View Full Version : Kansas finds sanity again
Banquo's Ghost
08-03-2006, 15:26
Looks like sense is regaining the upper hand in Kansas (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9665-kansas-schools-set-to-reembrace-evolution-.html)
In a state primary election, Kansas voters have ousted two radical conservative school board members who opposed teaching evolution in schools.
The result of the 1 August election guarantees that the Kansas state school board will be transformed in January 2007 from one that mainly opposes the teaching of evolution to one that has majority support for it.
"I am thrilled," says Janet Waugh, a pro-evolution school board member and Democrat who lives in Kansas City and won her primary on Tuesday. "The people of Kansas are tired of being the laughing stock of not just the nation, but the world."
Although the election was a primary and not a general election, the result ensures that two of the school board's six anti-evolution members will not stand in the general election in November 2006.
As both the Republican and Democrat candidates for those seats are now very likely to be pro-evolution, the result of the general election should be immaterial: at least six out of 10 school board members will be pro evolution when the current school board hands over in January 2007.
"The only thing that can happen is for things to get better for us," says Jack Krebs of Kansas Citizens For Science, a non-profit group that seeks to educate the public about evolution.
A central issue in the primary election was evolution. In November 2005, the school board voted 6 to 4 to change the state's definition of science so that it could include supernatural causes and to change the definition of evolution to imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God (see Kansas backs intelligent design in science lessons).
Before November 2005, the curriculum read that "science seeks natural explanations". Now it reads that science seeks "more adequate explanations" for natural phenomena. It also adds that: "The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor...has been challenged in recent years", even though mainstream science has produced vast amounts of evidence for common descent.
These are subtle changes, but would allow supernatural ideas to be taught as science, and an unscientific amount of doubt to be heaped on Darwinian evolution, says Krebs. Anti-evolutionists have a problem accepting certain aspects of Darwinian evolution because it conflicts with the idea that a supernatural being, such as God, created the world.
Down to business
John Calvert, manager of the Intelligent Design Network in Shawnee Mission, Kansas, is in favour of the 2005 changes and denies that they were religiously motivated. "I don't think that science is just about material explanation," he says. "There is an enormous amount of data that is inconsistent with common ancestry."
The state standards form a guide for local school districts but had not yet been adopted into the curriculum of any actual schools, probably because the districts were waiting to ensure that the school board that had voted for them would stay, before going to the effort of changing their curriculums.
Pro-evolution experts feared that if a majority of anti-evolution candidates had stayed, the curriculum would have been adopted by local districts with creationist leanings. But soon the school board will not have a majority in favour of the new standards. "One of the first parts of getting down to business will be to remove these creationist standards," says Krebs.
Connie Marsh and Brad Patzer, who were in favour of the new standards in November were ousted in Tuesday’s vote, and will leave the school board in January 2007.
:2thumbsup:
Yeah, that's all well and good, but where do they stand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :inquisitive:
Don Corleone
08-03-2006, 16:27
You know, I never understood the whole Kansas school board thing. It's one thing to propose Intelligent Design, creationism, whatever as a competing 'scientific' theory and present the empirical evidence available to support it. I don't have anywhere near as much of a problem with that.
But banning any lesson plan that even hints at evolution was just way over the top. If your scientific theory cannot play in the arena of ideas, it doesn't belong there in the first place. Thank goodness (speaking as an electrical engineer) the Bible doesn't even mention electricty, or even lightning. I can only imagine where consumer electronics would be if we were required to teach at the university level that in reality, it was cherubim coming to dwell in a glass globe that made it light up. :dizzy2:
Tribesman
08-03-2006, 16:35
Someone once wrote......
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
......so religeous nuts trying to mix religeon with things that are not religeon is nothing new , 1500 years later and there are still plenty of reckless and incompetent nuts .
But good news for the school board if the vote goes as predicted .
And the lord sayeth unto noah , I command thee to include a moonpool in my holy revised design , and Noah sayeth in awe to his master blimey oh lord thine wisdom is astounding , the wife was just saying that a DIY project wouldn't be complete without a nice water feature . Oh and while you are here , I got a smal problem with the suppliers , they are all out of pitch and are not expecting any deliveries for a few thousand years Book of Amadan 6-26
Thank goodness (speaking as an electrical engineer) the Bible doesn't even mention electricty, or even lightning. I can only imagine where consumer electronics would be if we were required to teach at the university level that in reality, it was cherubim coming to dwell in a glass globe that made it light up. :dizzy2:
Well, they teach us software guys that ICs work because of the magic smoke. When you let the smoke out of the chip, it doesn't work anymore... :oops:
And the lord sayeth unto noah , I command thee to include a moonpool in my holy revised design , and Noah sayeth in awe to his master blimey oh lord thine wisdom is astounding , the wife was just saying that a DIY project wouldn't be complete without a nice water feature . Oh and while you are here , I got a smal problem with the suppliers , they are all out of pitch and are not expecting any deliveries for a few thousand years Book of Amadan 6-26:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
08-04-2006, 01:33
Unfortunately, it is not sanity that is prevailing in Kansas, but lies and deceit.
The fanatic darwinists falsely said that the Kansas School board opposed evolution.
In reality, they only supported teaching that there are some criticisms of evolution:
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html
(go to 8th-12th grade standards).
At the top of page 18, dealing with life sciences:
STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE GRADES 8-12
LIFE SCIENCE – The student will develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.
Benchmark 3: The student will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.
At the end of the section (page 21).
The life science standards provide a framework for a variety of courses in the life sciences. Evolution is a key theoretical framework for the life sciences; these indicators should be part of any life science course curriculum, including biology, botany, zoology, and microbiology.
The part that apparently got the darwinists hot in their tweed (page 20):
7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.
7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.
All of the standards are not compatible at all with creationism, and make no mention of Intelligent design.
The darwinists, refusing to acknowledge that there could be some small holes in Darwin's theory, labeled them 'anti-science' among other lies. And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work.
A National Review article on the subject:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTA1Y2IzMTk1MDYzNzI5MGFhZmJjOWE3MWM0Y2ZkOGI=
Crazed Rabbit
Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
ajaxfetish
08-04-2006, 02:13
Well, looks like there'll soon be one less reason to be embarrassed on behalf of my fellow countrymen. I wonder how much contribution the FSM made to this correction. Thankfully people have taken notice of the issue and democracy has worked as it's supposed to.
Ajax
Louis VI the Fat
08-04-2006, 03:27
It's always heartwarming to see the natives of faraway exotic places like Kansas join the ranks of civilization nations. :2thumbsup:
Reverend Joe
08-04-2006, 03:57
God does not belong in a scientific classroom, for one simple reason.
The theories of God are based upon many assumptions which have no compatibility with reality itself. This is because they exist in a way that we do not. To attempt to understand them in our world would thus be the equivalent of attempting to apply the laws of science to a drug trip. Things are not going to make sense, because they (drug trips and the theories of God) operate by different laws other than those of science.
Whether or not there is actually any interaction between the alternate "planes" of, or even if these other things are (I do not wish to use the word "exist", because God doesn't exist the way you and I and reality do, but that's for another night), is not the concern of science. Science is limited in its scope to that which can be hypothesised to be true and real; in other words, what exists according to our world of existence. To attempt to apply this to something like God is folly, and similarly, to attempt to apply the percieved actions of a "being" whose true motives or actions we are clueless on is also sheer folly. For that matter, the very idea that we can hope to know God's true nature and designs is so laughable that I am amazed that the Pope is not recieved with a roar of jeers and laughter every time he makes an appearance. Noone has a monopoly on the knowledge of God. So, how, I ask you, does a theory like intellegent design have any merit in a scientific classroom whatsoever?
(And for the record, I am extremely religious, and I do believe in a being called God, but I don't think he spends all his time tinkering with how life will evolve. If he did, then explain the Platypus. I dare you. A hideous abberation that does not even have the decency to make up for this by being nice. And don't try pulling the Devil on me... he hasn't fit into any other aspect of "intellegent design.")
Earl of Sandwich
08-04-2006, 05:58
Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
Please, do go on. I appreciate the entertainment. Is it not true that evolution is a secular conspiracy on the part of the godless liberal media to promote a Marxist agenda in schools while distributing condoms to 6-year-olds in order to have protected sex with 60-year-old men after school? Is it not true that evolution was invented by Karl Marx and Charles Darwin during a homoerotic love cruise on the H.M.S. Beagle? How could I be so blind to the truth, that the whole vast cosmos was actually created a few thousand years ago by an invisible super-man, and yet, this same guy focuses 90% of his attention to what one species on one tiny spec of dust does with its genitalia? It only makes too much sense for me to believe!
Papewaio
08-04-2006, 06:21
Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
I agree that would be total BS. It would be like calling a child the parent of a twin. As it was the proto-ape and the proto-humans that respectively turned into ape and man. That the proto-apes ancestor and the proto-humans ancestor were one and the same is far more sensible.
Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
Do you have a better explanation? Do tell.
Tachikaze
08-04-2006, 07:15
The darwinists, refusing to acknowledge that there could be some small holes in Darwin's theory, labeled them 'anti-science' among other lies. And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work.
I hope you're not confusing Darwinism with Evolutionism, if I may call it that for parallel structure's sake.
No knowledgeable, rational person disputes evolution. It's as much a fact as the Sun-centered solar system and round Earth. The disputes come in the mechanism(s) of evolution. This is where the science is theoretical.
Few scientists today follow a purely Darwinian explanation. It fails to answer certain questions on some transitional functional features of organisms. This doesn't mean that alternative or supplemental theories haven't been proposed and tested. After all, Darwin wrote his books 150 years ago!
Evolution of simple organisms to modern life forms, including humans, of course, should be presented as fact in schools, along with photosynthesis and plate tectonics. The mechanisms that made Evolution come about should be presented as theories.
Tribesman
08-04-2006, 08:39
Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
Showing the "mental" in fundamental again , how sane is someone who literally interprets a hodgepodge collection of mistranslated heavily edited words as the ultimate truth ?
But of course Pape has pointed out a serious flaw in your position , the words of Augustine sum you up quite well don't they .....to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Showing the "mental" in fundamental again , how sane is someone who literally interprets a hodgepodge collection of mistranslated heavily edited words as the ultimate truth ?
