something maybe about how the alpha or beta decay particle could whack a C12 atom or maybe a N14 atom near the U source…but you have to have a U source nearby, and there would be clear evidence of that because of radioactivity levels and things like decay haloes of the decay element series in the rock.
I guess it is a fair theory to test…whether ALL of the samples of coal provided randomly (by the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at Penn State University), just happened to be taken from within a few meters of uranium ore. That is not likely though. AND it still is not established to my satisfaction whether U decay can produce C14 in a coal mine or not. If anyone can provide a quote that would be great.

jock, I don’t remember being abusive. It just made no sense at all to me and I wanted a straight answer.

bubba>>Ok. So you place great faith in these dates, meaning you support a 40-60k age for this material? Or do you dispute that as well? >>
My view would be that coal was formed mostly during the flood about 5000 years ago. So I would have to wonder if the assumption of C14/C stability or equillibrium in the atm. holds true…i.e. did the pre-flood atm. have the same % of C14/C that we have today. It if was lower, then that would skew the result. Also, we have tons of carbon in rocks and “fossil fuels”, some of which was part of the biosphere pre-flood, so that would seem to have some effect on the ratio too. I am not too “up” on that part of the reasoning. The ocean is a carbon sink too (holding dissolved CO2 or releasing it) depending on temperature, so if the temp was diff. pre-flood that could have major effects on the ratio.

PQQAm | Apr 22, 2008 8:31:26 PM“Not only is evolution not at all scientific and totally baseless, it is dangerous. I don’t know how these people have the courage to even call themselves “scientists”. Idol worshipers, I could see but not scientists. These people should be calling themselves Witch doctors. These people should be exposed for their false credentials as a cover for their hidden agenda of propagating their religious belief. Darwinism is absolute nonsense and it is not at all scientific so it should be canned once and for all as the mindless rambling that it is…”

They don’t say crude oil, they say hydrocarbons and it’s something that was predicted before they ever sent the probe. It’s nothing new, it’s just the confirming evidence that they were correct.
That Titan is covered in crude oil is an internet myth that’s going around based on a misunderstaning of the term hydrocarbon. Titan has liquid methane (like the methane in it’s atmosphere) which is a hydrocarbon.

But again, you introduced the subject of mitchondrial eve as some kind of attempt to address the allele problem. It has nothing to do with that.
Rather than address alleles, youve moved on to discovering oil on Titan. Yet another topic.

jock>>No. This is a common misconception that the unfortunate name “Eve” implies for many people. All it refers to is a statistical artifact of the last time all of humanity could be said to be related. But there were still many other individuals around to store genetic variation and mix it back into the new lineages. >>
Alright leaving Mit Eve aside let’s cut to the chase. Are you saying (as I think Bubba did) that if you had a mixed race couple (i.e. one with RICH variety in the genome), isolated all their offspring, selected traits and isolated those with similar traits…that after a few generations you could NOT get distinct racial features teased out…just as was done by dog breeding the past 500 years? Are you going to deny that? Breeding dogs is PROOF that Adam and Eve could produce all the races from just one couple. The info was “in there” from the start!

See David, this is your problem. You have no error correction meachanism in you. When you post information that is incorrect, or which you have misinterpreted, you don’t acknowledge it. You just power on to the next topic.
It’s like having a conversation with a deranged chatbot.

Ive answered three times now. Once just a few posts up. Heres the third answer: Yes, its entirely possible. That doesnt address the variety of alleles we find today. Adam and Eve could not carry them. They have been generated by evolution.
Alleles are covered in junior high school biology. No offense but they arent quite as obscure as the c14 levels of coal or any of the *many* other topics youve introduced and expected us to follow up on.
I’m also concerned that you didn’t correct your “oil disocvered on titan” post.

The drake equation is a back of the envelope guess. You take it so seriously that it’s amusing given the hard science you reject.
And we do have other means of investigation life elsewhere. Both robotic landers and new telescopes will give us more clues over the next 30 years.

