Group promotes science standards / LJWorld.com

8 July 2006
at 6:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

They've already made Kansas the laughingstock of the educated world; why not add insult to injury?

8 July 2006
at 6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

This is a battle over world-views. Either we are the product of time and randonmess or we are the result of divine intent. The evidence points to the latter. Our children are better served by teaching the latter.

8 July 2006
at 7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lonestar1 (Anonymous) says…

Our children should be taught religious beliefs at home and science in school. The fact that out siders want to influence Kansas elections should not be news, it has been going on since the 1850's

8 July 2006
at 7:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

I would think the President and Senate would serve as proof that there is no such thing as intelligent design.

8 July 2006
at 7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rayikeo (Anonymous) says…

School Board Member to ljWorld, “There is no way I am smart enough to serve on this board without devine intervention, therefore there must be Intelligent Design”

8 July 2006
at 7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

PeteJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

This is a battle over world-views. Either we are the product of time and randonmess or we are the result of His Noodly Appendage (PBUH). The evidence points to the latter. Our children are better served by teaching the latter.

8 July 2006
at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Apparently the people who have posted so far today have not even read the standards. They would rather just make stuff up.

8 July 2006
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Strontius (Anonymous) says…

“The high-powered Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of intelligent design….”

This statements alone deals a deathblow to the legitimacy of I.D. There is no evidence for I.D., its advocates just criticize evolution in their ignorance. These people obviously have no idea what it means to reach the level of “Theory” in the scientific process.

8 July 2006
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

the standards deviate - in small ways - from accepted scientific practice gadot. leaving the opportunity to make stuff up. it's all good.

8 July 2006
at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kropotkin (Anonymous) says…

I've read the testimony of the two dozen “experts” called by the Board majority when they were trying to reinstitute the spirt of the 16th Century Inquisition in which scientists like Galileo and Bruno who disagreed with theologians were fated for years in prison or even burning at the stake. Most of these theocrats would be right at home at a snake handlers' tent revival. These “experts” included a Turkish public relations whacko whose fundamentalist Islamist organization, BAV, has expelled the teaching of evolution from that country's schools. It claims teaching of evolution is a Zionist-Imperialist conspiracy. The majority's “experts” included high school biology teachers and others who believe the world is 6,000 years old. Their “teach the controversy” strategy hearkens back to the tactics of the Tobacco Institute trollops of 35-50 years ago. These characters make common cause with the Charles and David Koch and Exxon-funded global warming deniers. If this bunch gets reelected, “Be very afraid.”

8 July 2006
at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“The high-powered Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of intelligent design, said Friday it will launch a campaign to persuade Kansans that controversial science standards approved by the State Board of Education are sound.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Does anyone know if they have registered as a lobbyists as they HAVE to do in Kansas. Have they filed their statemets with the Sec. of State? I think the funding has to be looked at, because this IS Political influence peddling ie lobbying for a political outcome.

I think some of the “Ethic” rules and yes the “money” need to be investigated and tho whom in our elected community.

For instance, has the DI bought someone a house, paid for a boat, vacation, etc. Remember they are also affiliated with the Cascadia which is a group that gets alot of money thorugh federal grants. They also are affiliated with the Emminent Domain” land theft and subsequent sale in Seattle.

They guys are stinking with corruption and absconded funds.

THese guys need to be investigated. TOP down.

8 July 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Posted by Robert Crowther at 07:00 AM on 7-7-06 http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.html
Darwinists Waging War on Kansas Over Evolution, Encouraging Schools To Disobey State Education Guidelines
There is a concerted effort underway in Kansas to censor science and undermine the strong science standards adopted there last year http://www.discovery.org/scripts/view…. In 2005 the Kansas state board of education (KSBOE) courageously voted to adopt science standards that require students to learn all about evolution, including both the scientific evidence and for and against the theory. That's it. The Board didn't require any alternative theories be taught, just the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.

However there are a number of groups http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan… both inside and outside of Kansas that are seeking to stifle discussion in Kansas classrooms of anything critical of Darwinian evolution. Chief among them is “Kansas Citizens for Science” (KCFS). Not content with simply complaining about the Kansas science standards, KCFS is now belligerently telling schools and teachers to disobey http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=105/ the state-sanctioned standards. Officials of KCFS are waging a campaign of misinformation and scare tactics in an effort to make sure that Kansas students never hear about any of the serious scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.

Here are a few of the phony reasons why KCFS encourages local school districts to adopt its own recommended standards rather than the official state-approved standards:

¢ Kansas students should be taught science that corresponds to the consensus view of the community of scientists. They should not be taught assertions from the creationist anti-evolutionists that are held by the scientific community to be incorrect.
Contrary to this misinformation put out by KCFS, the official Kansas science standards do call for students to be “taught science that corresponds to the consensus view” of scientists. But the standards also require students to learn about continuing scientific controversies over Darwinian theory's key claims—scientific controversies that many evolutionists themselves acknowledge when writing to each other in their science journals. If scientists can debate about such issues as the “Cambrian Explosion” in their peer-reviewed journals, why can't students learn about these debates in their science classes?

continued below…

8 July 2006
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

continued from above:

For a clear and succinct summary of what the Kansas state science standards do and do not call for download this FAQ http://www.kansasscience2005.com/FAQ_… .

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/… | http://www.discovery.org/scripts/mt/m…

8 July 2006
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

continued from above:

¢ Kansas schools should not be used to promote one particular view of religion. Presenting religious arguments in the guise of science does harm not only to our students, but also to religious communities.
Contrary to this misinformation put out by KCFS, no one is suggesting that any religious views be presented. The Kansas science standards call for students to learn about scientific challenges to biological and chemical evolution straight out of mainstream science literature. The standards have nothing to say about religion and do not call for the teaching of any religiously-based information.
¢ Kansas science teachers are already under pressure to teach bad science or to omit “controversial” science. School districts need to send their teachers a clear message that they support the teaching of mainstream science.
Now this is irony. This claim comes from KCFS, the organization that is aggressively waging a campaign to censor science, to stifle any dissent from Darwinian evolution. These are the people who want students to be taught only some of the information about evolution. It is the KCFS and their partners who are trying to “omit” material from the curriculum. Their idea of good standards would severely limit the amount of science teachers would be allowed to present in the classroom.
¢ Districts using the state standards may leave themselves open to costly lawsuits, such as the one in Dover, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit over their Intelligent Design-inspired standards cost the Dover district over a million dollars. Should such a lawsuit occur in Kansas, it is not the state that will be sued it is the local district that will be sued.
KCFS officials are trying to frighten school districts with the ominous specter of a lawsuit over intelligent design. What they fail to mention is that the Kansas state science standards don't have anything to say about intelligent design. What is it about this sentence that the KCFS doesn't get? “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design” — quoted straight from the KSBOE's own rationale for adoption of the state science standards.

It's time for people to stand up for science, stand up to Darwinist censors and bullies, and defend good science standards such as those in Kansas.

Fortunately, Kansas is not alone. Just last month South Carolina http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/… followed Kansas' lead and adopted similar standards that require students to learn the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. New Mexico, Minnesota and Pennsylvania also have such standards already in place. So, there are other states besides Kansas that are standing up for “full disclosure” when it comes to teaching Darwin's theory.

8 July 2006
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BABBOY (Anonymous) says…

I have read the standards the Board of Education in this stupid debate when they were posted in the newspapers when this vote went down. I have visited the Board web site and reviewed each of the board members background and it is a very political based entity driven on religious issues with moderates trying to hold off the zealots. .

I have read the constitution and understand the one amendment our US Supreme Court protects is the first amendment. Any who knows anything about civil rights knows that they are much less now since the conservative right came in to power. I love George Bush for one reason in that his day to day stupidity shows the ignorance and self serving interests of the conservative right and their beliefs. What other idiot would as for a band on gay marriages when our economy sucks, North Korea is making missiles, and Iran is trying to get nuclear power and we can do anything about it because he has committed us to Iraq?

Back to this stupid issue of intelligent design, I have read the comments from the board members saying that passing this crap is the Christian thing to do. I have read the e-mail from one members telling a group opposed intelligent design telling the group that it was wrong to mock god. The group posted the e-mail on their web site. I followed very closely in both the Lawrence and Topeka papers. I read it on CNN on their web site and it is about the only time you read about Kansas in news stories (other than Fred Phelps)

Do not insult my intelligence by telling me this is not about religion. Religion is the only driving this stuff and it has no place in school system meant to teach everyone with multiple religious believes. I realize that the religious right will never ever understand free will or the idea that some may beliefs different their own and that there should be a first amendment. I am so tired of phony Christians telling others what to believe and somehow thinking freedom of religion is a good concept as long as you practice their religion. That is not what I learned in church and what I thought was important was pretty much described in the Golden Rule. I do not remember it saying you will believe what I believe or we will vote you out.