But of course Pape has pointed out a serious flaw in your position , the words of Augustine sum you up quite well don't they .....to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements,.
In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.
"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.
Ironside
08-04-2006, 10:09
In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.
"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.
What I've always found interesting is that people were right for atleast 1850 years (you can probably add 1000-2000 years on that) and then suddenly decides to get it all wrong. Then thanks to thier master manipulating skills they convince most of the world of thier false ideas.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
InsaneApache
08-04-2006, 10:11
In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.
"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.
I agree. I was indoctrinated at school and church about Christianity. However as I became more educated I saw it for the preposterous belief system that it is. No basis in fact and you have to believe what was written down thousands of years ago, by men with an agenda.
Evolution on the other hand does not bash you over the head to get the message across. The proof is there for all to see, you only have to open your mind.
Evolution on the other hand does not bash you over the head to get the message across.
Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".
English assassin
08-04-2006, 10:57
And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work
In stark contrast to the rigourous fact based work of the "faith community"? What did faith mean again BTW? Oh yeah, believing something without evidence, that was it.
Navaros I really don't mind that you believe every word in the bible but please could you at least pay lip service to how science says it works? You know, evidence, falsifiability, all that. Frankly it pees me off a bit to have science accused of propagandising children, when 2/3 of the schools in the UK are Church of England or Roman catholic, just so the vicars can start banging on about sin to five year olds.
Who was it said before you remove a mote of dust from someone elses eye first remove the beam from your own?
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 11:28
Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".
Crime against humanity? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Navaros, you really need to get out more.
Your Jesus would be the very best person to take you by the hand and show you true crimes against humanity. But then poverty never seems to be very far up the list of 'Christians' does it, only moral outrage. He would also be a good person to warn you about the dangers of taking established religionists' hard-line views at face value. You're not the first to condemn science and thinking as being anti-religious, heresy and the work of Satan, and sadly unlikely to be the last.
But then, just as with Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, your kind would be the first to condemn a returned Christ for being so radical as to ask people to think.
Eppur si muove. (Assuming you are allowed to read his works rather than burn them).
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 12:39
Can I just interject with a question for a second? Did the Kansas school board require the teaching of creationism and halt the teaching of evolution? Or did it just allow for the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design, or spaghetti monster, etc).
Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).
And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.
Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.
English assassin
08-04-2006, 12:54
It allowed the teaching of creationism...in science classes.
That is fine so long as I can teach enzyme kinetics in RE.
DC, no one would say that science has a complete answer, with copper bottomed proof, for how we went from a ball of lava to me typing these words in 4.5 billion years. No biologist would, I think, say we had a stand out theory for how life began, and no biologist would want children to be told that we did in the absence of evidence. Like you I find the whole "warm little pool" model a bit unlikely although its not the last word on the subject these days, and you and I probably both have difficulty in giving full credit for what might happen when you are considering things on a geological timescale. Its a bit unfair to draw many conclusions from the fact that cells fail to spontaneously assemble in a test tube in a week, when we are talking about the whole surface of the earth and maybe 500 million years.
The trouble with your (otherwise reasonable) comments about not being allowed to question evolution and whats that all about, is we are talking about school level science here. It simplifies. You wouldn't get up in arms about teaching kids Newtonian gravity, even though as it happens we know for a fact its wrong. (ish. Y'all know what I mean. )
So, how come for all other school subjects, we teach the kids the essential outlines of the broadly accepted approaches to the issues, but here, where we have a theory which in its overall form is about as firmly established as any scientific theory has ever been, we want to be open to nit picking and quibbles that don't even affect the basic theory, and that might be relevant at university level but not before.
Oh yeah. Because a few people seriously think the bible says the earth was created in 4004 BC. As pedagogy that doesn't do it for me.
As you said earlier, its lucky for you the bible has nothing to say about electrical engineering.
Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".
Well I dont know what kind of logic you use, but a sensible person logic would say that evolution sounds far more plausible than creationism, not to mention the fact that volution has far more scientific backing as well.
The idea of a supreme creator is ludacris when you think about it, how do you know that the Christian creator is the right one, after all there are many other gods, like the FSM.
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 14:24
EA,
You misunderstand the intent of my post. I'm arguing for the right to discuss any contradictory evidence on evolution. Believe me, I'm no creationist, and it would serve as a very poor parallel model.
Schools use evolution as one example of the scientific model, and how extended research and empiricism can lead to the rebuttal of commonly held beliefs. I think this is an important lesson for young minds. But somebody forgot to tell the science teachers. I see no healthy skepticim, no attempt to require designed experiments, no contemplation of alternate theories (and go ahead and leave creationsim out).
I mean, one popular alternative to evolution that requires no relgious faith whatsoever holds that in reality, life was brought to Earth by extra-terrestrial intelligent life forms and that we have been gently nudged in certain directions over the aeons. Why not present that and use that as an example for scientific debate. Present what evidence exists for evolution, present what evidence exists for the X-files version, and let the debate of ideas begin.
The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.
If people want to claim that it's elves running up and down copper wires and not electricty at all, I'd be happy to debate them on it. If I couldn't, or wouldn't, I hardly deserve to be treated as an engineer. I'm nothing more than an automaton, consulting formulas and following a prescribed recipe... no actual thinking required.
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 14:28
Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.
Biologists do. Very few people would advocate the banning of creationism as a subject for religious studies, or even including an assessment of creation theory in science class which is subjected to the same rigorous scientific criteria as you espouse be applied to evolutionary theory (rightly). Science is about critical analysis of theory. Faith is about believing your revelation. One cannot apply the same methodology to both.
Gaps in the tale are there because science is always testing new thoughts and tries not to claim things that can't be verified through proofs. There are developing theories of evolution. But creationism is a belief system based on a Middle east tradition - and there are many creation myths out there other than the Christian accepted one. Why is that the one that should be taught in parallel with evolution, even if you are a theist? That, to me, is the first question that needs to be answered by creationists - why your fairy story, not one of the others, just as valid? Why should a Buddhist have to listen to creation stories as fact? Let's face it, if it hadn't been for a pragmatic choice in the Roman Empire, no-one would have heard of it and we'd be arguing about Jupiter impregnating a swan or whatnot being The TruthTM.
The thin skin comes from the outrageous attempts by some religionists to subvert science. We biologists tend to be at the forefront because for reasons unknown to me, the lunatic fundies don't have a go at physics, astronomy, chemistry and the other core sciences.
It's really no different from wanting to teach Flat-earthism in geography class. Alchemy in Chemistry class. Etc. Why aren't creationists pushing for that? (I know from your earlier post that you understand that, so this post is asking open questions, not directed at your post :smile:)
And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.
Actually, there's been some good work demonstrating this experimentally. The problem is, the effects of millions of years of random events on a planetary scale is quite difficult to model in the lab. So it's our best guess, drawn from first principles, and there's some experiments to show you can get amino acids and RNA precursors from such an environment. That puts it about a million miles in front of the so far untestable idea that some bearded geezer who likes to be invisible waved his magic wand and it all sprang into view.:bounce:
Banquo's Ghost
08-04-2006, 14:35
The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.
Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing! :bow:
If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.
If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?
If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*
*See the unyielding Navaros.
Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".
Man...Navaros.....reading your posts acusing OTHERS of being "zealous and fundamentalist"
:laugh4:
man....I think my irony indicator just exploded! :oops:
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 14:50
Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing! :bow:
If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.
If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?
If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*
*See the unyielding Navaros.
Sadly, yes. The scientific method, or as I like to call it, thinking for oneself in an orderly, repeatable way, doesn't really get taught until the University level. Chemistry, physics, geology... they're all taught like Organic Chemistry.... semesters, if not years, of memorizing a series of facts Sometimes these facts are logically related, often they are not. Always, they are facts and why is an unheard question. The scientific method is 'taught', in that the 4 phases are presented as additional material for memorization, but true critique and analysis doesn't begin until after secondary school. :embarassed:
Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).
Of course the current theory/model has holes in it....It´s a best guess and nobody is saying the contrary.....
but just because there are holes and parts we don´t understand I don´t think telling the kids fairy-tales is a good alternative.
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 14:57
Of course the current theory/model has holes in it....It´s a best guess and nobody is saying the contrary.....
but just because there are holes and parts we don´t understand I don´t think telling the kids fairy-tales is a good alternative.
Read my whole discussion, Ronin. I'm not advocating for Creationsim, per se. I don't know how evolution is taught in Portugal, but in the US, it is presented as certain as mathematics. No questioning, no identification of areas where the theory needs tweaking, just "Science has the answer. Learn the answer. Never question the answer."
As I said, by all means, use theories (and I hesistate to use that word describing creationsim) other than Genesis. My aforementioned alien visitors (ala Arthur C. Clarke), Odin reaching to the depths of the Ocean and pulling mud up from the bottom, hell, the Simirallion offers an interesting theory of origin. My point is, highlight the evidence (or lack thereof), and teach students that they are there to learn how to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision, which almost always will lead to an adoption of some form of an evolutionary model. But don't shove a bunch of facts down their throats and force them to recite it like a creed. That's worse than not teaching them anything. :no:
Read my whole discussion, Ronin. I'm not advocating for Creationsim, per se. I don't know how evolution is taught in Portugal, but in the US, it is presented as certain as mathematics. No questioning, no identification of areas where the theory needs tweaking, just "Science has the answer. Learn the answer. Never question the answer."
As I said, by all means, use theories (and I hesistate to use that word describing creationsim) other than Genesis. My aforementioned alien visitors (ala Arthur C. Clarke), Odin reaching to the depths of the Ocean and pulling mud up from the bottom, hell, the Simirallion offers an interesting theory of origin. My point is, highlight the evidence (or lack thereof), and teach students that they are there to learn how to evaluate evidence and make an informed decision, which almost always will lead to an adoption of some form of an evolutionary model. But don't shove a bunch of facts down their throats and force them to recite it like a creed. That's worse than not teaching them anything. :no:
if that is how children in the US are being taught about science then a great dis-service is being done for their education indeed.
I remember being in high school and having good long discussions in Biology class about the issue.....when it came to tests and such the correct answer accepted was the evolution theory...but in class the issue was surely discussed.
Reverend Joe
08-04-2006, 17:57
Great. :wall:
Everyone else presents talking points and gets argued with, repeatedly quoted and read.