>>>>>Ok, so you admit that A&E or any mixed race couple with “rich stock” today could indeed have produced all the races we see. That is good. That resolves THAT part of the difficulty some have about YEC. <<<<< David
Um, no. You said, "if a mixed race pair could produce distinct racial trait variation if they bred ", not produce ALL of the races we see. Some variety could be produced as there are many alleles pairs to play around with but I dont know if they all could. We don't even know all of the alleles that produce racial variations afaik. It's not a claim I could make.
So some variety could be produced just through recombination but there would be some limitations in diversity. Leaving aside the issue of genetic diseases you might get from a small breeding group (like noahs family or the animals 3k years after the fall).
The issue of alleles is still on the table. The problem is this: You imagine alleles tossed into a bag, all jumbled together. In reality they are carefully stored in specific positions. Many of those positions have more specific alleles linked to them (spread across the population) than two people (or even a small group) could store.
It's not a grab bag.

The problem with science now-a-days is they try and explain to much. To try and tell the world in no uncertain terms that the universe started from an explaining ball of ammonia and that life on earth started on the backs of crystals or from lightening hitting a puddle of mud. If this is what some people want me to believe in then those people are freakin nuts. Sorry, but I believe that life is not some freak accident which started from an explosion in space. I don’t claim to know what started it all but there is intelligence built into everything we see. Chaos has almost no part in anything. You see order everywhere you decide to look. Call me crazy but I don’t buy the scientists explanation about life. It’s frankly weird that anyone would.

Assuming you had an initial group with few or no genetic disease. A claim creationists might make for Adam and Eve but is harder to make for Noah’s family and the animals on the ark. There is a reason you don’t marry your cousin.
You still won’t have the diversity we see today without coming up with a mechanism for generating variant alleles. Very quickly as well.

Don’t read about quantum mechanics or general relativity. Youll sell your truck and move into a cave. The universe is just that wacky.

bubba
Re: “Alleles are covered in junior high school biology.”
That depends on how old you are. When they were mentioned a couple of months ago I had to ask my daughter-in-law what they were. I had never heard the term in high school or college, nor come across it in any of the books that I have read. Terminology changes with technology so please don’t be too surprised when we are not familiar with a particular term.

David -
But the key point here is how fast new variation is created. That seems to be a fundamental sticking point in a lot of our discussions. You are right that something like dog breeding, although technically consider “evolution,” could not progress very far without new variation being added. In the end, ALL genetic variation has to originate by mutation. Mutation is a very complicated subject, but we do know a lot of what causes it, and even more about what rates they typically occur. On average, every individual may have at least one mutation, but most of them are neutral. In fact, neutral mutations accumulate at a constant enough rate that they can be used as a rough estimation of how old a species is, or more precisely how long ago was the common ancestor between two samples.

Re: “Didn’t anyone want to take a look at human skeletons encased non-intrusively in Cretaceous rock? ”
Love to.

Jock>>You are right that something like dog breeding, although technically consider “evolution,” could not progress very far without new variation being added. In the end, ALL genetic variation has to originate by mutation. Mutation is a very complicated subject, but we do know a lot of what causes it, and even more about what rates they typically occur. >>
I think we DO know about breeding and teasing out traits from an existing genome. But I think ev’s ASSUME unjustifiably that that is a para-explanation for what MUST have happened to create all the diversity of life we see today. I heard a well-known ev (who lectured at a fossil conference, but I don’t recall the name) who told me (when I asked some challenging question) “well we don’t know HOW that happened but it had to have happened somehow because we know ev. is true.” Sort of circular, wouldn’t you say?
BTW, I mentioned animal instincts…is that not pretty impressive as SOMETHING LIKE almost supernatural ID? I mean try to imagine a human baby having the intricate knowledge that birds have about how to build a nest EXACTLY like all the other birds did…without ANY observation or training? Or migration…or about a 1000 other amazing abilities? And symbiotic relationships are pretty hard to fit into a non ID explanation too.
Oh…I’d better say “sorry” to bubba for bringing up more evidence! I only do that to dodge and distract you know!

David – “Or migration…or about a 1000 other amazing abilities?”
Indeed, such wonders in nature can very easily lead someone to think that it must have been designed on purpose. It is a very natural and understandable response.
But there have been enough cases where we HAVE shown a direct linkage between genetics and behavior, that it is quite reasonable to assume that it could be true in all cases.