The current standards leave science to the scientist and leaves religions to the churches. No amount of nonsense from religious right is going to change that this is the best approach in a free society

8 July 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

bondmen,

This:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.html
and this:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/view…
and this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/…
and this:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/…

are all from the discovery insititute webpage you putz!!! ID THAT the total source for your news?

As for this link:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan…

THose are ALL grass roots groups in Kansas, NONO of them are from outside the State! You sir LIED and got caught! Besides how internal to Kansas is the DIscovery Institute? hmmmm? if you want the address to the main pac it is:

MAINstream Political Action Committee
5350 West 94th Terrace Suite 103
Prairie Village, KS 66207-2520

A lying Christian? Maybe a “wannabe”?also this site:

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/FAQ_…

was paid for by public funding and directed by the Discovery Institute. IT is also from the Discovery Institute webpage.

You are just singing their untrue talking points, and used for the brainless mouthpiece for propaganda that you are.

Cutting and pasting from the website of Discovery Institute does NOT make you Intelligent, on the ball, or even politically astute. It does show you limitations at using your own brain (why you would be commenting on education matters is beyond me) and your capability of debating your point is so weak, you cannot come up with a single cogent and compelling argument on your own, you have to run to the discovery site for pointers!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you stated:

“I am so tired of phony Christians telling others what to believe and somehow thinking freedom of religion is a good concept as long as you practice their religion. That is not what I learned in church and what I thought was important was pretty much described in the Golden Rule.”

That's right, the point you and the Discovery Institute is pushing is phony christianity…so why don't you guys stop?

YOu guys and Phred Phelps and your ilk give Kansas a bad name.

8 July 2006
at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

BOndmen you lied again:

“Chief among them is “Kansas Citizens for Science” (KCFS). Not content with simply complaining about the Kansas science standards, KCFS is now belligerently telling schools and teachers to disobey http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=105/ the state-sanctioned standards.”

What the site actually says:

“The majority of the Science Standards Writing Committee voted to have their names removed from the KBOE standards, and national science organizations withdrew copyright permissions they had granted for language taken from their documents. Subsequently, the Manhattan-Ogden Board of Education, USD 383, voted to formally reject the state science standards.

The KBOE standards are so flawed that they may be unconstitutional, and if endorsed by a local school district could lead to serious legal difficulties. One way to avoid such difficulties is to continue using your current standards, based on the 2001 science standards, rather than incorporating the 2005 KBOE standards. Better yet, as explained below, you could adopt the Science Standards Writing Committee's Recommended Standards, the completed product of the writing committee originally empowered by the Board to revise the 2001 standards.

A large majority (21 out of 25) of the Science Standards Writing Committee continued to meet privately after their version of the standards was rejected by the KBOE. The committee improved on the draft they had submitted to the Board in March by responding to suggestions made by external reviewer MCREL (the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning) and by the Fordham Foundation. The committee's final version of the Recommended Standards is now available for districts to use as an alternative to the KBOE standards.

KCFS believes that Kansas' school children would be far better served by these standards. We urge your district to consider adopting the Recommended Standards.”

What they are saying correctly is the first time these so called 2005 standards are taught ina classroom the school is liable to get sued, and not under civil issues but constitutional issues as well. That's what you fundies don't get, your stance is unconstitutional and just flat out wrong.

Whatever happened to the BIble verse:

“Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's….”

that particular one is stating that even Christians have to follow the law as set forth. Not doing so is not Christian.

8 July 2006
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

asbestos, if you and BABBOY are both products of government education in Kansas then I agree the State BOE should be criticized for doing a poor job seeing students are taught how to think and how to write. You both prove the point if one cannot think logically and clearly then how could one possibly write coherently about anything especially on important subjects like science and religion. Both you guys need to finish up at JuCo and then come back before making any more public displays embarrassing yourselves on this LJ-W blog!

asbestos, i linked from the Discovery blog because there are other readers here who wish to objectively consider all the information before forming an opinion. By the way there are a number of Kansans who financially and intellectually support the Discovery Institute and their staff. It's obvious much more thoughtful and thorough education needs to take place in Kansas on the ID topic, if you and your fellow travelers are any indication.

Now as for your quote from thin air following “you stated:” above - sorry, that is not my comment or my thought, in the past or now.

Now for a big surprise (NOT) for you and BABBOY regarding the Satanist Fred Phelps - find out who his real political crony is: http://www.lcrga.com/archive/20001025…

Sorry fellows but the truth does hurt and I can tell you're both hurting - and it does make me sad. Hurting young people grow up to have children who grow up hurting too unless the truth comes to you and is accepted. Try and listen to the other side and open your minds and hopefully some understanding about the true nature of our world will come your way. Above all control your hate toward those you disagree with - hate only consumes you and causes you to make mistakes in reasoning and judgment.

8 July 2006
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen dude you are the one who lied?

How do you pass yourself off as “objective” or lying to support your poor position as “objective”?

You are the one that needs to go back to school. Juco is a few levels below my current education level with my sheepskins on the wall.

You linked the Discovery Institute and the IDN because they are the only ones that believe as you do. You are in the minority and do not want to admit that.

You wanna grade my english and writting skills fine, but I do have a BS in Phys/Env Sciences.

YOU sir need to quit attacking people personally because you cannot defend your position without intellectually dishonest discourse and lying about the topic.

8 July 2006
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Kansas is once again proving itself susceptible to hucksterism and snake oil salesmen.

Confirming prejudices that Kansans are uneducated, naive ignoramuses.

Kansas is a weak link in the chain of modern society, and the Disccovery Institute knows this and is trying to gain traction here.

In most places, the Discovery Institute would be laughed away. Not in ol' Kansas, though.

8 July 2006
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Funny how quickly a web search about ID creationism comes back to the Discovery Institute. There is little else. The DI attempts to clothe their anti-scientific views in logical and objective garb. They imitiate the very institutions that they are trying to undermine (universities and academia).

They are nearly alone in their crusade against science.

8 July 2006
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

For inquisitive and open minded Kansans who were not told in NEA dominated monopoly state schools about the many and varied frauds evolution proponents have foisted upon students over the years - there's no time like the present to find out - give these links a good look:

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfr…

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsit…

http://www.answersingenesis.org/searc…

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=h…

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/Creation….

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2…

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creat…

Now there will be Origin of the Specious believers from the Church of Darwin who will not like these websites and will be especially upset because I've listed them here - all I can say is too bad, you cannot ban or burn them!

8 July 2006
at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

Why end at debating the theory of evolution? I say lets go all the way and introduce intelligent falling into schools aswell. Gravity is only a theory that is unprovable like evolution. I believe that things fall back to earth because a higher force wills them to. Who needs things like proof, or evidence, or scientific methods? These things are the way they are because God wants them to be that way.

8 July 2006
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“The Institute of creation science”?

“Answers in Genesis”?

The Darwin Papers”? (“Origins, evolution, creationism, Darwin. The Debate reachers from the science laboratory to the Supreme Court.”) When you try to cut and paste a “popup” states the “Jesus Loves You”.

“NorthWest creation Network”? (with 15 powerpoint presentations that are absolutely hilarious and sadly out and out LYING.

How is this not in violation of the constitution Bondmen? The First amendment states that the State cannot establish religion nor can it prevent the free expression. '

What you have done is shone the true colors of this movement and have don it major damage and you are too stupid to notice or understand why. You just made an endorsement of the Kansas Science standards with that of ID and Creationism, and that is what the DI has been trying to obfuscate.

What a closed minded yahoo, that is dumber than a brick.

Thank you for your help!

8 July 2006
at 11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen,

How do you and people like yourself reconcile your lying to promote your fundamentalist perception of “Christianity”? You do know that lying to promote Jesus as savior is blasphemy? You do know that don't you?

8 July 2006
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

Yeah I'm going to have to say that all those links that bondmen put up look kinda suspect. It doesn't take looking at them long to realize the level of christian propaganda in them. Ignorance in the name of faith is no excuse for ignorance. The facts all point in a different direction then the church would have you believe, this debate is nothing more then a badly disguised attempt at putting religion in schools.

8 July 2006
at 12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

KornPhlake This is the best statement that sums up this whole sorry affair:

“Ignorance in the name of faith is no excuse for ignorance.”

I cannot subscribe to the argument that “Jesus wants us stupid and ignorant”, without absolute and abject credulity.

It is not the “Church” but a faction . I liken these Creo/ID fools to the Jim Jones followers, and the Will Jeffs followers of the FLDS church, and Phred Phelps. They pervert the the good word to serve their purpose, whichis a big nono in the Faith. The FLDS uses a fundamentlaist take to sanction “child abuse and sexual exploitation”, the Jim Jones just wanted to not work and take drugs, the Phelps people are just plain weird.