I attempt a rational philosophical explanation of the matter and nobody cares.
Don, I already explained why such a theory as intellegent design has no place in a classroom. Navaros, I already explained why religion has no place in science, and vice versa. But do any of you care? No. It isn't a talking point.
I hate the backroom.
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 18:05
Oy, Zorba, I didn't answer you because you're arguing against a point that I never made. One more time. I am not arguing for the right to teach Intelligent Design. I am arguing that the whole point of teaching evolution in schools is to impart scientific method, but the way it's taught in the US is AS Dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion out there. Questions, contradictory evidence, possible alternatives (NOT NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT DESIGN, SEE MY NUMEROUS OTHER POSTS FOR OTHER ALTERNATE THEORIES...), and the whole concept of weighing the evidence is left out of High School biology. Because the NEA always teaches to the lowest common denominator, what comes out is "EVOLUTION IS RIGHT. DON'T QUESTION EVOLUTION". The fact that you cannot understand what I've said 4 times already just proves how woefully inadequate our educational system is. Yes, I agree with you that evolution is the most LIKELY theory for how life came to be. But scientific theories aren't facts, or we'd call them that. Saying "Evolution is a fact" just goes to show how badly you've been shortchanged at school.
Reverend Joe
08-04-2006, 18:17
Oy, Zorba, I didn't answer you because you're arguing against a point that I never made. One more time. I am not arguing for the right to teach Intelligent Design. I am arguing that the whole point of teaching evolution in schools is to impart scientific method, but the way it's taught in the US is AS Dogmatic as any fundamentalist religion out there. Questions, contradictory evidence, possible alternatives (NOT NECESSARILY INTELLIGENT DESIGN, SEE MY NUMEROUS OTHER POSTS FOR OTHER ALTERNATE THEORIES...), and the whole concept of weighing the evidence is left out of High School biology. Because the NEA always teaches to the lowest common denominator, what comes out is "EVOLUTION IS RIGHT. DON'T QUESTION EVOLUTION". The fact that you cannot understand what I've said 4 times already just proves how woefully inadequate our educational system is. Yes, I agree with you that evolution is the most LIKELY theory for how life came to be. But scientific theories aren't facts, or we'd call them that. Saying "Evolution is a fact" just goes to show how badly you've been shortchanged at school.
No, I did not say that evolution was fact... I was saying thay Evolution is the most likely theory- in fact, it is the only theory at the moment in science, because Extraterrestrial influences and visitations have yet to be accepted, for lack of anything other than circumstantial and unsteady evidence (the strongest evidence being video recordings) and the self transforming machine elves have yet to reveal themselves tot he scientific community, so we are left with Evolution as the only plausible scientific theory.
And since when has it been taught as fact? I was never told it was fact. I was told it was the CURRENT THEORY. Noone says it is fact except in your imagination and the wet dreams of Bill O'Reilley (and probably Al Franken too... I kinda lump the two together.)
I heard what you argue. You are trying to get everyone to admit that Evolution is only a theory- okay, it is. So is relativity, and for that matter, so are atoms. Neither is really proven. But I would like to see someone try to argue for an alternative theory. Aristotle's five elements theory, for example. They can't, because the evidence is severely lacking. And so it is with alternate theories of how life came about.
You ought to admit that you are really trying to find a way that intellegent design would have some merit in a classroom. Thus my previous argument.
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 18:30
Okay, let's drop the whole concept of evolution Zorba, because it really, truly, has almost absolutely nothing do with my beef over this.
Let's pick another widely accepted scientific theory that gets taught in schools. As you brought it up, let's pick Bohr's atomic model. I would argue that there actually is quite a bit of empirical evidence 'proving' the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons. But, in chemistry class, they don't say "this is one theory as to how atomic matter is organized. These are the reasons people think this...". You get the diagram, you memorize the diagram, and you never question the diagram. Well, as it turns out, Bohr's atomic model, while advanced for it's time, has been out of date for almost 100 years. :oops: It actually isn't so much wrong, but more a question of 'limited'. But even in schools where they teach expanded, more detailed models, such as relativity, they do not teach students to question it on it's assumptions and actually weigh the evidence for alternate theories.
As a result, American students (and I suspect European ones, despite their protests) grow up thinking 'these are the facts, I must learn more facts', when in reality, they should be taught how to make the most intelligent choice from among several competing theories. As it turns out, it took Steven Hawking himself to discredit his own Big Bang theory.... nobody else would dare challenge him. He was mortified! He took a shot at the community of peers, essentially saying that he was so focused on his own idea, he had expected his peers to keep him honest and they failed him.
This is my point. Science is more akin to law than mathematics, but it's not presented that way anymore. It is taught entirely too dogmatically and it is against this that I argue. Heck, I personally can disprove Genesis using nothing more than Genesis itself. I know Intelligent Design is a bunch of jibberish. But only because I know HOW to approach the problem, not just parrot what I've been told.
Reverend Joe
08-04-2006, 18:41
Don, that's just plain wrong. The last time I was taught that Bohr's model was scientific fact was in elementary school! Every time there is a reasonable alternative explanation, I was taught it. As a matter of fact, we were taught everythign from the "blueberry muffin" theory to the electron cloud theory, with the repeated disclaimer that it is still a theory, and could very well be disproven, and so was everyone I know.
The only reason that this is not really focused on as much in evolution is because there really are no other reasonable explanations to how life emerged as it did.
Science is not taught dogmatically at all. It is presented as a reasonable, rational discussion of the current theories. It isn't freakin' bible class.
Don Corleone
08-04-2006, 18:47
Don, that's just plain wrong. The last time I was taught that Bohr's model was scientific fact was in elementary school! Every time there is a reasonable alternative explanation, I was taught it. As a matter of fact, we were taught everythign from the "blueberry muffin" theory to the electron cloud theory, with the repeated disclaimer that it is still a theory, and could very well be disproven, and so was everyone I know.
The only reason that this is not really focused on as much in evolution is because there really are no other reasonable explanations to how life emerged as it did.
Science is not taught dogmatically at all. It is presented as a reasonable, rational discussion of the current theories. It isn't freakin' bible class.
It sounds like your experiences are quite different from my own, and those of most people I have discussed this with. If your high school is teaching you how to collect all plausible theories, tabulate the pro and con evidence and weigh the various theories, then thank your lucky stars. You're in what I personally believe to be a very small minority of schools. And this isn't just old fogey-stogey sitting around whining... one of my best friends from high school is a high school chemistry teacher and he whines about the cirricula he has to teach. Thank your teacher every day, what you're getting is priceless in comparison to what most people your age receive.
ChewieTobbacca
08-04-2006, 23:07
The american public school system is a terrible place to expect a lot of learning from it. You have to keep in mind that a great majority of people do not become scientists or enter a science field. Hence, they keep it "dumbed" down and as simple as possible - hence, as a result, there isn't as much sway in what is taught.
Another thing is that the school system of semesters and so on makes it extremely hard to integrate science courses. Each course seems separate from other courses, when in truth, biology chemistry physics etc. are all very closely interrelated.
The different models, such as the Bohr model, are all taught in science books. If teachers aren't teaching which models are accurate, then it should be the teacher's fault if the books are providing the information. One of my chemistry books from college is sitting in a bookshelf next to me and it pretty clearly states that the Bohr model is outdated. I do note, howver, that it is taught because it is the easiest method to simulate an idea to the people who are taking chemistry just to get through with it.
The ultimate reason I think is that science has gotten so advanced and complicated that people NOT in the field will have a hard time understanding deeper concepts.
At the university level, only those in the science fields (or the crazy) would take courses in biology (of which there are many types), chemistry (again of many types), physics (yep.. many as well) and so on. These fields have professors that have spent their ENTIRE life studying on that one part - and they are always learning to stay on the cutting edge. Science is a never-ending learning experience.
And in that way, how many people would understand how special relativity works? The easiest way to get them to understand is to make simple generalizations such as time slowing down, etc. But when one looks at the mathematical proof for it (yes, special relativity came from a proof after they found that light was constant - a light clock on a train at high speed vs. a light clock stationary for instance).
How many people in the world understand quantum mechanics for instance? People spend many many eyars in universities to understand it. Ultimately, these theories are the best accepted theories for why things are the way they are. The idea that there are no other theories.. not true. They just don't have the same evidence or support the other theories do. Everyday though, scientists discover new and often surprising things that can change our way of thinking if proven and tested. Just 100 years ago, people believed that time was constant. When we theorized and tested this to not be true (for instance, a meson accelerated to 99.99% the speed of light lives longer than one at rest, a sign of relativity), we have to change our ways of thinking. And yet to this day, few people you talk to would think otherwise.
Ultimately the issue with evolution is that people do not realize the time frame necessary for it. The earth has existed 4 billion years (if you so believe it), and life for only a fraction of that. How many millions of years did it take for a species to even slightly change? But people aren't willing to wait years and years to see results/evidence when they aren't even willing to stand a few minuts in line to buy something.
Which leads me to the fact that philosophers have not caught up with the vast scientific advances...
Crazed Rabbit
08-05-2006, 00:44
Don's made some great points about the school system in America.
His points about lack of critical analysis, just fact memorization, is important to this thread topic.
As I said before (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1208673&postcount=6), and provided links to the Kansas state standards on evolution teaching, this is not about creationism. Kansas was not supporting the teaching of creationism, nor halting the teaching of evolution. That is blatantly obvious.
It was about analysing the various holes in some theories of evolution, not the main idea of evolution. But the fanatic evolutionists couldn't stand admitting that there model does not explain everything from before the first organism.
Crazed Rabbit
Man...Navaros.....reading your posts acusing OTHERS of being "zealous and fundamentalist"
I am those things, and I admit I am those things.
On the other hand, pro-evolutionists are also zealots + fundamentalists yet they do not admit to being so. Hence they are lesser men and have way less credibility than any other sort of fundamentalist.
Which also, simply underscores that evolution is a crock of horse manure. Pro-evolutionists need their zeal and fundamentalism to help their crackpot "theory" survive.
I see now that the "scientific method" has been mentioned a few times in this thread. That provides another example of the zealous fundamentalism that pro-evolutionists require.