“By comparing the dino’s protein sequences with those of 21 living organisms, a team of researchers say they have locked in the dinosaur-bird link”
Way cool. I will definitely have to read the original papers on that. That is a major argument that I have been following closely for a long time.

David – “I know him personally for 25 years and can vouch (FWIW) for his honesty.”
I have no reason to doubt your honest intentions or his. But I have every reason to doubt that there were modern humans in the Cretaceous. Somewhere there is an alternative explanation. I know that sounds like I am dismissing evidence without looking at it, but that is not really true. I have enough OTHER irrefutable evidence that humans simply could not have been alive at that time, that I am completely confident in being able to dismiss that without looking at it.
However, you do have me curious now, so I probably WILL look at it anyway. If only because a malachite femur would be way cool.

>>”By comparing the dino’s protein sequences with those of 21 living organisms, a team of researchers say they have locked in the dinosaur-bird link”
Way cool.>>
Careful. That is the same method they used to say a golden mole is closer to an elephant and a sea cow than to other moles. SERIOUSLY. And it is also closer to a goat or a human than it is to a marsupial mole.
That is what cladistics by means of protein sequencing says.

David: “could tell a salmon who left as a fingerling and swam the ocean for two years how to get back to the EXACT SPOT where he was spawned?”
Well, they really don’t KNOW the exact spot. They have to sniff it out. The chemical “smell” of the stream is imprinted on them when they are young, and all they have to do is search for that same chemical signature when it is time to go back. That’s still pretty amazing, I admit, but genetics have been shown to be able to do such “unbelievable” things before.

David – “a golden mole is closer to an elephant and a sea cow than to other moles.”
That’s because a golden mole is NOT really a mole at all. Someone just called it that because it is a fat furry critter that digs in the ground. That’s why scientist typically only use “latin” names. Because “common” names can be misleading.

BTW, Michael Cremo is on Coast to Coast right now…he is seeking to refute Darwinism but he goes the other way…saying humans have been around for a billion years or more!

David
Yes I went to your link and recognized the photos (they are great photos). But that is a modern strip mine (top down) the ancient mine was horizontal. I don’t know about the dates but the issue can be resolved on site by looking to see if there is evidence of an ancient cave-in and passage. Even filled in by sediment it should still be discernable. Without being there I don’t know. The link I gave you is where I had seen them the first time.

David – “No one is trying to say (like Michael Cremo) that humans lived 100 mya.”
I assume this is based on your assumption that Cretaceous rocks are not really that old.
I can only tell you what I have already said many times. We are not going to suddenly doubt the entire edifice of evolutionary theory based on a single “gotcha” that we can’t figure out.

“More importantly, the bones in the newer finds, like the earlier ones, were reported to be immediately surrounded by poorly compacted, sandy matrix, considerably softer than the hard sandstone of the Dakota formation further from the bones”
If this part is true then there was in fact a shaft at one time, but I don’t trust carbon dates so I would not say I am totally convinced that they are that recent either. But cretaceous? I doubt stronly. If it was true they should be world wide rather than one isolated spot.

David
What bothers me about these finds is that they are both important and interesting archaeological finds. It does not matter that they are shown to be intrusions. That lower jaw on your site is definetly modern, look at the cusps, thats a positive identification.
I would have expected them to be in the 5k to 7k year range by the minerization but copper is a strange bird too so I don’t know.

Also…as you look at the photos, remember that there would be some natural space separating the bone from the hardened rock….because the flesh would be present as the rock hardened. Lithification can indeed happen fast sometimes (as is proved by footprints, where a substrate hardens before the print is eroded). Then after the lithification, the flesh decomposes and the space may be filled with sand or whatever.
Also, remember that a young age is NOT a problem. No one is saying the specimens are as old as ev’s say the formation is.
I agree a healthy dose of skepticism is justified. But if there is no evidence of actual intrusion, then it is not enough to simply say “it MUST be intrusive burial.” I cannot see evidence of that at all. And contrary to what Kuban falsely reported, the pics seem to clearly show encasement in hard rock (with a small space filled with loose soil where the flesh was).

>>I would have expected them to be in the 5k to 7k year range by the minerization but copper is a strange bird too so I don’t know.
>>
BINGO!
It is 5-7,000 years old…AND Cretaceous.