This religious “fanaticism” whether Christian with this issue on ID/Creo and education is no different that the pervication of Islam for the Al Quaida or Talibahn. These folks with the DI and IDN and all the rest are nothing more than Midwestern Talibahn and wahabists, it just so happens that they are “Christian” instead of Islamic, but regardless “which team they are on”, it still is not the purpose of the religion nor are they to be held up as “spiritual leaders” or “keepers of the faith”. They do not hold up very well with this world track record of religious fundamentalist fanaticism.

8 July 2006
at 12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

^^^^^^^^^^^Funny how well religion divides two sects of people who think so alike. There is no better weopon against people comming together and moving forward than religion. If the masses are divided they are alot easier to control.

8 July 2006
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

I suppose it wouldn't be useful to note that Dr. Michael Behe, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, recently testified under oath that his definition of science would also admit astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover…

Moneyquote:
“Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

Behe: Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.”

8 July 2006
at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…

Rational Kansans, let's ignore the obfuscating distractions from the creationists and do something real to stop them. Please help keep Janet Waugh on the Kansas Board of Education. She voted against the compromised standards last time, and will do so again. Keeping her seat and winning more away from the anti-science movement is critical to not only the image of our fine state, but also to our children, who deserve the benefit of a secular science education. Please visit her website (http://janetwaugh.com/) and donate, volunteer, and put up yard signs. Let's do to them what they've been doing to us for too long; let's take it to the streets and win back science.

8 July 2006
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

HMcMellon (Anonymous) says…

Crooked preachers rip off the ignorant, fearful and gullible in other States and then use their ill-gotten boodle in Kansas to promote lies.

How could anyone, except the six crackpots on the KBOE and the ignorant people who support them, believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and was created in only six days? All evidence indicates that these myths are completely false.

Of course, being the liars they are, the ID proponents don't exactly say that, but we all know that's where they are headed. They believe in an inerrant Bible, and if one believes that, one has to believe the Genesis myth is fact.

Actually, if one believes in an inerrant Bible, one also have to believe in stoning unfaithful women, having slaves, multiple wives, etc, but their belief in inerrancy is very selective.

I feel sorry for kids who get beat both physically and mentally into believing such nonsense. They will never advance in education beyond some extremist Bible college. They will never be able to get a job that requires any scientific skills or rational thought.

The six liars on the KBOE should be sent back their cults. I hope all the outside money and slick propaganda techniques they are using to spread their lies blows up in their faces.

8 July 2006
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

nightmare:
“Kansas is once again proving itself susceptible to hucksterism and snake oil salesmen.

Confirming prejudices that Kansans are uneducated, naive ignoramuses.”

Yep, Kansans believe in Murphy's Law, instead of the erudite expositions of the elite.

Don't confuse education with knowledge. Just look at Islam.

I forget, nightmare, did you ever explain to me why evolution is a better theory than Murphy's Law combined with physics?

Murphy's Law: Anything that can possibly happen will.

Physics: As in conservation of energy, mass, momentum, etc. What can happen is bounded by physics.

Thus, everything within the boundaries of physics will eventually happen. So here we are.

So, who's sellin' the snake oil here. ID/creation? Or evolution?

Both. This is an argument about the primacy of ideas. My religion is better than yours. Ha.

8 July 2006
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ryanjasondesch (Anonymous) says…

Silverman's paradox: If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will. As for me, I do believe there's a pirate ship nearby that needs some pirating, I gonna go do that now. To the Sandbar!

8 July 2006
at 1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…

Man, I don't know what to say…after all I've read and all I've been taught in Kansas and the other states I've lived in, evolution makes the most sense and there's really no debate in my mind. I'm even more shocked that this debate even exists. Why can't God and evolution co-exist? Why can't I.D. be taught in philosophy and the theory of evolution be taught in science?

I don't know…maybe I'm missing something but, for the time being, all I can do is shake my head. Sigh.

“What are we? A nation of 6 year olds?”
-David Cross

8 July 2006
at 1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

usaschools (Anonymous) says…

This is the same group that lost in court when it was found beyond a doubt that they were, in FACT, promoting creationism. It was found to be a FACT that “intelligent design” was a synonym for creationism.
In fact, the publisher of their “textbook” (if propoganda can be so labeled) testifyed that they first used the word “creationism” in the text, but, following the Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional, they had the printers change every appearance of the word “creationsim” WITH “intelligent design.” This proves conclusively that they regard them as the same thing.
There is no such thing as “Creation science,” and voters should ignore these self-serving out-of-state special interests with hidden agendas.

8 July 2006
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bthom37 (Anonymous) says…

You know, I really wish we could hotlink images. (beware naughty word in this picture) http://www.theforumsite.com/images/ga…

Totally relevant to today's discussion.

8 July 2006
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Since Murphy's Law is bounded by physics, it can only go wrong if it violates a law of physics. Or if it is a thing which is possible, but has never happened, and never will happen.

The last part of this statement (never will happen) is the sort of statement that fuzzy-headed scientists would surmise. “Never will happen” can't be tested, thus it isn't a scientific statement.

Data: It has rained in Atlanta every tuesday for the last 2 years (104 tuesdays).

Deduction: It rained in Atlanta on the 1st tuesday of June 2005.

Induction: It will rain next tuesday in Atlanta.

Fuzzy-heads: It always rains on tuesday in Atlanta. We have evidence. There is concensus among knowledgeable and highly respected scientists that it will always rain in Atlanta on tuesday. Its a scientific fact.

Inverse fuzz-heads: It has always rained in Atlanta on tuesday. Even though Atlanta didn't exist 10,000 years ago? Oh, well, we are talking about the land on which Atlanta now sits. Even when Atlanta was underwater a gozillion years ago? Well, evidence is sketchy, but it's the best model we have right now. And the right-wing fundies are the only ones to challenge us, and they are ignorant, and stupid, and…..

Creation/Id: It is written in the Word that it shall rain every 7 days in the land of the people known as A-Lan-Ta. We have gathered evidence that it has rained every tuesday for the last 2 years, therefore, by logic it will always rain in Atlanta on tuesday. We used math, deductive and inductive logic and evidence. It's science.

Yikes. Stop callin' evolution/creation/ID science because it has evidence. That ain't enough. You must limit yer scientific statements to those which can be tested. Consider the data,deductive, inductive statements above. They are all testable. However, a statement like “all living things share a common ancestor” is untestable.

The other statements above(about Atlanta) made by the Id/Creation/Fuzzy-heads are unscientific. They exceed the bounds of testability

By similarity I suggest that evolution/creation/Id is also a bunch of unscientific stuff which far exceeds the bounds of testability..

Note: I have no intention of challenging your faith. This is science we're talking about. I will not argue with anybody's belief in “the origins” unless that person insists that the untestable is science.

8 July 2006
at 2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bthom37 (Anonymous) says…

One thing I've learned from these discussions; it sure seems as if the backers of this sort of effort believe themselves to be terrible parents, having raised children who are so easily swayed and in dire need of much sheltering.

You'd think halfway competent parents could instil values and knowledge in their children that could stand up to an opposing viewpoint or 2.

8 July 2006
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…

There is no debate, Roadkill_Rob. This is not a clash of ideas, with experts weighing the merits of either argument. ID cannot spar in such a match; there's nothing that resembles science to it. This is political — the Discovery Institute is a political organization. This debate is about power, ultimately. It's about the identity and culture of our nation, its shape, outcome, and who controls it. This is why it is critical for those of us who support science to do something now. We've sat around for too long on the assumption that reason will prevail, but we're not fighting a battle of reason, we're not fighting with true or evidence. We're fighting a political battle against a group who want to push their religious ideology onto children in our schools. The debate should not be about the merits of ID; the debate should be about freedom.

8 July 2006
at 2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Roadkill,

“What are we? A nation of 6 year olds?”
-David Cross

Yep.

Like I said earlier, this is an argument about the primacy of ideas.

Pissin' contest. Like two 6 year-old boys seein' whose goes farther. Should anybody else really care? Naw, neither side's theories are used for anything besides the reinforcement of their own hubris.

8 July 2006
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Evo Devo Smevo Bevo - Time for school boys - Put on your thinking caps.

From: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/…

Inaccurate Portrayals

Within the first few paragraphs of the article, one of the first misleading statements of ID is made:

“The new challenge [to teaching Darwinian evolution] comes from proponents of “intelligent design,” which argues that there are things in the world namely, life that defy scientific explanation and can only be attributed to the handiwork of an unidentified, supernatural creator.”