Evolution does not meet the standards of the scientific method (observable, repeatable etc. etc.) therefore it was never legitimately qualified as a legitimate scientific theory. Yet since evolution is the machination of zealots + fundamentalists, they just "turn a blind eye" to that fact and "pretend" that it is.
I am those things, and I admit I am those things.
On the other hand, pro-evolutionists are also zealots + fundamentalists yet they do not admit to being so. Hence they are lesser men and have way less credibility than any other sort of fundamentalist.
Which also, simply underscores that evolution is a crock of horse manure. Pro-evolutionists need their zeal and fundamentalism to help their crackpot "theory" survive.
I see now that the "scientific method" has been mentioned a few times in this thread. That provides another example of the zealous fundamentalism that pro-evolutionists require.
Evolution does not meet the standards of the scientific method (observable, repeatable etc. etc.) therefore it was never legitimately qualified as a legitimate scientific theory. Yet since evolution is the machination of zealots + fundamentalists, they just "turn a blind eye" to that fact and "pretend" that it is.
I tend to agree with you. Do you have thumbs ?
I know none of you listen to me because you all think I'm nuts, so may I present a real scientist who has dedicated his life to this. He shall debunk all your pro-evolutionist ideas far better and more cordially than I am capable of doing. I just noticed that he's allowed his book to be placed online for free reading.
Enjoy receiving your debunkings! ~:cheers:
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm
The first chapter traces the rise of humanism from the Greeks to the French Revolution and attempts to show why ideas have arisen rather than simply stating the traditional and often barren list of names and dates. The next few chapters expose the men and their ideas responsible for raising the platform upon which Charles Darwin began his work. By Chapter Five we reach Darwin himself and see a little more of the man and the well-spring of his ideas than is found in the usual biography.
Finally, we see how the entire system becomes justification for a new world order under one elitist government.
And they have a picture of this evil guy on the side:
Harlow Shapley, 1885-1972. A popular public speaker, he was subpoenaed in 1946 for his Communist sympathies and elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the following year.
I couldn't read through the entire thing, but I can only imagine you're some crazy science head who is laughing out loudly at the thought of people wading through that wonderful piece literature. Science lover.
I know none of you listen to me because you all think I'm nuts, so may I present a real scientist who has dedicated his life to this.
It's actually becouse you are nuts but we're indulging in semantics. You're 'real scientist ' is also nuts, you'll notice his somewhat amusing trail off into communism and Atheism as something of a hint.
Don't see any sound refutations of the man's content so far.
Just a-leapin' and a-pouncin' with no substance coming too.
Perhaps that's because what he is saying is too rock solid to handle. :2thumbsup:
Don't see any sound refutations of the man's content so far.
Just a-leapin' and a-pouncin' with no substance coming too.
Perhaps that's because what he is saying is too rock solid to handle. :2thumbsup:
Did you read it ? If so give us the gist of it. You can't expect anyone descended from apes to read all those words.
Did you read it ? If so give us the gist of it. You can't expect anyone descended from apes to read all those words.
Truth is I read some of it a while ago but I didn't read it recently, except for today when I just noticed it has now been published online and read some of it. Based on what I've read today here's some of the gist:
- Many alleged "scientists" throughout history have had pre-conceived ideas and then tried to find evidence to fit into that (in order to get prestige or money for their own personal gain), rather than basing ideas on the evidence and wanting to present the truth for the good of mankind.
- The ordered nature of the Universe cannot reasonably be explained away merely by "natural laws" or things like the "big bang theory".
- The perspectives and conclusions of scientists are often skewed by their atheistic belief systems, which due to their fundamentalist mindset cannot take into account unnatural factors that are present in the situations they are basing conclusions on.
- Most/all of the "famous" and "widely accepted" fossil reconstructions that allege to prove man evolved from apes can be scientifically interpreted in ways that indicate that is not the case.
- Science's methods for "dating" evidence cannot be considered reliable.
- There is absolutely no question that the belief in evolution's claims requires leaps of faith.
Zalmoxis
08-05-2006, 20:09
All I can say is HUZZAH for Kansas. I'm a Christian and all, but I know God does not belong in school.
Truth is I read some of it a while ago but I didn't read it recently, except for today when I just noticed it has now been published online and read some of it. Based on what I've read today here's some of the gist:
I can't remember what I read yesterday. Thanks for the summary.
- Many alleged "scientists" throughout history have had pre-conceived ideas and then tried to find evidence to fit into that (in order to get prestige or money for their own personal gain), rather than basing ideas on the evidence and wanting to present the truth for the good of mankind.
Generally speaking, I don't doubt this is the case. This still happens to this day. Like the rest of the world, scientists (whether in academia or the market) are quite competitive. Once they have a plausible theory its certainly in their interests to advance it.
However, its this competitive nature that acts as a vetting process for theories. You have to have a reasonable proof before your theory becomes widely accepted. It would take quite a few people acting against their own self interests to advance a theory that was not sound. But I suppose if you buy into this " Finally, we see how the entire system becomes justification for a new world order under one elitist government." you believe that eventually the greedy self interested sceintists will get a payoff with some cushy elitist world government post.
- The ordered nature of the Universe cannot reasonably be explained away merely by "natural laws" or things like the "big bang theory".
The big bang is "in progress". It changes and adjusts as new evidence is fabricated by the elites of the new world order. Some of the less elite of the NWO actually believe that the big bang does not disprove the existence of a supreme pasta being. They crazy though.
- The perspectives and conclusions of scientists are often skewed by their atheistic belief systems, which due to their fundamentalist mindset cannot take into account unnatural factors that are present in the situations they are basing conclusions on.
Yeah, they pretty much implode. Cannot compute! Cannot compute! Then BAM! Explodo!
- Most/all of the "famous" and "widely accepted" fossil reconstructions that allege to prove man evolved from apes can be scientifically interpreted in ways that indicate that is not the case.
This I don't know about. But I do know that this ape loves you.
http://home.comcast.net/~epkt/koko-2.2.jpg
- Science's methods for "dating" evidence cannot be considered reliable.
The fact that scientists are dating at all is the real news.
- There is absolutely no question that the belief in evolution's claims requires leaps of faith.
Faith...
All I can say is HUZZAH for Kansas. I'm a Christian and all, but I know God does not belong in school.
Wow. No wonder this country is going to hell. Everyone should get an education. Everyone.
Big_John
08-05-2006, 22:29
Wow. No wonder this country is going to hell. Everyone should get an education. Everyone.god knows everything already.. he tested out of school.
Big_John
08-05-2006, 23:18
Truth is I read some of it a while ago but I didn't read it recently, except for today when I just noticed it has now been published online and read some of it. Based on what I've read today here's some of the gist::no: tiresome. but still, i did some of the legwork for you. you're welcome.
- Many alleged "scientists" throughout history have had pre-conceived ideas and then tried to find evidence to fit into that (in order to get prestige or money for their own personal gain), rather than basing ideas on the evidence and wanting to present the truth for the good of mankind.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA310.html
- The ordered nature of the Universe cannot reasonably be explained away merely by "natural laws" or things like the "big bang theory".http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI410.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
- The perspectives and conclusions of scientists are often skewed by their atheistic belief systems, which due to their fundamentalist mindset cannot take into account unnatural factors that are present in the situations they are basing conclusions on.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301_1.html
- Most/all of the "famous" and "widely accepted" fossil reconstructions that allege to prove man evolved from apes can be scientifically interpreted in ways that indicate that is not the case.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_overview.html
- Science's methods for "dating" evidence cannot be considered reliable.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
- There is absolutely no question that the belief in evolution's claims requires leaps of faith.i question this statement. QED.
but also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html
Wow. No wonder this country is going to hell. Everyone should get an education. Everyone.
Why is America going to hell?
Why is America going to hell?
Because people are trying to restrict who can and can't go to school.
All I can say is HUZZAH for Kansas. I'm a Christian and all, but I know God does not belong in school.
Reverend Joe
08-06-2006, 00:52
Why is America going to hell?
Me.
Me.
Don't forget the "and my kind" part. Its all about inclusion.
Reverend Joe
08-06-2006, 01:21
Don't forget the "and my kind" part. Its all about inclusion.
Nope. Just me.
I'm a Gnostic, that's why. "The truth shall set you free" et al.
Well Big John, you've got a lot of mumbo jumbo to support what you think, and I've got a alot of mumbo jumbo to support what I think. Then the question becomes who's mumbo jumbo is right?
Ultimately, that answer is decided only by who's mumbo jumbo one chooses to put his faith in.
The common misconception that it is "wise" to put one's faith in pro-evolutionist mumbo jumbo simply because that is mumbo jumbo of the most often-repeated and widespread variety, is indeed a grievous fallacy that society as a whole trips and smashes it's face over.
Big_John
08-06-2006, 04:54
oh, that post wasn't really intended for you, nav. i just didn't want any impressionable young minds here in the backroom to think this ian taylor hack wasn't just repeating old lies that have been debunked long ago (like every other creationist). you're obviously beyond help.. or at least obviously beyond me caring enough to try to help you (that you equate "faith" with acceptance of a brutally staggering preponderance of evidence is proof enough for me).
i learned long ago.. you can lead a gift horse to water, but drowning that big bastard is a lot harder than you'd think. something like that.
As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.
Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.
What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.
It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.
There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.
Banquo's Ghost
08-07-2006, 07:11
As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.
Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.
What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.
It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.
There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.
When you start applying the same standards of evidence to the Bible story as you do to 'debunking' evolution, you may have a place in the debate.
(I'd still like to know why the Bible story of creation is the only one accepted, since there are many differing creation myths from other cultures and traditions. Why yours?)
As my comments are not directed only to you specifically Big John, but rather all readers who have been indoctrinated by evolution.
Ian T. Taylor is not a hack, his credentials and evidences are all totally legit.
What he has stated there is a matter of historical record. Funny how pro-evolutionists get upset over someone stating the historical record of evolutionists' hoaxes, fraud and general incompetence, as if the evolutionists - who themselves created those fairy tales - should not be held responsible for their own lies.
It's totally fair game to call out pro-evolutionists on their historical BS lies. Their counter argument of "We believed that untrue BS and presented it as the truth last week, yet this week we have "new", better (BS) ideas: therefore you cannot question our shady history of evidence" is clearly unreasonable and immoral.