>>>>>This is an example where advocates of evolution loose credibility. Now it is intuitive that we can look at sand patterns and decide if it is natural or designed. We can also develop experimental systems to test the design hypothesis. So go ahead and deny this, you only make your side look foolish — any rational person can see!>>>> Eric
Hyperbole! BS! etc, etc.
Proposing a system and then demanding that someone else create and test it doesnt strike me as science. Why you don’t you provide your suggestion to an ID supporter at the D Institute and get them to perform your so-called experiment? Why use a thought experiment that hasnt actually been done as evidence of anything? Go get it done, then publish the results. Scientists will then evaluate your methodology and the process goes on. Talking about it doesnt make it science.

And as to your earlier claim that all IDers are creationists I remembered another one. Michael Denton is an IDer who supports the fine tuning argument and a select number of ID arguments. He is not a YEC creationist. He used to be but gave up on the idea when genetic links were first discovered in the 1980s. Now he supports common descent, as well as ID.

Bob,
I think you misunderstand the issue. First of all Dawkins is, in addition to being a scientist, an outspoken and militant atheist author. His views on atheism arent part of the theory of evolution, they are his personal views. Ben Stein knows that Dawkins is a firebrand and so that’s why he’s talking to him. To offend christian sensibilities and make for exciting viewing.
The theory of evolution itself says nothing about the origin of life and many christians and christian scientists support both evolution and divine creation of life (or the soul) in the distant past.
To get the idea that “god left fingerprints” into science class they first need to make a science of it, not just make random claims and then run away.
ID is ridiculed because 12 years on they still have no theory, have made poor showings in court, started the discovery institute with a goal toward public relations rather than science and generally fail to impress anyone in the field. Writing popular books for the masses is not the scientific method.

Jock
Actually I am still not familiar with Dawkins except for comments in posts. Has he written anything substantial to paleontology or extinction that I might want to read?

Quietman -
Richard Dawkins is a fairly respected scientist, even though a lot of people disagree with him on a lot of things. He is a hard-core evolutionary biologist (maybe geneticist – I forget), and a notorious iconoclast. He has written several famous “popular” science books over the decades, starting with the classic “The Selfish Gene,” as well as The Blind Watchmaker and a recent diatribe against religion that is probably how he became “the bogeyman” to ID folks, although most were certainly aware of him before that.

The “sun coming up” is speaking relatively to our position, of course. I wouldn’t want to be scientifically imprecise if I’m going to bet my life on it!

Ah, David, this is not true.
The head of the Human Genome Project is an evangelical, born-again, miracle believing christian who has no time for either creationism or ID and says as much.
Prominent ID supports like Michael Behe also have no problem with the common descent of all life. Behe in his 2007 book suggests that mutations are simply directed by God. Everything else he is onboard for.
Michael Denton, a former Discovery Institute fellow says the same thing. He now supports the common descent of all life but believes that god set the intitial conditions “just so” to allow for it.

Quietman -
I checked on Dawkins real quick to remind myself of a couple things I had forgotten: He was British ethologist in the glory days, studying under Niko Tinbergen himself, so he has some academic standing from the start.
If you have ever heard the term “meme” (meaning the cultural evolution equivalent of a “gene”), that was Dawkins. He introduced the term in The Selfish Gene.
And he titled his recent book “The God Delusion,” so you can pretty much see where he is coming from!

QM>>Jock
Actually I am still not familiar with Dawkins except for comments in posts. Has he written anything substantial to paleontology or extinction that I might want to read?>>
Blind Watchmaker is his more famous book. You may want to listen to a lecture (about an hour) I heard which he did about a year ago. In it he seemed to say that he is SURE that biological design can be explained naturalistically but it is the NON-biological design he has trouble with as an atheist. I would say that if you decide that the U’s non-biological features had to be designed then you are 90% there to say that the same designer brought about life and variety. It is silly to say He couldn’t or didn’t. Why wouldn’t He?