Immediately, LaFee has constructed several strawman concepts regarding the nature of ID, as well as implied a particular definition of science. Let us tease apart these different facets. The first is that ID looks at things “that defy scientific explanation.” LaFee has smuggled in a common tenet of philosophical naturalism, and philosophies are clearly not scientific. Specifically, the tenet is in the philosophical naturalists' definition of science: science is the study of naturally occurring phenomenon as the result of natural causes. It is in the last phrase that the metaphysical viewpoint is apparent: as the result of natural causes. Yet, there are many areas considered scientific that consider non-natural causes (which are not necessarily supernatural). For example, archeology, forensics, and SETI are just a few of the subjects that consider non-natural causal explanations. A more appropriate definition of science that does not pander to any philosophical bias, religious or otherwise, would the science is the study of natural phenomenon as a result of whatever causes that the evidence indicates. (For those interested in learning more about the role naturalism plays in science, see our Primer: Naturalism in Science - http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/….)

FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/…

8 July 2006
at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

anonimiss (Anonymous) says…

The debate should be about what exactly science is and if the board standards teach science. The standards do not support intelligent design or creationism. They offer reasonable criticism to the current view of evolution. I have read the standards, support them, and see no way that ID or creationism could make its way into the classroom under the current (contested) standards.

Unfortunately, most others have not seen the standards, and take the rumor that these standards support ID as fact. These people are a disgrace to science, politics, current events, knowledge, debate, and culture in general. If any of you actually read the standards, you would know that ID is not at the heart of this debate. It is about an area of the scientific community and the media twisting facts around. They do not want criticism, and will resort to mistruths to accomplish their goal. It is evident that the scientific community is broken into two segments: one where criticism is used to further develop theories and one where criticism is outlawed and punished. Unfortunately, an equally radical and ill-motivated group has come in support, further propogating the myths.

Stand up for science. Read the standards. Show your support on one of the two true sides. Do you favor criticism or oppose criticism?

8 July 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…

devoburn, I agree that it is a pissing contest at the moment, but I think that it does matter and that the end result (in this case, the puddle) will have drastic effects on not only science but also every social system in our country. I would like to refer you to the Wedge Document, an internal memo of the Discovery Institute that outlines the changes they wish to make at an ideological level to average Joe American, and consequently, the world:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanavera…

While I agree that this debate seems removed from the commonplace of our lives, but once the overarching structure of ID's intention is revealed, I trust you can see how important this issue can be. I urge you to consider a world where the primacy of ideas is not based on merit (even ideally, as it is now) but based on “a broadly theistic understanding of nature”, and the consequences it could have in the areas of personal freedom, democracy, and our nation's livelihood. I worry that if we don't act, this could very well be the pissing contest that floods the world.

8 July 2006
at 3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Geez Bondmen, Where to start with the same old argument.

“science is the study of naturally occurring phenomenon as the result of natural causes.”

NO Science is explaining “naturally occurring phenomenon” through “observation”. We can't observe “supernatural causes”. If you truley want to include “supernatural causes (and that is the core of your arguement whether you know it or not), let's include Shiva, and Rah, these are also reported “supernatural causes”. How about the Native American “Great White BUffalo”, I will go for that too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“It is in the last phrase that the metaphysical viewpoint is apparent: as the result of natural causes. Yet, there are many areas considered scientific that consider non-natural causes (which are not necessarily supernatural).”

If it ain't “Natural” then what else is it you ding dong? Talk about a strawman of gibberish.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

“Unfortunately, an equally radical and ill-motivated group has come in support, further propogating the myths.”

Yes yoiu are right,… The ID CREO lot. very radical, very ill-motivated, very UN-American, and very-STUPID!

Point being:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“If any of you actually read the standards, you would know that ID is not at the heart of this debate.”

Then why in the hell do you keep using ID and Creatrionist websites? What a buffon!

Keep helping our cause though. We are revealing how indoctrinated and fundamentalist your side really is…and dumb to boot.

8 July 2006
at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

It isn't supernatural because I say so. Is too.

8 July 2006
at 3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

This concept is as erosive and corrosive to science and out community and culture and society as does the illegal immigration erodes, corrodes and just ruins the rule of law and quest for truth.

8 July 2006
at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawks71 (Anonymous) says…

All Hail Flying Spaghetti Monster. I sure hope creationism gets in the schools so that those of us in the Universal Church of FSM can get our TRUTH in there alongside the Judeo-Christian bogeyman.(sarcasm).

Why is it the creationists keep trying to move their side toward the science side? Perhaps they see something very appealing about empiricism and the scientific method. They better watch out, it can be quite alluring; they might expect their physicians to use science to develop treatments to extend their lives.

Question of the day: Why are Christians so intent on living long lives? Why do they go to doctors who use science to extend their mortality? Shouldn't there be a rush to get to the afterlife? Someone please help me sort this out.

8 July 2006
at 3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Klickhammer (Anonymous) says…

From the introduction to the Standards in question: “While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.”

Furthermore, they add subtle qualifiers, like here, to a discussion that implies that accumulated changes do in fact account for all natural phenomena: “..the actual causes of many changes are currently unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe, the origin of fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, and the origin of major body plans during the Cambrian explosion.”

Stand up for science. Science is founded on criticism; ask yourself, when people speak of criticism, what sort of criticism do they mean?

8 July 2006
at 3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

OK For all You Conservative wanna be's. The Discovery Institute is also tied up in “Cascadia”! Who are they? THEY and their “mission” is stated below from their web page. YES these are the guys that stole private property from private citizens (for a high speed rail system) through emminent domain, the project fell through, and then they sold the properties for profit and kept it! Making 3x what they “gave” the owner's to whom they paid “fair Market values”.

http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/

YEs, what a great bunch of “Christians” thes yahoos are! Take a hint, theives like this should NOT be deciding NOR dictating what our KIDS in KANSAS should or should NOT be taught.

Wise up guys!!!

Cascadia mission

The mission of the Cascadia Center is to support the development of a balanced, integrated, and expanded transportation system for people and goods in central Puget Sound and the greater Cascadia region of Washington, British Columbia, and Oregon.

National advocacy for Amtrak reform and high speed passenger rail as well as TEA-21 reauthorization.
International advocacy for U.S./Canadian border improvements, “Two-Nation Vacation” tourism initiatives and strategic security investments through the International Mobility and Trade Corridors Project (imtc), can/am Border Trade Alliance and the development of a West Coast Corridor Coalition.

8 July 2006
at 3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Hot damn. This horse has been beaten. Fresh Glue.

8 July 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

A school of their own is a good idea. Or should I say madrasa of their own…

They could have faith-based science class, where they “challenge” and “have an open mind” and “present both sides of” scientific findings that they feel clash with their religious dogma.

Or they could just ignore those aspects of science that they feel clash with their dogma.

Fossils, stars, black holes, galaxies. None of these exist because they cannot be recreated in the lab.

Foolish, foolish people.

8 July 2006
at 5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“You don't hear Muslim parents having a hissy because Islam is not taught in the school system.”

“Ignorance in the name of faith is no excuse for ignorance.”

2 of the BEST statments made on this whole discussion!

8 July 2006
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

Where do dinosaurs fit into the whole I.D. aguement? If the earth is 6000 years old and man was here for all of it then why don't we read any stories about the dinosaurs in any ancient texts? Is God testing our faith? In the words of Bill Hicks: I'm not really comfortable with the thought that God is f–ing with us.

8 July 2006
at 5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

Looks like we got ourselves a reader. ^^^

8 July 2006
at 6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

I had to look up the term genuflect, now that I know what it is I shall do so.

8 July 2006
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BunE (Anonymous) says…

I heart creationism. Why try and answer questions when you can just decide you are right?

…cause the bible tells us so.

Query: If god made us in his own image, how do we explain Cher and Dr. Phil? Is god crazy?

8 July 2006
at 6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

There is logical proof that dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

In some dinosaur fossils, there is some evidence of disease (infections, cancer, bone disease).

No disease existed on Earth before The Fall (damn that Eve and her appetite for apples).

Ergo, dinosaurs existed after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

Duh!

8 July 2006
at 6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

In all seriousness could one of the advocates for I.D. explain the dinosaurs to me? If they haven't been run away from this discussion, I am really interested to know their take on the whole dinosaur thing.

8 July 2006
at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

How does that explain the dinosaurs? Like a 50 foot monster wouldn't make it into your story, no matter what you were wrting about.

8 July 2006
at 6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

HGA

Are you referring to Frankenchrist, of the once-banned Dead Kennedys?

8 July 2006
at 7:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

On dinosaur and other fossils:

Millions of dead things
buried in rock layers
laid down by water
all over the earth

8 July 2006
at 7:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

crono (Anonymous) says…

If atheistic Darwinian evolution is science, it can, by definition, be proved. So let's here it: cite the proof that blind natural forces started it all.