There is no preponderance of evidence in support of evolution. Merely "old stuff some modern men found" that is then combined with "wild speculation off the top of some guy(s)' head". All of it can and has been debunked.
If you do not believe in evolution, how do you dismiss such convincing evidence that says otherwise. A few a examples are the fossil record, homologous structures between current day animals and past animals, vestigial organs in animals (AKA your tail bone, your wisdom teeth, etc), and radio active dating. Trust me, there is plenty of hardcore evidence that points to evolution. I think you need to take an introduction to biology.
BTW, ever heard of Darwin's Finches? I advise you to look it up and explain how you can "debunk" it.
BTW, ever heard of Darwin's Finches? I advise you to look it up and explain how you can "debunk" it.
No problemo my friend.
This may have been somewhat disappointing since it implied that the finches were almost certainly still a single species. Evidence that one species could become another -- that is, that the barrier of biblical fixity could be broken -- had not been provided. Writing fourteen years after the publication of the Origin Darwin confessed to his friend Bentham:
In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith?]... When we descend to details, we can [not] prove that no one species has changed... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (F. Darwin 1887, 3:25).
To this day, the situation is no different since much of what is offered as evidence has been provided by simply expanding the definition.
Source
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm
Banquo's Ghost
08-07-2006, 11:19
In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith?]... When we descend to details, we can [not] prove that no one species has changed... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (F. Darwin 1887, 3:25)
Who is F. Darwin? Any relation to Charles? :grin:
Your quotation simply undermines your own position that evolutionists are unquestioning fundamentalists. Charles Darwin spent a very long time analysing and arguing against his own conclusions, just as scientists have been doing all the time since, refining theories as they go.
Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!
Darwin, for example, had no idea about genetics (which is why he agonised about Natural Selection in detail) yet when Mendel's ideas gained currency, they demonstrated the perfect mechanism for natural selection to work on. The gene is the basic unit of selection, not the species, and one can demonstrate evolution on genes very readily. Indeed, given a few weeks of your attention, I could demonstrate evolution of Drosophila (fruit flies) to you in the lab. Even creationists accept variation can be demonstrated that way, but dismiss this as micro-evolution. (Doesn't really work that does it - God allows us to vary organisms a little bit, just for fun and confusion, but not that little bit more. Tricky chap, God, especially with all that lovely fossil work as a red herring to mislead the bewildered. What's it all for, I wonder?)
By the way, Darwin trained as a cleric and Mendel was a monk. Heretics both, I assume.
Since biology seems to be the only target of creationism, note that the silliness about geological dating (ie that it is all wrong) is based on exactly the same physics of radioactive decay that enables nuclear power stations to work. If you want to reassure yourself that such decay does happen, pop along to a reactor facility - or are they figments of scientific fundamentalism as well?
I note that you still haven't applied the same standards of evidence to your own theories. You won't believe me, but I actually have an open mind, and if you could demonstrate to me the validity of creationist theory using the same standards of proof as you apply to evolution (ie your rules not mine) I would give it due consideration.
Who is F. Darwin? Any relation to Charles? :grin:
Your quotation simply undermines your own position that evolutionists are unquestioning fundamentalists. Charles Darwin spent a very long time analysing and arguing against his own conclusions, just as scientists have been doing all the time since, refining theories as they go.
Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!
Darwin, for example, had no idea about genetics (which is why he agonised about Natural Selection in detail) yet when Mendel's ideas gained currency, they demonstrated the perfect mechanism for natural selection to work on. The gene is the basic unit of selection, not the species, and one can demonstrate evolution on genes very readily. Indeed, given a few weeks of your attention, I could demonstrate evolution of Drosophila (fruit flies) to you in the lab. Even creationists accept variation can be demonstrated that way, but dismiss this as micro-evolution. (Doesn't really work that does it - God allows us to vary organisms a little bit, just for fun and confusion, but not that little bit more. Tricky chap, God, especially with all that lovely fossil work as a red herring to mislead the bewildered. What's it all for, I wonder?)
By the way, Darwin trained as a cleric and Mendel was a monk. Heretics both, I assume.
Since biology seems to be the only target of creationism, note that the silliness about geological dating (ie that it is all wrong) is based on exactly the same physics of radioactive decay that enables nuclear power stations to work. If you want to reassure yourself that such decay does happen, pop along to a reactor facility - or are they figments of scientific fundamentalism as well?
I note that you still haven't applied the same standards of evidence to your own theories. You won't believe me, but I actually have an open mind, and if you could demonstrate to me the validity of creationist theory using the same standards of proof as you apply to evolution (ie your rules not mine) I would give it due consideration.
come on man!...everyone knows god burried all those fossils to test our faith!!!
:wall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5HVSlCWqHM
Your author Taylor seems to suggest that all science springs perfectly formed into being with no revision of theory - oh wait, of course he would think that, since he's a creationist!
The thrust I got from Taylor's book is not that there should be no revision of theory, but rather that Darwin and his followers start out with a crap theory with the (unstated) mandate to stick to their pre-conceived idea no matter what. Only to revise the crap theory with other crap ideas after the first crap idea proves false. And so the cycle continues indefinitely; rather than Darwin and his followers ever being able to even possibly come to the logical conclusion that their whole theory is outright false and hence should be scrapped altogether.
Definitely agree with you that Darwin was a heretic.
Oh yeah, Taylor also debunks the fruit flies thing on the same page of the previous link, just a little further down.
Darwin's basic premise was to use artificial selection to prove natural selection had occured, this he more then adequately demonstrated. Are there holes in parts of his theory - yes, but the basic premise was correct, because of his observations in nature and his verification through artifical selection.
If one is arguing that evolution does not exist - they must be willing to discount several things. One being that artifical selection has occured. Man has been breeding animals for years - culling out traits that were not wanted in some animals and creating traits in others. Horses, Cattle, Cats and Dogs are some of the prime exambles of this.
Then should we go into the plants that man has influenced by artifical selection. Several fruits and vegatables that we eat today are species that were brought about by such exambles.
Evolution of species happen not only through artifical means but also through natural means. Humans are another prime examble of that. Just take a close look at the way humans have developed from the same species. The differences are even present today.
InsaneApache
08-07-2006, 15:02
So Darwins 'crap' theory is not static, it is clearly evolving. :laugh4:
Man I love that book, debunks so much stuff in just one Chapter - it makes me giddy with glee. :thrasher:
@Redleg: the stuff you mentioned is also debunked at that most recent link I posted.
For the clicking-impaired, the point is that although many variants of a particular species can be created by breeding, there is no evidence of this ever resulting in a new species.
Banquo's Ghost
08-07-2006, 15:38
Oh yeah, Taylor also debunks the fruit flies thing on the same page of the previous link, just a little further down.
Well, I decided to take the plunge and read the chapter you linked. There's an hour of my life I won't get back, and I have lost several points of IQ in the process.
If you can't see the incredible gaping holes in Mr Taylor's self-serving choices and astonishing jumps of illogic, then I pity you. I don't intend to waste time pointing out the problems - not least that the Species is NOT the unit of selection, which is the gene. Darwin didn't know this either, but he had the excuse that genes hadn't been discovered.
My favourite nonsense was this:
Since Mendel's genetics challenged the Darwinian idea of natural selection, it is just possible that any interest shown in his work was actively discouraged.
Did they have tin-foil hats in the 19th century? Actually Mendel's work was fundamental to the Theory of Natural Selection as it provided the genetic mechanism upon which selection works. It all fitted, which means the theory was good - new evidence fits the predictions.
The fruit flies experiment is not debunked, it is merely relegated to the realm of 'micro-evolution' - which again seems to be wierdly accepted by creationists.
Definitely agree with you that Darwin was a heretic.
You seem to think this is a bad thing. Heretics (in many cases) were people who were able to think more clearly than the unthinking, faithful sheep, and consequently advanced us out of the religious Dark Ages where you would return us. Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition for heresy when he showed that Copernicus' theory was right.
Hold on to your certitude and force your ignorance on as many as you can bamboozle. I, dear Navaros, shall leave you with the same words he (apocryphally) uttered when he was forced by such as you to recant the 'theory' that the earth orbited the sun:
Eppur si muove. (But still it moves).
Big_John
08-07-2006, 16:53
The fruit flies experiment is not debunked, it is merely relegated to the realm of 'micro-evolution' - which again seems to be wierdly accepted by creationists."micro-evolution", as employed by creationists, is a catch-all that allows them to put examples of evolution into a new category (which is simply a holding cell of expanding definition). creationists used to claim (and sometimes still do) that evolution has never been demonstrated, or that it wasn't demonstrable/falsifiable. when this idea was neutered like the rest of their arguments, they invented a "non-evolution evolution" category to put their shame.. i mean put examples of evolution into.
it's just a rhetorical tool. at some point, i'm sure "macro-evolution" will have to be adopted by creationists, and they'll demand that "evolutionists" must demonstrate "super-mega-macro-evolution", or some such thing.
the truth is, evolution is evolution, regardless of your baseline.
(I'd still like to know why the Bible story of creation is the only one accepted, since there are many differing creation myths from other cultures and traditions. Why yours?)that is an interesting question, isn't it? why, for example, don't we hear about muslim fundamentalists raging against evolution? maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it. maybe they have more important things to worry about.
Man I love that book, debunks so much stuff in just one Chapter - it makes me giddy with glee. :thrasher:
To bad you haven't debunked anything.
@Redleg: the stuff you mentioned is also debunked at that most recent link I posted.
Try again. That link does not debunk what I stated. The link does not claim that artifical selection by man has not influenced the development of domestic animals. To have debunked what I stated the article would have to make some specific claims and used science prove those claims.