>>From what I can glean out of these articles on both sites is that most of the bones are some distance away in an intrusion while the initial find was below cretaceous rock. This paints a picture of a vally or gorge used as shelter with a mine entrance going beneath the older rock. Just the fact that two very different strata are found in the same plane seperated by a short distance points to intrusion and a collapsed mine shaft.
>>
There is no “separation”! Look at the pics! The hard rock is 3 inches (allowing for decomposed flesh) from the side of the bones in situ. Instead of your (erroneous) surmizing about valleys or gorges or mine entrances why not look at the pictures as the man who was at the site TWENTY TIMES and participated in the removal of the bones DESCRIBES it to you? Who goes into a mine WITH NO TOOLS? (No tools found). Or do you just want to rely on what Kuban (who’s never been there as far as I know to see the anything while the bones were in situ…as Patton did) says about it? I am agreeing that it maybe we have two sides giving two descriptions which sound as if they are inconsistent. But listen to both and look closely at what Patton shows in the lecture (with photos WHILE the excavation took place)…and judge for yourself. If indeed the bone is encased as if in concrete, then that is totally at odds with the intrusion explanation. The AE Ev’s have to stand on their heads to find a way to see intrusion that is NOT THERE because this is the silver bullet if they don’t.

I checked and the post where I answered BK’s questions (which he said he posted 4 times elsewhere) is not on the site. I don’t know if it was read or not, but in case BK didn’t see it here it is again. I don’t want someone to think I ignored him. (Sent about 48 hours ago).
BK:>>Here is the challenge for every ID supporter out there – offer one single piece of objective support for even one of the necessary assumptions that ID relies upon. If ID is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, let alone a full blown theory, it should be easy for one believer out there to provide one piece of objective data from a repeatable and verifiable test.
* Assumption – A supreme intelligent designer must necessarily exist.>>
I would not accept your “necessarily” standard. I would say the proper one is “what is more reasonable to someone who is open to both conclusions”. Would you agree?
ID people would not even ask that science agree a designer “must necessarily” exist. They simply want those who control what takes place in the scientific community to not be restricted to only considering random impersonal natural causes…to explain things. Maybe one realm of “science” should be “how to explain things if all we include are naturalistic causes”. And another could be “is it reasonable to think that only naturalistic causes can explain all we see?” If you want to call that something like “metascience” then fine. That is essentially what is going on in “science” anyway when they start inventing wacky ideas like multiverses and dark matter and dark energy and life from non-life.
BK>>* Assumption – The supreme intelligent designer that must necessarily exist also must necessarily be the Judeo Christian God of the Bible.>>
ID does not assert that. Christians and Jews do. Once we establish it is more reasonable to conclude someone designed the U then it would be another matter to consider if that designer can be known. All that can be known from just looking at the physical world is that the designer had great power…beyond what is natural (as we understand nature presently anyway). Trying to know who this designer is would include seeking evidence from space (if there might be some ET who did the designing) as well as from the various religious sources…including the Bible. It would then be necessary to decide if the evidence of divine origin within the Bible itself (“internal evidences”) is sufficient to cause one to conclude it is more reasonable that this document was of human origin or divine. However, I don’t agree that this is part of what an ID would ask science to be willing to examine.
BK>>** Or, where is the objective data that proves the intelligent designer wasn’t Jupiter, Zeus, Buddha, Odin, Zoraster, etc. etc.?
** Also, where is the objective data that proves the creation stories from every other religious tradition are wrong?>>
I would not try to address any of this until there was agreement that it is more reasonable that the universe, our world, and the life forms in our world show evidence of ID. Until that is agreed upon there is no point to address any of that. When that is done, the purpose of ID is ended and then various religious considerations are needed. I would however agree with BK (if this is his point) that merely showing evidence of design in biology is not enough to rule out that being a product of some designer other than the God of the Bible.
BK: * Assumption – It is impossible for infinite random uncontrolled events, even if given billions of years, to evolve into more complex life from less complex life.
I would not accept the “impossible” standard you seek to have us use (to make your job easier). “More reasonable” is more reasonable to use. I will of course agree that the more time you give for an unlikely event to happen, the more likely it is to eventually happen. What is or isn’t “enough” time is the question. And of course that depends on how unlikely the circumstances are…and how much time REALLY is available. I won’t accept the idea that we just ignore the difficulty of how the first cell of life originated…as it seems the ev’s here want. That is like asking the game to start with them on my 2 yd line! There are some limits on the time allowed too, even given a 4.5by earth. For instance, the Cambrian explosion was done in relatively short time (ev. time). And when you find human footprints (at Laetoli) back before the time of Lucy (a. afarensis), then that squeezes the time allowed for ape-human ev. to be too short. (Laetoli tracks are dated at 3.8 my and the supposed common ancestor has been thought to be around 5my).