8 July 2006
at 7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

These are just a few of the headlines making news at: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200607…

Evolving Consciousness Without a Soul

Nature Gives Top Blog Honors to Radical Atheists

Genetic Code Began by Lamarckian Evolution

Rip Van Winkle Revives

Rockfish Prefer Oil-Rig Real Estate

Paper View: Why SETI Hears Only a “Great Silence”

Ant Pedometer Discovered

Doubters Defy Darwin Dogma

The Evolution of Immaturity

Stem Cells Protect Against Defective Copies

Evolutionists Find Pegasus in the Gene Epic

Plants Use Electrical Sunscreen

Science Reporters Spin Spider Web Data Into Evolutionary Program

Rubisco “Highly Tuned” for Fixing Atmospheric Carbon

The World Against I.D.

Real analysis of scientific news, journals and other articles on topics of interest to most all of us are found here: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200607…

8 July 2006
at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

bondmen your comment is in defense of I.D.? If so maybe you would like to elaborate, cause I hope your not trying to say that dinasaur fossils don't exist.

8 July 2006
at 8:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Darwin, from what I understand, was not an atheist.

“On the Origin of Species” is not some manifesto of atheism.”

Exactly. He was studying to be a minister actually. That was what he wanted to do. He actually want on the HMS Beagle as a favor to a teacher to get into divinity school.

THAT is the supreme irony of this issue. He was a devote christian.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Crono:

“If atheistic Darwinian evolution is science, it can, by definition, be proved. So let's here it: cite the proof that blind natural forces started it all.”

“Natural forces” is all we can observe and comment in the donfines of science. What you really said was nonsensical. Besides Evolution is NOT about what “Started it all” that is “abiogenesis”, which is NOT evolution.

As for the THestic issues with science, sicience is not athestic or theistic, it is NON thestic because thestic issues cannot be observed, measured, weighed, etc. whcih is what science is.

SO, your comments on what is wrong with evolution is of course off course and also nonsensical.

8 July 2006
at 8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

bondmen keeps posting obvious christian propaganda links as credible scientific websites. We figured you out along time ago bondmen, I hope you do not read these sites and think that they represent anything except biased christian view points. Please realize that religion is nothing more then a tool used to divide the masses. The mere fact that anyone can look at facts and deny what they are simply amazes me. But I do not wish to chastize you for your beliefs, on the contrary, I wish only to see that all people realize one day that people in a position of power will do almost anything to keep that power. The easiest way is to divide and conquer, if the people are not unified then they can not stand against tyranny. To argue against proof that contradicts the stories you've been told by people who directly proffit from you believing every word they tell you amazes me. Nobody is trying to attack your choice of beliefs, but this country was founded on the thought that gov't and the church have no place together. Let the church teach the children about God at church, you are there by choice. Let facts be taught in school, where you HAVE to go by law. This should not even be on our list of things to worry about, there is so much else going on in the world that you have to ask yourself “why does this even matter?” Bye the way now that I have your attention I would like to point you in the direction of a wonderful site I stumbled across, it is called www.droppingknowledge.org I feel that it is one of the most important projects I have ever seen. By bringing people together we can finally move forward.

8 July 2006
at 8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RomperRoomStyle (Anonymous) says…

The unfortunate thing is that when these students who learn this alternative theory go to college, they will have to unlearn what they have learned. If you believe in creationist theory, more power to you, but be consistent with those beliefs. Don't use technological and scientific advances that have come about as a result of evolution. That includes the computer you may be using right now, medication, television, etc… The fundamental flaw I have with creationist reasoning is that they're attacking evolutionary theory, and they see that as synonymous with attacking evolution itself. The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is simply an application of a mechanism to evolution. Evolution itself is fact, the theory is the explanation of how it occurs. I just see it as unfortunate that the Kansas BOE would want to inhibit students further by accepting the promotion of religion through “science” in public schools.

8 July 2006
at 8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

OK all you ID and Creo IDiots, you now need to go back to your creationist websites and consult on what to cut and paste next, because your comments and arguments are as lame as hell, and are not winning anyone over. Most of us on the pro-science view are answering from Knowledge and not feeling. That is also what science is, no emotion. Things do eat, get eaten, and also die and are killed. What things do and act.

Spirituality is how we look for meaning in it. BY that definition we look for meaning in a death that has no reason, or tragedy without cause. That is what gives the human condition depth.

Knowledge to know what is going on, and understanding to find meaning in it as well.

That is why these 2 disiplines MUST be kept apart.

I DO NOT want Science in my Spirituality or religion, and I do not want Spirituality or religion in my science.

Intorducing one into the other only corrodes, erodes, and renders the other meaningless and useless.

Why can't anyone understand this?

8 July 2006
at 8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

ID creationism is nothing more than wishful thinking. Bunch of spoiled little Dorothys clicking their heals together, saying “There is no evolution. I was created by a bearded man in the sky who loves me”.

Cling to your dogma, ignore reality, and rock on, creationists!

8 July 2006
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RomperRoomStyle (Anonymous) says…

Hmmm…. I wonder if there's going to be a Discovery Institute of Central Kansas?

8 July 2006
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Not that I have the energy for this debate, but I have a point and a question for Bondman.

First, to the best of my knowledge the actual question/answer of where we come from is not the primary purpose of evolution, just a side-effect theory of the major theory. Most scientists, I believe, are more concerned with the overall speciation (sp?), and the concurrent study of what is similar and different in the various types of life on this planet, than figuring out what the original spark was that set it in motion. I believe proponents of ID harken to this, then, because to attack the simple idea that evolution occurs is a Quixotic expodition, as there is observable data supporting this idea. Even taking the bible as literal fact, there is no escaping evolution, at least not if you want to believe your senses. Proof?

Race.

Taking the Genesis story literally, there was, in the beginning one man and one women, and the whole of human civilization begins with them. They must, then, have birthed enough folk to create families, then towns, cities, etc. Assuming this, every one of those peoples would have had the same genetic code, and the same chromosomal possibilities as Adam and Eve. Therefore, the only way to account for the eventual hereditary genetic differences in the various races is for those differences to represent an evolution from the original blueprint so to speak.

To my original point, going back to the origin of everything is what's left, because it's the one thing that everyone knows is simply unprovable, leaving it open to debate. The reason that scientists tend to support evolution as the original spark is positive evidence that evolution, in some fashion or another, exists. Whether or current theory of its application is correct or not is still, of course, open to debate, but there is no question that it does exist in some form.

So my question to Bondsman. Can you provide me with positive evidence that Intelligent Design exists? To clarify, by positive evidence I mean evidence that does not hinge on the failures of evolution to answer a particular, specific question. So far, this is all I have seen, to wit: “Evolution can not currently answer this, so the only answer is ID.” In a sense, I suppose what I'm looking for is observable data on how organic life is designed and then created from scratch. If you cannot provide at least one witnessed observance of this happening, then there is no reason for anyone to believe the theory.

8 July 2006
at 9:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Well, okay, I guess I had energy after all.

8 July 2006
at 10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Yes, I'm familiar with 75x55 and his humble, Christ-like demeanor.

8 July 2006
at 10:58 p.m.

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

8 July 2006
at 11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Jesus is dead. Malt liquor is good. Simpe truths are the best.

9 July 2006
at 12:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

learn (Anonymous) says…

The theory of evolution is backed by Nobel Prize and its committee. The theory of intelligence design is backed by nothing, and I've never heard of Jesus proclaiming intelligence design. Religion, science and politics should be separated. Never ask a religious leader to teach science and never ask a scientist to teach religion. Stop this politicking… it's sickening!!!!

9 July 2006
at 5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

godot: Not sure why you'd call it that. There's still plenty of chances to move forward in understanding

holygrailale: Thanks. Always good to be appreciated, neh?

9 July 2006
at 8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

whatisjazz (Anonymous) says…

If proponents of the 2005 Kansas Science Standards and Intelligent Design are so intent on fostering the critical discussion of scientific theories (because that's what they believe makes “good science”), why is evolution the ONLY scientific theory singled out for this critical discussion? EVERY scientific theory has its weak points. But out of all the thousands of theories from all the scientific disciplines (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) ONLY evolution receives the “critical discussion” within these Standards. Why is that? Why no mention that Newtonian theory is only true within a narrow set of conditions? Why no mention that Einstein's Relativity theories clash with Quantum theories? Why no mention of the competing theories about the source of gravity? Etc., etc.

Seen in this light, it is clear that the proponents of the 2005 Kansas Science Standards and Intelligent Design are motivated not by scientific or pedagogical thinking, but by religious ideological thinking. And religious ideology has no place in the science classroom.