Natural Selection
Darwin entitled his famous abstract The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which is really a concise summary of his entire theory. Over the twenty years or so that he had worked on it he had written hundreds of letters to animal and plant breeders all over the country soliciting replies to questions. He drew extensively from their experience. Breeders selected those variants or varieties having characteristics of commercial value for breeding, while less promising varieties were denied opportunities to breed. Artificial selection of this type produced cows giving greater quantities of milk, horses of greater running ability, and so on. Darwin believed that, in a similar way, nature selected out those variants among the species that were best fitted for the environment. However, selection under natural conditions was known to be very conservative; that is, offspring tended to be like the parents, and anything too far from the normal would, breed back to the basic type, a fact Darwin was fully aware of from his work with the pigeons. He acknowledged all this but then argued that natural selection becomes a force for change when the environment changes. He believed that variation was going on all the time within a species, but that only those variants most closely adapted tended to survive. He said that a change in the environment would, in the course of many generations, produce gradual changes and eventually lead to a separate species. This required dynamic conditions of continuous and random variation within the species and a changing environment. One other feature of Darwin's natural selection was sexual attraction. He pointed out that in the courtship rituals of animals, the males compete for the females in tests of strength, and the strongest or the swiftest victors have the opportunity to reproduce; the losers tend to have much less opportunity and so would eventually die out. In the case of birds, the males display their plumage, and the hen bird chooses the most sexually attractive mate according to her standard of beauty. Darwin did not explain why sexual selection applied only to the males and not the females, nor why blind nature should be concerned with the preservation of beauty (Darwin 1859, 89).
Throughout the Origin, and from one edition to the next, Darwin was never entirely clear in his own mind about "end purpose". In the case of artificial selection, man intelligently controls the breeding to produce an improved end result. Under natural conditions, Darwin appealed to blind chance, which could have no innate intelligence, but there was a dilemma: the theory said that life began as a simple organism and evolved into more complex organisms, which implies an intelligent directing force, but he wanted at all costs to avoid any kind of inference to the supernatural. To circumvent the dilemma, he steadfastly avoided using the terms "lower" and "higher" forms of life[9] and spoke rather of "change", which allowed him greater freedom for argument when discussing specific cases (F. Darwin and Seward 1903, 1:114; Mayr 1972).[10] However, his most artful device was use of the word "descent", which he introduced in the first edition of the Origin and continued to use throughout his writing to his Descent of Man, published in 1873. Unlike the word "ascent", which in the context of a sequential process implies purposeful direction, the word "descent" has rather the connotation of the blind laws of nature, such as water "finding its own level". In other words, "descent" does not imply purposeful design or a Designer. Darwin did allow himself use of the word "perfection", in the sense that the organism progressed towards perfect adaption to its environment.
This, then, is classical Darwinism, which died a slow death more than half a century ago. The theory was facile, tidy, and convinced many, including Thomas Huxley, who, after reading the Origin, confessed how stupid he was not to have thought of the theory himself (L. Huxley 1900, 1:170). Lyell's geology had provided all the time thought to be necessary for evolution to take place and at the same stroke had precluded any possibility of proving the theory by laboratory experiment. There were many unanswered questions. Do animals really change in a changing environment or are they more likely to migrate or simply die out? Then again, what if the environmental change was too rapid for the proposed adaptation from random variation to keep up?
Overriding all these and other questions was the total absence of any fossil evidence. Nevertheless, the theory was superficially convincing for those who wanted an alternative to the traditional supernatural explanation. It was this version of the theory, with all its deficiencies and assumptions, that challenged theological dogma in the last half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of this century. More will be said of this confrontation in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen, but in the meantime the shifting grounds for the theory need to be traced into this present decade.
Like before try again in stating that what I wrote has been debunked. Are you attempting to claim that cattle and horses have not been manilupated by artifical selection for certain traits?
I can safely testify that if you are making such a claim that you are wrong.
For the clicking-impaired, the point is that although many variants of a particular species can be created by breeding, there is no evidence of this ever resulting in a new species.
Hence you have debunked yourself and your link is debunked by reality. Artificial selection does indeed prove that the same process can happen in nature. Has artificial selection created a new species? Well lets look at the evidence.
Beefalo are a fertile hybrid offspring of domestic cattle, Bos taurus, and the American Bison, Bison bison (generally called buffalo). The breed was created to combine the best characteristics of both animals with a view towards beef production.
Bos (Cattle)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Bovidae
Subfamily: Bovinae
Genus: Bos
Species: Bos taurus
and
American Bison
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Bovidae
Subfamily: Bovinae
Genus: Bison
Species: B. bison
Hince Darwian was correct in that aspect of his theory when he linked artificial selection to the evolution of species. A new species has been created by artifical selection - one that can breed and produce its own offspring.
Can this be done in nature? That is also a viable question, and is most likely what you are really trying to say is wrong with Darwain's theory of evolution.
No problemo my friend.
Source
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm
It's like Banquo's Ghost said. Darwin had no idea about genetics or things such as the fossil record to an extent. This was ground breaking work, it scared him to think that the bible, that he loved in charished could be wrong. Of course he had doubts. I hardly think a short paragraph of doubt dismisses a lifetime of work.
You have also yet to address my other evidence that I have listed above.
Banquo's Ghost
08-07-2006, 20:01
Oooh look. Some science.
Scientists Reverse Evolution (http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=073106-1).
Earl of Sandwich
08-07-2006, 21:40
Navaros doesn't trust facts, because the word sounds an awful lot like "fags." (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) It must be the work of Satan!!!!!1!!11
:thrasher:
OMG WTF don't you know that's the DEVIL MUSIC FROM HELL!!!!11!!! And yet you use such imagery as a metonymy for "cool". Have fun getting raped by the Devil in Hell.
It's like Banquo's Ghost said. Darwin had no idea about genetics or things such as the fossil record to an extent. This was ground breaking work, it scared him to think that the bible, that he loved in charished could be wrong. Of course he had doubts. I hardly think a short paragraph of doubt dismisses a lifetime of work.
Exactly, Darwin spent his whole life researching his work, so I severly doubt that a small paragraph debunks his whole work.
It is really easy for us to find a paragraph that completly debunks the whole damn bible.
wolftrapper78
08-07-2006, 22:47
Sorry Navaros, I have been too busy to help you out, but I will do what I can.
Check out Answers in Genesis for the best and most organized examples of creationist claims.
This (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp) might be a good place to start.
And more specifically, this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp) to counter the evolutionists, from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati a distinguished scientist and creationist.
Papewaio
08-07-2006, 22:55
The thin skin comes from the outrageous attempts by some religionists to subvert science. We biologists tend to be at the forefront because for reasons unknown to me, the lunatic fundies don't have a go at physics, astronomy, chemistry and the other core sciences.
Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.
Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.
So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs. :laugh4:
And more specifically, this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp) to counter the evolutionists, from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati a distinguished scientist and creationist.
I read about half of that then got sick because it really wasn't proving anything. All it was doing was saying how animals mutated and changed (AKA evolved) in current day creatures. All this is is microevolution.
To point one thing out towards the beginning. It says that non living chemicals organized themselves into a self reproducing being. It is very possible though, that an organic carrying comet smashed in primival earth and laid the spark that was necessary to jump the nucleotides, RNA, and amino acids present into a living organism. Another possible explanation is the Miller, Urel Experiment (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html).
Conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey; the first experiment to test the Oparin-Haldane Theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth. A mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to simulate the version of Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere proposed by Oparin, was introduced into a 5-liter flask and energized by an electrical discharge apparatus to represent ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The products were allowed to condense and collect in a lower flask which modeled a body of water on the Earth's surface. Heat supplied to this flask recycled the water vapor just as water evaporates from lakes and seas, before moving into the atmosphere and condensing again as rain. After a day of continuous operation, Miller and Urey found a thin layer of hydrocarbons on the surface of the water. After about a week of operation, a dark brown scum had collected in the lower flask and was found to contain several types of amino acids, including glycine and alanine, together with sugars, tars, and various other unidentified organic chemicals.
Finally, I can not take anything seriously that has this written in it:
Also, the rapid speciation (200 years) is good evidence for the biblical creation model. Critics doubt that all of today’s species could have fitted on the ark. However, the ark would have needed only about 8,000 kinds of land vertebrate animals, which would be sufficient to produce the wide variety of species we have today.8 Darwin’s finches show that it need not take very long for new species to arise.9
You guys have got me going now. I just fished, out of my closet, my college level biology notes from last semester.
EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION (Aka an ape turning into a human)
1. Fossil Record- Arrange oldest to most recent and see a progressive change.
Radioactive dating- Makes fossil record more accurate. Calculate age of fossil by the amount of a radioactive istope decayed.
2. Molecular Record- Study DNA sequences or protetin structures. More similarity means more closely related. Common Ancestry. Ex: Cytochrome C. Found in most organisms.
3. Homology- Structures derived from a common ancestor. Ex: Vertebrate Forelimbs.
4. Development- Similaries in enbro development imply common ancestry.
5. Vestigial Structures- Structures with no appremt function that resemble structures of a presumed ancestor.
6. Parellel Adaptation- Plants and animals, though far apart, evolve similar characterisics if in similar environments. EX: marsupial mammals vs north american mammals.
7. Patterns of distrubution- animals on neighboring isalnds similar to another, but have slight differences. (Adaptations to their environment) Ex: darwin's Finches.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 02:03
Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.
1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp)
2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.
4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/embryonic.asp)
5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp)
6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.
These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 02:10
Why are you guys even talking about MACROevolution? Its like saying MACROgravity? You are already playing into the mindset of the obtuse.
Ice,
1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp)
Evolution is not 'progressive' things can get bigger, smaller, faster, slower, smarter, dumber. Evolution is the change in the frequency of an organism, the vehicle for this change are genes.
So there is no reason that Neanderthals having a larger brain then humans disproves evolution anymore then men having a larger brain then women disproves that women can multitask better then men.
Big_John
08-08-2006, 02:17
you have to admit, pape, macrogravity is pretty cool.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 02:25
Are you calling me obtuse, Papewaio?
Now, I sure am sorry. I thought about coming on as obtuse, but then I decided against it and, wouldn't you know it, I ended up coming on obtuse anyways. I hate it when that happens.:embarassed:
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 02:48
Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.
It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.
Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.
1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp)
2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.
4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/embryonic.asp)
5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp)
6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.
These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.
1. How do you dismiss the progressive change than? Please I would like to hear. What happened to all the animals you see fossilized? Isn't it odd they resemble current ancestors? How do you "intrpret this"? What about radioactive dating? Also, see Papewaio's explanation about the Neaderthal.
2 and 3. If, according to the bible, we are truly superior to animals and made in God's image, why would he make such a unique special, creature so similar to other animals? That doesn't make much sense. Why is the DNA so different in some animals and so similar in other animals? Did God roll the dice to decide who gets to be like a human and who doesnt? Look, it even say it in one of your fantastic, bible thumping articles!