BTW, I think “billions” is a bit much…I think it is more like 500-1000 million (ev. time) since they say the first life appeared. And it is also too much for the origin of life because the earth would not have cooled enough to permit any possibility of life for much of its 4.5by life.
BK>>** Or, where is the objective data that proves God could not have or did not design evolution as the natural process for developing life?>>
Again that is another subject…which is fine to consider. But if you “go there” then you have agreed that ID is true. That is what Behe and all theistic ev’s have concluded. Perhaps that is what leaders in the Catholic church would say too. It is still a legit. question to ask if ev. (if it DID happen) could have occured totally “on its own” or if it was following some set of design instructions. Much of the problem ev. has is “where did the information come from?” If we were to agree that life had to come from a supernatural or at least extraterrestrial source…then it would be appropriate to decide if evidence supports the idea that the VARIETY of life could be a result of purely random mutation and “selection”. If you are ready to concede there was a designer, then I would be ready to address the secondary question of whether ev. is the means by which the designer produced variety of life. Will you concede that?
BK* Assumption – There is one, and only one, supreme intelligent designer.
** Where is the objective experimental data that proves there was only one designer and not multiple designers?
The evidence of that is not available by only looking at the design features of the world/universe. That is beyond the scope of what can be known without seeking evidence of whether the designer has revealed more about himself than just his power to create things supernaturally. If that is your point, then you will get no argument from me on that….I agree. We should not rule out the possibility that it could be multiple creators. However, if you conclude that the Bible more likely is of divine origin than human, then that will answer the question. That would be a fair question once an atheist has been converted into a theist. Should he be a polytheist or a monotheist? Then WHICH single God? And then WHICH (if any) religious source is that God’s way to reveal himself?
BK*** Maybe plants, mammals, fish, insects, etc. etc. had separate designers. Or each specific plant, animal, and insect had its own designer, meaning there was one designer each for lions, and tigers, and bears – oh my, etc. etc.
*** Maybe each complex system had its own designer, and then different designers combined the systems in different ways to make different life forms.
*** In other words, maybe one group of designer designed the pieces of the puzzles, and then different designers put the pieces together in as many different ways as they could think of.
I agree that we cannot know that at all by simply examining the world and concluding it is more likely designed than not designed. That is perhaps as far as ID should go…as long as you come to a point of agreement there is a SUFFICIENT designer, which would mean not only intelligent but powerful and eternal also (in order to bring into existence all matter/energy and life).
BK>>* Assumption – Only a supreme intelligent designer, i.e. one that is omnipotent and omniscient, is intelligent enough to design all of the life we see.>>
There must be a sufficient cause. We know (or at least believe it most likely) that no being in nature could bring itself into existence from nothingness. So the Cause would have to be a being with great power who transcends nature and is either able (somehow) to bring himself into existence or was/is eternal. Maybe this is entering into philosophy some, but really it is just simple logic. Either the U was eternal (not likely) or it was caused by something that IS eternal. Either life was eternal (not likely) or it was caused by something living and powerful…more powerful than we humans are. So we can know a few things about the designer from just a bit of logic, but not a lot more than that.
BK>>** Where is the objective data that proves a being, or beings, of lesser or non-omniscient intelligence could not possibly have designed any or all of the life on this planet?>>
I am not sure logic demands omniscience but it would require more intelligence than we humans presently have, and more power. And remember, we must not only explain variety of life, but the origin of life, and also the origin of matter. When you conclude that a designer was needed for origin of matter or life, it becomes more likely the same designer also made the variety.
BK>>*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people used eugenics and genetic engineering programs to design the life we now see.>>
I agree that possibility would need to be considered. It would be the next question after one concluded it was more reasonable that our world was designed. However, that extinct race would not be a sufficient cause for itself unless it was eternal and supernatural. And it would not be the cause for matter either. So you still have a “need” to explain life and matter by some supernatural and eternal first cause. It is not reasonable at all to think the U itself is either eternal or its own cause.
BK*** Maybe a prehistoric but extinct race of people cracked the unified field theory and built machines able to manipulate matter and energy at will. Then, instead of using low tech eugenics and genetic engineering, they just had the high tech machines design and create the precursors of the life we see now.
*** Or, maybe highly advanced aliens came here and did it with either of those two methods.>>
I agree that if we conclude it is more reasonable that variety of life was a result of ID, then several possible types of intelligent beings should be considered. However, you would agree I hope that this (above) “solution” really only pushes back a notch or two the same question of where did THAT group of extinct intelligent powerful beings come from? Were they eternal and supernatural?…or were they a result of mere random forces over vast time? And then you still have the problem of the U itself showing extreme “apparent design”…which is what Dawkins has his own difficulty with, as well he should.