9 July 2006
at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kornphlake (Anonymous) says…

I said it once and I'll say it again, gravity doesn't exist. Things fall because God wants them to. Intelligent falling is the cause I will be fighting to get taught in schools. The only reason things stay on the planet & the planets stay together is God. So theoretically we could fly if god would let us so I am going to get on his good side. I am going to need alot of money from gulli….. I mean God fearing christians to get this taught in public schools though. It's going to be an uphill battle but if we find a way to scare the flock into giving us more money maybe we can all get new cars. This is what God wants though is for me to lead the sheep, no matter how ridiculous what we're saying sounds. Those who oppose us are obviously trying to destroy christianity, and we must talk louder so they can hear us. We're going to need more money for that so please give to us so God can get put back into schools. One last thing, did I mention that we…. uh I mean God needs more money so we can help force his teachings upon those who do not willingly accept him as their lord and savior.

9 July 2006
at 4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Darwinists Foment Civil Disobedience Against Questioning Darwinism

The new science standards in Kansas require students to learn more about evolution, including evidence for and against it (see Discovery Institute press release http://www.discovery.org/scripts/view…). The standards specifically exclude the teaching of intelligent design theory. To some activist groups, however, this requirement is so intolerable, they want teachers to disobey it. According to Evolution News http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/…, there is a campaign of misinformation about the standards, especially from “Kansas Citizens for Science,” including calls for teachers to disregard them.

In response, the Discovery Institute has launched a new website, Stand Up for Science http://www.standupforscience.com/, trying to correct the misrepresentations with fact sheets and resources. It includes a petition for citizens to join forces in supporting the new standards.

According to Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/scripts/view…, Kansas joins four other states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Minnesota) and numerous local school boards requiring critical analysis of evolution.

What will the ACLU do now? They don't have a legal leg to stand on, since (unlike the Dover case) there is no requirement to teach any alternatives to Darwinism. This puts the Darwin Party in the untenable position of having to argue that a biological theory should be taught dogmatically. Science is supposed to be the opposite of dogmatism.

Anyone who thinks evolution is not controversial among parents, students and teachers http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606… and among scientists themselves http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606…, http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606…) hasn't been paying attention. When the evolution-as-fact-only crowd's only course of action is to lie and disobey, it tells you they have no legal grounds for opposing the standards, and most of all no evidential case for arguing that evolution is so obvious and factual that it is beyond scrutiny and therefore must be taught as dogma.

“The Darwiniacs play a shell game with the evidence, but the evidence is never under any of the shells…. In the end, evolutionists' only argument is contempt. The cultists know that if people were allowed to hear the arguments against evolution for just sixty seconds, all would be lost. So they demonize the people making those arguments.”
-from the New York Times best seller, Godless, the Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2006), pp. 243, 244.

9 July 2006
at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“According to Evolution News http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/kan…, there is a campaign of misinformation about the standards, especially from “Kansas Citizens for Science,” including calls for teachers to disregard them.”

Unh, we have covered this before, it is a lie. The Science standards writting committee of (21 of the 25) wrote alternative standards, that with the KDOE. Additinally the 2005 standards have copyright infringement and constitutinal issues that make them illegal.

so whut up on this set of lies!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“In response, the Discovery Institute has launched a new website, Stand Up for Science http://www.standupforscience.com/, trying to correct the misrepresentations with fact sheets and resources.”

No what the Discovery Institute is trying to do is incorporate INtelligent design within the standards. What they are trying to do is lie about what the science standards are. It is clearly propaganda.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

“According to Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/…, Kansas joins four other states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Minnesota) and numerous local school boards requiring critical analysis of evolution.”

In case you did not notice the Dover (ohio) case set what we cal a LEGAL precedent. Which has made Ohio take out all the ID chicanery, and stop. THe Dover School Board fundamentalists have all been replaced, and the cost of this mal informed effort cost the school district $1,000,000. Yes paid for by taxpayers. That is what Kansas School Districts are in for. IF I had a kid in school, I would forthwith sue the KSBOE and the State of Kansas.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Anyone who thinks evolution is not controversial among parents, students and teachers http://creationsafaris.com/crev200606.ht… and among scientists”

There is no controversy among scientists. The only controversy is people who fancy themselves “Scientists” in the Biblical sense.

9 July 2006
at 5:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

” When the evolution-as-fact-only crowd's only course of action is to lie and disobey, it tells you they have no legal grounds for opposing the standards, and most of all no evidential case for arguing that evolution is so obvious and factual that it is beyond scrutiny and therefore must be taught as dogma.
“

Actually the Dover case has already settled yoiu piss poor argument. It stated that the ID/CREO crownd used the “Teach the Controversy” BS as a clandestine replacement for “establishment of religion” in the classroom. aYOU guys and the ID/Creo are Lying, and it is in court records. And therefore you just lied, there IS legal grounds, as far as I know 2 federal cases and I supreme court case. That would 3-0 in favor of evolutionary theory.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

ALl your “proof” and “evidence” is you don't like of believe evolution. Well, it may be real to you, but it is NOT scientific.

would you please quit posting from the id/creo sites as news! We all know it and whjere it is from and it is not objective, the first rule in science.

9 July 2006
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

jonas - would you please list for me all the evolution facts of which you have knowledge. I am all eyes.

I think the reason there are similarities between living things (some greater, some lesser) is 1) they all have the same intelligent designer (who I believe to be the Creator God of the Holy Bible) and 2) they're all made out of the same basic building blocks available to Him after He created time, space, matter, light, water, land, sea, sun, moon and stars.

As to Adam and Eve and their DNA - yes we are all products of this combination, now degraded by the fall of man into sin because God gave man free will. As their progeny spread throughout the world and populated it some people groups became isolated and their genetic variability was restricted thusly and to some extent the environment brought out other characteristics manifested in the physical differences we see today; but we are all one race and 100% homo-sapiens!

Regarding ID - it merely seeks to identify and explain non-natural causes that are not necessarily supernatural. If one found a sea shell and a wristwatch on the beach, which would be considered to be designed intelligently? Other areas of study would include archeology, forensics and SETI. For me as a believer in a Creator God I understand and accept supernatural events and causes. If one denies this then one is faced with believing only in evolution as the explanation of origins.

Someone else said it so well: “In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids that later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later, Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.” I'm afraid this is the view held by Darwinists who claim to be scientists - but it certainly doesn't mean their view is scientific!

9 July 2006
at 7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

bondmen:

One day in 1977, I was thrown into “the hole” in Lansing. I don't remember exactly what for, but, as it was only for thirty days or so, it couldn't have been much.

I was put in a cell, with an empty cell next to me, and then one occupied by Butch Jones, a fat old Texan who had been a convict in the prison for more than 20 years.
Butch and I worked in the kitchen a few years prior, as clerks in the Food Manager's office, drinking hooch out of soda pop cans.

Butch hated blacks like no white man I ever met, before or since. Someone asked him once what blacks had ever did to encourage such hatred. He replied: “They ain't done nothing. It's just how I was raised.” He also had no empathy for jailhouse homosexuals.

That evening, the cops brought in a young black from the inside dorm, ostensibly for a sexual pecadillo with a white inmate there. The black youth had a large, glossy Bible with him, an unusual circumstance in that convicts are rarely allowed to bring anything with them to segregation.

At that time we were experiencing some difficulties with the cops about toilet paper. As a result of personality differences, a few convicts had “dressed up” a few cops with a mixture of urine and feces, a development that led the cops to slow down their release of toilet paper, books, food, mail, recreation, etc. to us.

Some hours later, I heard Butch call the young black to the bars and say: “Man, I noticed you got a Bible. I sure would like to read a few chapters, if you don't mind.”
The young black murmured something enthusiastic about finding another Christian in such an ungodly place, and handed Butch the Bible. “I'll get it back to you in the morning, for sure,” Butch said.

9 July 2006
at 8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Butch Jones (continued)

I suspected something amiss, for Butch - although he had distinguised himself a few years earlier in a war with the Muslims - had no use for religion, and less for Christians and Christianity.

That next morning, as we assembled on the tiny concrete yard for some desultory exercise, I sidled up to Butch and asked him what he thought of the Bible.

“Why, it did a fine job!” he exclaimed, eyeing the young black. “I wiped my ass with it, all the way from Genesis to Deuteronomy! It was better than any two-ply paper you can buy in a grocery store!”

Until I die, I'll remember the shocked horror on the young black's face.

(Note: Some years later, Butch was released and went to Dallas to assume control of a bar his mother left him when she died. Butch did well until one day a black man had the temerity, or bad judgement, to walk into his bar accompanied by a white woman. Butch shot the man dead; the woman ran off; Butch put a gun and a pile of money on the man's body, and told the police he had thwarted a robbery. The woman eventually went to the police, and Butch was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He died of a heart attack on Texas' death row in 1996.