God created mankind in His image, not in the image of animals. Furthermore, man was to rule, have dominion, over the animals.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/arguments7.asp
Your argument lacks logic.
4. All of this information points to a man called Ernst Haeckel. Yes, true it is widely accept that he was a fraud, but this does not mean that embroyonic evidence doesn't exist. Here you go (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html)
Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."
5. Here you go (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html)
6/7. It can be both macroevolution and microevolution. Two totally different mammals evolving into almost the same creature or evolving into two totally different species that cannot mate is macroevolution.
Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.
It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.
Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...
Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.
Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.
Alexanderofmacedon
08-08-2006, 02:58
Navaros, I respect your love for god and your devotion to him, but this is not a battle you can win. This is, in fact a battle you have lost. I'm sorry.
www.navaros.justgotowned.com
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 03:08
Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...
Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.
Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.
Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.
evolution
3. Biology a)"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."
Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.
In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.
In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.
What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.
Azi Tohak
08-08-2006, 03:12
It's always heartwarming to see the natives of faraway exotic places like Kansas join the ranks of civilization nations. :2thumbsup:
I do rather like it when people from places such as France think of my home as exotic. ~:cheers:
To be sure, it does have beautiful sunsets, and some fantastic two-legged scenery (especially in Manhattan and Lawrence), but the overpowering pong of cows in the western part of the state, and the amazing idiocy of the people from the most populous region of the state (the far NE) keep it from truly being a paradise.
But thanks!
Azi
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 03:14
Ice,
Thank you for responding.
Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp)
2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.
4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles
Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.
Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.
Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.
In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.
In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.
What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.
I didn't mean favorable traits, but mutations. Sorry about the mix up.
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 03:28
Thats fine you probably understand more about biology then I do... like always scientists and fanboys of science in other fields make some nasty critics... but we do keep each other honest... when not purposely undermining each others interests for the limited funds.
I should do a paper titled.
"The selection pressures on research funds and the evolution of titles and abstracts."
Ice,
Thank you for responding.
Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp)
2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.
4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles
Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.
1. They are all humans or apes, eh? Nothing in between? One or the other? Why are all these "humans" and "apes" so different from the ones that exist today? Varation? Different species... not just varation. Could they have maybe... evolved?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.
2/3. We have developed higher brain functions that allow us to do all these things. We are very similar to many of them.
4/5. Anytime. I'm happy to base my logic on reason, observation, and facts rather than a 2000 year old book.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 06:53
So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 07:00
So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.
So if age of information is valuable then fossils, geology and stars trump any book written.
Fossils are far older then the written word, older then the oral tradition too.
Mountains are older then humanity.
The light from stars... well our galaxy is 100,000 light years across. So light from the other side of the galaxy is going to take about 80,000 years to reach us (we are about 2/3rds of the way out).
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 07:05
Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.
Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.
So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs. :laugh4:
Don't worry - my father, who is a chemist, has long suffered the ignominy of having his eldest son become a 'softie' biologist.
The excuse of girls didn't impress him much either :bounce:
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 07:07
The thing is because biology has so many unanswered questions it is very much in vogue as the in thing of science.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 07:11
The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.
None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 07:16
The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.
None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.
Wow. I'm mean, really wow. :no:
I'm intrigued, Thomas. Do you have to observe something personally to believe it?
:inquisitive:
Papewaio
08-08-2006, 07:21
Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?
Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?
And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?
So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)?
My logic isn't just based on one book that is 150 years old. It is based on many, logical, and realible sources.
If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.
They also weren't as educated as we are today and didn't know what caused things to work. Thus, creationism was very popular.
The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented.
We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC.
It's impossible to designate a clear winner in the race to invent writing, because writing wasn't invented in a day. Instead, it slowly developed from the earliest primitive hash marks to count. People were using such hash marks as early as 50,000 BC. Around 4000 BC, a number of civilizations were making more complex marks to record various interesting bits of information. The Indus River civilization made some interesting marks on its pottery, but they were not quite writing.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/History%20of%20Thinking/Ancient%20Civilization/Writing.html
None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.
Much of these things are not disputable. You just refuse to awknowledge the logical way they exist or came about.
To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.
Have any evidence for this flood? Oh wait, I'm guessing since it's in the bible it must be true. I'm so sick of people ignoring logical evidence in facts just because it says otherwise in some 2000 year old book.
Edit: 1000th post!
Big_John
08-08-2006, 07:40
Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?god.
Why are the fossils in different layers?god.
If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer.god.
Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils?ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.
And why are the layers the same age around the world?god.
And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?god.
anymore questions?
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 07:43
Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?
Big_John
08-08-2006, 07:48
Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?god?
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 07:50
I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky. :dizzy2:
Big_John
08-08-2006, 08:03
I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky. :dizzy2:it's deceptively simple. :toff:
it's deceptively simple. :toff:
Big_ John according to the :book:, you are going to....
~:pissed: ~:pissed: ~:pissed: HELL~:pissed: ~:pissed: ~:pissed:
:laugh4:
Big_John
08-08-2006, 08:24
i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win. :undecided:
god?
I'm afraid I'll have to correct you here
The answer is in fact "God and if you fundementlist evolutionists (ho-ho) disagree you're going to hell these facts are undesputed becouse I say so."
On a side note authority is now derived from age....which makes my grandad right about blacks since he's a 100
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/creationism/
Ironside
08-08-2006, 12:37
I know none of you listen to me because you all think I'm nuts, so may I present a real scientist who has dedicated his life to this. He shall debunk all your pro-evolutionist ideas far better and more cordially than I am capable of doing. I just noticed that he's allowed his book to be placed online for free reading.
Enjoy receiving your debunkings! ~:cheers:
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm
Well starting with chapter 4 as I red some geology recently. Not much of large research for my points here though. I could probably do better otherwise.
First he works very hard to debunk Charles Lyell (who was a creationist BTW) and well forgets most of the time that geology has moved a bit since 1875, and that the age of the earth had been pushed back far in time long before Lyell.
Then he comments:
The common textbook explanation for the mineralization process is that mineral-containing water has seeped into interstices in the fossil, dissolving the bone and at the same time depositing the silica-based minerals from the water -- a molecule-by-molecule replacement process (Schuchert and Dunbar 1950, 38). This may sound plausible, but a moment's consideration shows what any physical chemist knows: such a process is self-stifling; once even the thinnest silica film has been formed, this glass-like material prevents further diffusion of both the mineral-containing water inwards or the dissolved carbonaceous material outwards.
As almost every mineral is silica based and many of them is pourous and not glass-like, we can wonder what he really talks about. To make it better, he then talks about the agate, a mineral that only resmebles petrified trees.
About the ice ages, he forgets to mention that valleys shaped by glaciers looks different from those shaped by water. Therefore it is needed to been ice on several places that is currently not ice-covered. An ice age so to say.
The mammoth survived the flood BTW according to him.
Now I'm not that sure if the been running all radiometric data from the fossile layers as mention there, but it's interesting that the layers are still consistant by thier radiometric data even if they're supposed to came from the same period.
However, it is true that solid rock can be bent without cracking when under strong confining pressure; this is the principle of pre-stressed concrete construction. It is explained that this confining pressure was provided by the weight of thousands of feet of rock above the area where the folding initially took place. However, when folded and un-cracked rocks are found at the surface, it is argued that erosion has removed all those thousands of feet of rock. However, any engineer could tell the geologist that removing the confining pressure would release the tensile forces and shatter the rock from one end to the other. No, the more rational explanation for bent rocks, which Lyell rejected, should be considered.
He conviniently forgets to mention heat in here. And mentions it later on... Ever bent wood for example? And his counter theory that it happened rapidly while the strata was soft, makes the undisturbed stratas a quite impressive happening.
The Coelacanth have actually changed, espcially compared to thier older ancestors.
Those human footprints does have some oddities about them (thier toes for example).
The flood doesn't explain how the layers is discordant (it's when older layers is cut in an angle and newer layers in a different angle lays on top of it) on several places and having discordance in the newer layer too. It's only been one flood right?
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 15:00
Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?
Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?
And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?
I am confusing evolution with any idea that thinks that the Earth is Billions of years old. They are one and the same.
The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.
The different layers has to do with the increased volcanism during the Flood resulting in mega-tsunamis and and the like. We understand this through Gen 7:11 - "Now the springs of the deep burst forth"
For more info see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp)
By asking about dates you are really asking about how fossils can have different rates of radiometric decay. Since I do not believe in uniformitarianism, it is obvious that the rate of decay today is different from the past. See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp)
Actually the layers are not the same all over the earth. The only place where the geologic time scale exists in the entire world is in your textbooks. Nowhere does it exist, not even in the Grand Canyon, nowhere.
Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 15:08
Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?
Apache, see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/races_booklet.pdf)
And remember to take off your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.
"We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC."
It is funny that you would say that, because that is about the exact time that I would, using the Bible and something similar to your 'logic', date the beginning of writing. Roughly the same time as the creation of the universe.
i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win
Big John, I sure hope that you are not. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 15:15
The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.
OK, so there were at least two acts of creation right? The first when He did the 'let there be light' trick, and the second, after all those bad people got drowned? When He did mountains?
Just two creations, or were there any more? Enquiring minds want to know.
Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.
I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take. :laugh4:
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 15:20
Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.
Also, I am glad that I can reproduce the same humor for you guys that I get from your articles.
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 15:31
Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.
OK, thanks. Now, you maintain that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, and that complex writing had been created at the same time. I imagine that Noah must have lived, what about 1,000 years or so after the creation (to allow time for the bad people to grow a decent population, and then turn away from God).
When India rammed into Asia (I assume therefore it was created separately at first, so something - God? - decided to change the original plan and start ramming) did anyone notice? I mean, you'd have thought that India, or China, both reasonably advanced civilisations at the time, might have made a note or two about, you know, an enormous mountain range springing up one Sunday afternoon, about tea-time? Must have made a fair bang too. Maybe they have a creation myth about it that I haven't come across?
I'm keen to see the records of the event. Got one of those links handy? :inquisitive:
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 15:31
I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Why is it that everytime this ridiculous subject comes up you always find someone linking to the same rubbish site that is full of contradictions and saying "look read this" as if it is some big revelation .