Bubba>>Theistic evolution predates ID and I would think IDers would believe that evidence of design is discoverable. That may not always be the belief of a theistic evolution supporter.
You are trying to force people to be “ID” who have specifically said they are not supporters of it.
>>
It may be fair to say you are NOT in favor of ID being taught in public schools…although you believe it is (or may be) TRUE. But YOU ARE ID…and so also are plenty of other ev’s here apparently. Words have meaning. “Theistic Evolution” means that God (who is intelligent) used the process of evolution to cause variety after He originated life supernaturally. His purpose or “design” was to use evolution. ID! It is silly (IMO) to try to say “God DID design but He did not design in such a way that anyone could detect design.” Even Dawkins could see the appearance of DETECTABLE design in the non-biological U. And he (in the movie) even entertained that biological design is plausible…so long as you attribute it to an ETI rather than deity.

For instance Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project does not support ID and finds it poor science and theology. He supports theistic evolution but specifically does not support the claims of those associated with the ID movement.
You cant force people to join a movement by claiming they are in whether they like it or not. lol

Jock>>>I would bet you my life savings if not my life that those humans did not live in the Cretaceous. How can I be so sure without even looking at it? For the same reason I would bet you that the sun is going to come up tomorrow morning: I have enough OTHER evidence of how the Universe works that I don’t have to wait until tomorrow morning to test it ONE MORE TIME.
>>
Sounds a lot like saying “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with anything I don’t already know”…no offense.
Let me test you. If you DID see it with your own eyes…a human bone encased in hard rock (like concrete) and then you found dinos in the same formation (maybe miles away, but it could be solidly ID’d as being Cretaceous)…THEN would you have a little reluctance to bet your life?
Or maybe you were there as they busted open the dino bone and red/brown gunk came out…later ID’d as being protein (blood vessels, blood cells, ligaments, etc.). Wouldn’t you then have to at least pause a BIT? I mean…sure, try to figure if there is a scientifically sound theory for how soft tissue could last 65 million,…but don’t just have a knee-jerk reaction to say “it MUST be able to last that long without degrading because I already KNOW FOR SURE that dinos are that old.”
BTW, of course you realize that I believe SOME Ev’s (atheists) are betting a lot MORE than their lives on naturalism being true. I don’t know your own view on faith, but I think you said you were strongly “agnostic.” Well, maybe a study of these topics will move you toward actual faith in God and His word. If not, and if He is “out there”, then of course it could cost you your life and more. Not trying to be offensive, but that IS why this all is so important.

BTW, I was the one who gave Patton the heads up on this find. I saw another pic of it online and sent it to DP. He said “interesting.” Then 3 months later he had arranged an expedition to Cambodia to locate and document it! I believe there is a project now to make a lifesize replica of the entire carved wall for viewing in the US.

David
Re: “Would you think that the person (living 900 years ago) who carved this may have seen a stegasaur?”
The 14th century temple in Cambodia was considered to be a fairly advanced culture. This leads to two good possibilities:
1) they saw the Kentrosaurus fossil and acurately pieced together what it should look like (except for the head and tip of the tail) or
2) some dinosurs escaped total extinction and survived in small numbers in remote places.
I personally do not rule out either possibility. If you read up on cryptozoology, there are supposedly sightings still of animals resembling the one in the carving, as well as ones resembling camarasaurus and pterodactyls. They are considered cryptids and not recognized by science because science can not use hearsay evidence just like in court.