Just thought to share that with you.

9 July 2006
at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

xenophonschild - real interesting story you got there - did you ever think maybe that's why the guy was in jail in the first place?

A couple of questions though: 1) what on earth does this jail house story have to do with anything I've posted and 2) what were you in for and how did you get out?

9 July 2006
at 8:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“holygrailale (anonymous) on July 8, 2006 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was on a thread once where a conservative christian (blogname=75X55) intimated that he had knowledge “beyond the box” of the universe.”

STILL trying to pimp that lie? You made that up from a couple of different comments that you did not understand, and (apparently due to medication lapse) could not understand the simplest explanation thereafter. Not that it will stop you from continuing to do so in order to feel better about the spanking you got then.

Jonas - ever do a little money changing? Seems to address your meek comment.

9 July 2006
at 8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

I don't know why Butch was in the joint; he never mentioned it, and convicts seldom ask.

What it means to your posts is that Christianity is a supernaturally-based religion, pretty much like scores of other supernaturally-based religions that came before, and after it. Jesus is dead. He was never god when he was alive, not ever. He does not love anybody … because he is dead. Has been for two thousand years.
The bible is a semi-entertaining mess of Jewish drivel, cultural tales, and egregrious nonsense.

You need to let go the chains of credulity that bind you and come into the light of truth and reason that can be found in secular humanism.

I was convicted of 1st degree murder in 1974 and sentenced to natural life in prison … with a 15-year parole eligibility. Some years later I escaped from Lansing, took six other convicts with me, and picked up several more felonies. I wound up doing 31 years in the joint, and was paroled in July 2004.

9 July 2006
at 8:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen:

“As to Adam and Eve and their DNA - yes we are all products of this combination, now degraded by the fall of man into sin because God gave man free will.”

That would mean that we are all products of holy incest?????

9 July 2006
at 8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

bondmen: What an moron!

“For me as a believer in a Creator God I understand and accept supernatural events and causes”

Ok but how does it work? ie what is the Process, a wave of a magic wand, guiy in a beard, what???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

“If one denies this then one is faced with believing only in evolution as the explanation of origins.”

how many times??? evolution––––—is–––––not––––––about–––––—origins––––-of––––—life!!!!

That shows that YOU and the ID crowd are arguing over intentional misrepresentations of evolution. That is why you believe there is problems with evolution, because what you label as this ToE is not what it is!!! DA

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Later, Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.”

That is not what is occurring or what has ocurred or will ocurr. Is your belief in GOd so weak that a mere concept insignigficant as it is will cause great harm to that belief? If so , it is your faith that is weak…not your God. Darwin was in divinity school and did the HMS Beagle cruise as a favor to get into divinity school.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What kind of stupid question is this? and what scientific idea is being examined here?

“If one found a sea shell and a wristwatch on the beach, which would be considered to be designed intelligently? ”

That is a Philosophical question.

9 July 2006
at 9:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

75x55: Umm… what? Money changing? Are you trying to throw me out of a temple?

Bondman: Let me check my sources (I.E. Das Ubermime) and I'll get back to you. Unfortunately, I'm almost positive that my source will end up being from a scientist, so I imagine there's a “bias” going to be involved. Just fair warning. In the meantime, you were very poetic, but did not provide anything of observable value. The wristwatch, seashell analogy doesn't really do anything. First, a wristwatch is not organic, and not life, has no capacity to change, and can not reproduce. Second, it all assumes that we have the proper context with which to judge, and so far that context appears to be “things that I do vs. do not understand.” Gomen nasai (sorry), but that doesn't do enough for me.

Assuming the scientific community ever actually embraces ID, I'm curious as to your opinion on where we should go with it. Can you, or anyone, denote a theory on how organic life is intelligently designed, or how the creation of life is possible? Would it use existing blueprints and structure, like cloning does, or is it a more from scratch thing? Also, shouldn't we be trying to locate the designer so we can further our understanding of how our world came to be, and learn from that designer's knowledge? What is the end result or goal of intelligent design, and how will it improve our understanding and application of science in daily lives? That, to me, is the point of science. How does the new theory fit into that?

9 July 2006
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

The abstraction which is “god” - and it is an “It,” not a he or she - cares no more about the human race than It does the bacteria in a stray dog's stomach.

An asteroid - a “planet-killer” - could hit Earth tomorrow and kill us all … and god would not care, may not even be able to care. God is an abstraction, like Love, or Beauty … or Morality.

It is impossible to have a “personal relationship” with god. You might as well try and have a personal relationship with gravity, or electromagnetism.

God did not “create man in his own image.” What a sordid piece of Jewish drivel. God is an abstraction, which is also why god is probably eternal.

Oh, I almost forgot. While god is an abstraction, It is an abstraction that makes It's will known through the operation of natural physical laws, which are inviolate throughout the universe. Human beings cannot abrogate natural physical laws, which pretty much invalidates all supernaturally-based religions, including Christianity.

10 July 2006
at 12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

It's really not a surprise not one of you true believers in evolution - showing such great faith in random mutation, natural selection, time and chance as the originator - not one of you has proffered a list of evolution truths or evidences.

Why?

Let me see if I can guess: 1) Haven't thought about it before? 2) nobody's bothered to tell you or 3) because there aren't any?

3 is the answer!

10 July 2006
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

D-U;

I've casually skimmed this thread, so if I've missed something, forgive me.

You state; “The original theory also posited that species are related to each other. If one looks at the highly conserved regions of DNA (portions which are not selected for/against), we can see that the degree difference in the code is proportional to the organisms' appearance in the geologic record.”

I'm curious - how are these 'degree differences' determined? Are there exceptions?

Is there any particular reason that differences in DNA structures must necessarily be the result of evolutionary causes?

10 July 2006
at 4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

Darwin, Das_Ubermime, knew nothing of genetics. He did think for example a giraffe's neck would get longer if the environment demanded it - in other words the environment would create the necessary changes in DNA (which we know about but which he knew nothing about) to make it so. This is false. Darwin was wrong here too.

Now please list the random mutations which are beneficial toward a population's perpetuation which were passed on to its progeny via sexual transmission to an opposite sex mate. Mutations either result in a loss of genetic information or are neutral. Do enlighten us as to any adequately documented positive mutations and their benefits to an organism. Want to try the fruit fly for starters, an organism with millions of generations in the laboratory?

A child knows species are related to each other just by physical observation and behavior. Of course kinds are only able to productively conceive - between male and female - because of the limits DNA enforces. Surely this is not a big idea Darwin imagined, is it? This is not evolution friend, its called reproduction.

Since there is no documented evidence of transitional life forms in the geologic record - just what appearances are you referring to? Aren't Darwinist imaginings getting the best of you here also Das_Ubermime?

10 July 2006
at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

“Since there is no documented evidence of transitional life forms in the geologic record - just what appearances are you referring to?”

Archeopterix
Tiktallik
Basilosaurus http://www.talkorigins.org/features/w…

need more?

10 July 2006
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

I just need one fossilhunter.

The examples you give are extinct species (guess evolution did not work out too well for them) and if they were transitional as you believe, where is the proof they mated with the opposite sex and passed on these new genes they miraculously came to possess?

I mean what good is a transitional form (they are truly imaginary) if it can't find a similarly suited mate to accept the good new genes and thus produce offspring which come to fruition in another viable organism?

10 July 2006
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Look Micro Brain (Bondmen):

“Now please list the random mutations which are beneficial toward a population's perpetuation which were passed on to its progeny via sexual transmission to an opposite sex mate. Mutations either result in a loss of genetic information or are neutral. Do enlighten us as to any adequately documented positive mutations and their benefits to an organism.”

It doesn't have to be “sexual” reproduction or passing on of traits. How bout the bacterium and virus's that mutate to stay resident and drug resistant?? Aids, is noe well known one, and TB that is a MDRS that is hapening because of illegal immigration, both are recent and are happening, exactly like predictions in the ToE. You know nothing of biology1

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“… in other words the environment would create the necessary changes in DNA (which we know about but which he knew nothing about) to make it so. This is false. Darwin was wrong here too.”

Um, well HE was right on that and yes it was proven after he postulate the ToE. Yes, the environment induce changes to occur in the DNA and passed down to the progeny. IE Polar Bears./ They are white, because the white ones were successful in hidding on ice from food they wer hunting, there fore evnetually, only white ones occurred. There probably was onec a brown one, and randomly a brown one, that my friend is random change, that could or may not be passed along the chain of life.

BOndmen instead of telling the whole world “what about this, and this other unrelated thing”, and “show me your data” responses. Here is a challange TO YOU>

The library is FULL of peer reviewed books on Evolution that are correct. NOw you go and do the experiments with ID/Creo to the same level of repitition, then come back with your results, OK. Til then…SHUT UP!