Would it not be easier if the mods could make sticky for the topic of cretinism where all the refutations for answeringgenesis can be put in one handy place .
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 15:43
Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?
:inquisitive:
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 15:47
Oh course, I have a few links.
See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp) Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"
Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.
Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.
I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.
Tribesman, I don't care what happens. I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 15:53
Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?
:inquisitive:
Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.
His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.
Here is another Link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 16:22
Oh course, I have a few links.
Here is another Linksame link
see heresame link
For more info see heresame link
Can't you give a bit of variety for extra comedy value , how about throwing in some Hovind instead of just Ham , perhaps a bit of Ross for a really good laugh ?:no:
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 16:30
They ask for information about Cain's wife and I give information about Cain's wife. Same with the geologic column, mountains, writing, etc. I must have missed something Tribesman. Did I?
Why would I source Ross? He is a compromiser. And you guys 'discredited' Hovind in the thread about him. So I thought I would see if you guys had any new info to 'discredit' AIG and surprise, surprise you don't.
Like I say, the facts are the facts. The only difference is how you interpret them and me and you interpret them differently through different glasses. Me with my biblical glasses and you with your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 16:30
Oh course, I have a few links.
See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp) Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"
Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.
Hmm, interesting only in that the search brings up the same old creation sites you keep quoting.
Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.
I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.
But how do you know? Earlier, you claimed that evolution was nonsense because no-one had ever observed it. Now you claim that the 8 people left didn't see anything.
Catastrophe, well certainly. Have you ever heard of displacement of water?
Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)? Why did God re-arrange the continents (I'm assuming here that other mountains like the Rockies were created in the same way and at the same time) - did He get creation wrong the first time?
Alexanderofmacedon
08-08-2006, 16:32
I guess most religious folk are blissfully unaware of the facts...
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 16:39
Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 16:42
Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)?
That is like asking me about why a flipped coin come out heads. That is all random. The chances of it landing in ararat are pretty descent considering that the lone peak in Turkey may not be the landing place, because the Bible says it landed in the Mountains of Ararat. If anything, it was God's will. There, are you happy I said it.
How could the eight people see everything? Your argument in meaningless.
You guys keep complaining about my sources and not my arguments, now here is another source for you. Genesis 1-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%201-11&version=31)
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 16:49
Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .
Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)
The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence.
Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .
Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.
It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 17:11
It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?
Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.
If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18
Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.
Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?
Reenk Roink
08-08-2006, 17:13
~:grouphug:
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 17:14
Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.
His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.
Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister? :inquisitive:
because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?
I also get that same feeling of dumbness every time I read a link from talk origins. ~:mecry:
Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.
If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18
My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better
Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys
I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.
My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.
Your Response: God did it with an article from a rather dubious religious site.
Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.
Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:
Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.
If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:
Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.
Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.
By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:
Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.
Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:
Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.
If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:
Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.
Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.
By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:
try this
If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:
Creationist: God, who was invented by man, said it therefore it is true.
Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.
Like I said, I consider most my evidence facts.
Ser Clegane
08-08-2006, 19:45
By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.
That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...
Banquo's Ghost
08-08-2006, 19:51
That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...
You know, I was thinking the same thing exactly. Time to move on, for me, at least.
:coffeenews:
Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:
No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark
Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.
Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.
By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.
That is so dumb my frontal lobe aches from reading it.
From a certain perspective it's actually the biblical creationists who are the blasphemers, since they take an ancient book full of disproven claims and of dubious authorship and attempt to ignore the priciples and the mechanics of the almightys creation. placing their faith in their own hubris. Rather than trying to uncover the pieces of the almighty's plan as the ancient Christian scholars did, they place their faith in willfull ignorance, ignoring what they don't like the look of, despite clearly being part of gods plan (if you believe in god).
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 20:02
My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better
Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.
I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.
My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.
Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?
I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 20:51
I repeat my question...
Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?
wolftrapper78
08-08-2006, 21:19
I repeat my question...
Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?
Oh, Sorry,
I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.
InsaneApache
08-08-2006, 22:42
Oh, Sorry,
I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.
So where did you get the idea that Cain married his sister. If it wasn't in the 'good book'? How was that revealed to you?
Tribesman
08-08-2006, 22:43
Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia
Exactly Wolf , now follow the link you provide and look up the text that version was taken from , or even read the link you provide about the contentiousness and questionable provenance of your selected text , like for example .....Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture
so it seemsas far as......The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence......the divine providence is lacking , but as you know your scripture you should know that . It has been evident throughout history , is a major subject for biblical scholars worldwide and has caused many problems within and between the church(s).
You do know scripture don't you or are you just basing your position on a dubious website by Ham , who does a great job at linking to other documents , that are of known doubtfull provenance , discredited pseudo scientific papers , and even acknowledged frauds .
So a simple question for you Wolf , one that always fascinates me when it comes to the cretinist movement .
Why is your faith so weak ?
]Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth.
You find billions of dead things buried at almost the same layer.
Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.
Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.
Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?
I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.
Good job repeating/rephrasing everything I just wrote. IF you must know, I was raised Roman Catholic. I use to be very religious until I actually started to think for myself. I did open my mind to new thing instead of keeping it shut like you currently do. It is the current way because history and evidence supports that conclusion. That's why. If you don't want to explain it again, don't. It was wrong the first time, it's going to be wrong every other time. This is my last post, I'm done fighting a battle that can't be won with people who refuse to think maybe a 3000 year old book could contain some myth.
Papewaio
08-09-2006, 00:26
god.
god.
god.
ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.
god.
god.
anymore questions?
Was it good for you? ~:smoking:
Big_John
08-09-2006, 00:37
Was it good for you? ~:smoking:i think i'm going to start asking, "anymore questions?" after my romantic interludes....
Papewaio
08-09-2006, 00:58
I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.
See it is necessary that it is part of the Bible to show that God gets angry with evil, that He promised not to be so crushing in his response (showed remorse for His temper). It showed that while God is very much about Justice that he has learned to temper his temper with Mercy. Forgiveness is a theme that grows in the bible. God gets angry with His people, does something rash in response, shows Mercy to those under his care.
The creation and flood storys are separate. Gensis is about showing who is ultimately responsible in the order of things, while others in the ancient world worshipped nature, Judaism trumped them by having a God that created everything. The difference between admiring a painting and having admiration for the painter. While the flood story is about Gods Wrath (what we would call in others a really nasty temper) beign outweighed by his Love and Mercy.
While they are necessary to the Bible and our understanding of God I don't think they are any more literal then Mark 4:13-20.
Many parables exist in the Bible, people get knotted up when they start taking them literally. They miss the heart of the idea that is meant to bear fruit, and end up focusing on trying to prove a parable as a fact rather then understand it as an allegory.
I can't help that but think that an actual believer would look at the world God made, rather than a book He allowed men to write, for his answers. And for his questions as well for that matter.
wolftrapper78
08-09-2006, 04:18
Slyspy,
2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teahing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Why would he lie to us.
Pape,
Actually, unlike English, the Hebrew language has a definitive word order that marks whether the writer is trying to state something in allegory or as narrative. SVO being allegory and VSO as narrative.
The opening sentence is Bereshit Bara Elohim... Which literally means "In the Beginning (prepositional phrase- doesn't count) created God..." This order stands throughout the verses of Genesis 1.
Any Hebrew expert will tell you that this is to be taken literally.
Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.
How does, it mean that? This is a good example of what I have been saying throughout. The facts are the same, but the interpretations are very different. That could also show that all civilization grew out of one region and when it spread it took the stories of its beginnings with it. Who's to say that one might be true and the others weren't changed to meet their criteria.
I am sorry to see you go, Ice, I really did enjoy this. I have a life to get going to myself. But, I have to ask you, how do you know that you are not the one with the closed mind? In an age of relativism, how can anything be for sure? The truth is that I also opened my mind. I can to college searching for the truth. We all at some point in our lives ask like Pontius Pilate "What is Truth". I know that I did, because all my life, I had been wondering how can anyone know truth, just like you, and most of us (I suspect). Well, I found that we were asking the wrong question. We should have been asking "Who is Truth?" The answers can only be found in John 14:6 were Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." That book also tells us in its opening verse, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." I realized that I cannot prove to you that Evolution is a problem and that moral relativism and secular humanism are disasterous offshoots of that problem, but what I can do is to provide an example and to stand on my convictions. The rest is in God's hands.
Peace
Papewaio
08-09-2006, 04:55
Pape,
Actually, unlike English, the Hebrew language has a definitive word order that marks whether the writer is trying to state something in allegory or as narrative. SVO being allegory and VSO as narrative.
The opening sentence is Bereshit Bara Elohim... Which literally means "In the Beginning (prepositional phrase- doesn't count) created God..." This order stands throughout the verses of Genesis 1.
Any Hebrew expert will tell you that this is to be taken literally.
I would say confusing a literary device "All I say is true" which is used for impact with what is true would be silly. I would not ever take the versions of Genesis as literal when the two versions are in conflict, if they are both literal one is wrong, and if one is wrong why not both?
If they however are parables then they can co-exist as they are meant to help bring one to a point of understanding.
wolftrapper78
08-09-2006, 05:33
Sorry Pape,
I don't know what you are referring to. But if you are talking about supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, then please read this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp). I know that some of us are busy people and have more to do than to read another linked article. I myself am one of them and I will be out for the next three weeks or month. Maybe then we will be able to continue this. Until then,
Peace
Papewaio
08-09-2006, 06:01
So the explanation that this uses doesn't gel with the idea that the translations of the Bible are 'remarkably good in staying true to itself'. If it was the explanation for why the Genesis chapters are contradictory would not have to reference older texts, the newer translated version would in fact accurately dipict the situation.
So what are we left at:
A) That translations are accurate and inspired by the Holy Spirit. However since this is true the chapters in Genesis are contradictory, as such they should not be taken as literal vehicles otherwise they disprove each other as they are not in parity.
OR
B) If a translation was inspired by God then the translated Bible would be self sufficient and would not require external appendicies for explanations. Translations are therefore inaccurate and open to error, hence not inspired by the Holy Spirit and hence no longer the word of God but instead those of Man, probably chosen in fact purely for geopolitical stability reasons aka Constantine. As the Genesis chapters are contradictory if not read in their orginal format.
So from which side of the menu would you like to choose from?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.