You are just arguing without saying anything. Good lord you sound like an AL baby lover defending his crappy and incoherent movie! You are the Righty version of some of the lefties here! Will NOT listen to fact…period.

Many of the folks who post here are NOT intelligent and are NOT reasoned and do not pay attention to fact. This Blog has turned int an uninformative BSing festival of Right V. Left, and NOBODY wants a solution to the actual problem. all they wanna do is bitch and poke fun at the other guy.

I have simply had it…from both the RIghties and lefties and your rabid adherance to political dogma.

10 July 2006
at 5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

fossilhunter, you keep promoting falsehoods. I had looked up some of your whale of a tale claims in the past and found it to be overcreative artists “reconstructing” a whole animal, including it's fleshy parts, from just a few bone fragments.

And now, your bird tale. If such abundant transitional fossils exist, why do you have to present the hoaxes, or the questionable at the best?

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.as…

asbestos, evolution has been defined as:

“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

Name some peer reviewed books which establish that as a fact. Not as a speculation nor extrapolation.

10 July 2006
at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

asbestos - take two aspirin with a glass of water, walk around the block and you'll feel a bit better in 20 minutes!

Science is not done by committee or via opinion polls. The hard work of science is not voted on as a popularity contest. Science is a search for truth, not a dogmatic viewpoint mandated by certain persons in positions of power - whether they be in academia or on the bench.

I understand your presuppositions and misheld beliefs are being systematically undermined here with reason and logic. It hurts a bit now but after it's all over you'll be thinking more clearly and writing more coherently than ever! Eventually you may say something meaningful and important to advance the evolution, creation, ID debate.

In the meantime, I'll be patient.

10 July 2006
at 5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

GR you are Wrong Wrong Wrong

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite… :

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Darwin's own definition:

1. Darwin's definition: evolution is descent with modification.

Charles Darwin is the man most often associated with the concept of evolution — “descent” refers to the inheritance of biological traits, while “modification” means “change” — thus, according to this definition, biological evolution is change in the biological characteristics between generations.

10 July 2006
at 5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

From WIKI:

Darwin opened his argument by pointing to the results of domestication, mostly through artificial selection (though environmental changes, such as more food and protection from predators, were also factors). Comparing domesticated and wild varieties, Darwin showed that the nineteenth-century definition of species was chiefly a matter of opinion, since the discovery of new linking forms often degraded species to varieties.

[edit]
The basic theory
Darwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them, as summarized by the biologist Ernst Mayr:

Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
Much of this variation is heritable.
From this Darwin infers: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the “best” characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring; and that these advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection.

Darwin did not suggest that every variation and every character must have a selection value. However, he pointed out that, because of our ignorance of animal physiology and its relationship with the environment, it was extremely rash to set down any characters as valueless to their owners. It is even more important to notice that he did not suggest that every individual with a favorable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favored animals were better or higher, but merely that they were more adapted to their surroundings.

Darwin further infers that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. He puts forward myriad observations as demonstrations of this, and also claims that the fossil record can be interpreted as supporting these observations. Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. Modern DNA evidence is consistent with this idea.

10 July 2006
at 5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

NONE of that is what you guys are bitching about. You wanted it, well here it is.

10 July 2006
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf…

There you go all you need to know about the theory if you can understand it. This is a searchable “On the ORigin of Species” by Charles Darwin.

Enjoy and become enlightened. Check out the “recapitulations of the theory” section. Facinating, if you have one ounce of scientific understanting!!!

Enjoy all.

10 July 2006
at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos, that was a summary an evolutionist made from that definition. How does it not agree with it?

“(the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)”

10 July 2006
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Actually Asbestos, that quote came right below your link. What gives with your wrong, wrong, wrong?

10 July 2006
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Ahhh, enlightened.

“Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification”
“Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered;”

And, we should ask, do these difficulties still exist which he thinks is not fatal to his theory?

10 July 2006
at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Just like the lying manipulative ID/CREO guy you took it entirely out of contest to twist it to what you want it to mean. It was Page 87 I think in Chapter VI Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification

GR wrote:

“Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered;”

What it left out:

“but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are
real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.”

That's right NOT fatal to my theory! What part of that you lying SOB did you not get.? Did you think that I did not know the booK????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“And, we should ask, do these difficulties still exist which he thinks is not fatal to his theory?”

Well If you read on a little bit more it would be those that: “those that are
real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.”“

10 July 2006
at 7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

You are using “common ancestry” as “direct lineage” in your posts. That is what is “Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your take is that we desended from apes. Wrong. THe apes are not in our DIRECT lineage, but we SHARE common ancestry.

Big difference and no not a play on words.

10 July 2006
at 10:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thusspokezarathustra (Anonymous) says…

Bondman-
“Science is not done by committee or via opinion polls. The hard work of science is not voted on as a popularity contest. Science is a search for truth, not a dogmatic viewpoint mandated by certain persons in positions of power - whether they be in academia or on the bench.”

You should keep this quote in mind every time you read the Bible. It is basically a book that kept the most popular teachings (the canonical books) & had it's dogmatic viewpoint mandated by people in power (i.e. Paul, Constantine, the Pope)

Why is it you're so fond of asking for facts when it comes to creation/evolution but are inclined to ignore the paucity of “facts” that exist in the bible?

It's too bad your scientific rigor extends only to those things you disagree with but not the things you believe.

If I were to grant you that Evolution is wrong can you prove an alternative theory? Disproving Evolution does not prove any other theory, they must stand on their own merits. So please no more discovery links just give me the theory & demonstrate the scientific aspects of it please. Can you do what Behe & the others have been unable to do? Our intelligently designed minds want to know.
The problem isn't with Evolution it's in the lack of a viable alternative theory.

11 July 2006
at 12:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, Bondman, but I was getting to it. I have other things to do with my time occasionally, than post here. Fortunately, my primary source was here before me. Now, since several folk have answered several of your questions, I was hoping you would answer one or two of mine. I'll repost them for your convenience.

Assuming the scientific community ever actually embraces ID, I'm curious as to your opinion on where we should go with it. Can you, or anyone, denote a theory on how organic life is intelligently designed, or how the creation of life is possible? Would it use existing blueprints and structure, like cloning does, or is it a more from scratch thing? Also, shouldn't we be trying to locate the designer so we can further our understanding of how our world came to be, and learn from that designer's knowledge? What is the end result or goal of intelligent design, and how will it improve our understanding and application of science in daily lives? That, to me, is the point of science. How does the new theory fit into that?

11 July 2006
at 12:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

zarathustra: Last paragraph, well spoken.

11 July 2006
at 12:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Oh yes, to provide a possibility for evolution taking place: don't flu strains and other forms of bacterial or viral life readily change and shift to combat our auto-immune system?

11 July 2006
at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

From the Intelligent Design Weblog of Bill Dembski & Friends:

Detecting Design - that's not science;
Detecting Intent - that's science: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index….

How is it that when cognitive psychologists and computational intelligence engineers detect user intent, they are doing science, but when ID theorists detect design in biological systems, they aren't? There's a double standard here. ID might fail as a science - methods of design detection might be defective or fail to yield a positive result, but to say that their application does not even constitute science, as Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, is on its face ludicrous. Consider the following letter from a colleague:

Bill,

I wondered if science did any studies on “intent detection” so I searched Google. The focus has always been on the phrase “design detection” so it never occured to me that science might be doing research under an alias like this. Here's one article I came across.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…

Sandia Team Develops Cognitive Machines - Machines Accurately Infer User Intent, Remember Experiences And Allow Users To Call Upon Simulated Experts

“Over the past five years a team led by Sandia cognitive psychologist Chris Forsythe has been developing cognitive machines that accurately infer user intent, remember experiences with users and allow users to call upon simulated experts to help them analyze situations and make decisions.”

Question 1: Does the computer really infer intent or is the program written in such a way as to cause the computer to infer intent where there is none?

Question 2: If code can be written to infer intent then why can't code be written to infer design since design and intent are inseperably linked?

Question 3: How is this science different than the “non-science” of design detection? I don't see any difference.

Regards,
[snip]

Filed under: Intelligent Design - William Dembski @ 7:45 am
Comments (10): http://www.uncommondescent.com/index….

11 July 2006
at 6:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

David Berlinski is one whose writings I thoroughly enjoy reading. Here's a piece:

On the Origins of Life
By: David Berlinski
Commentary
February 14, 2006

For those who are studying aspects of the origin of life, the question no longer seems to be whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving non-biological components but, rather, what pathway might have been followed.

-National Academy of Sciences (1996)

It is 1828, a year that encompassed the death of Shaka, the Zulu king, the passage in the United States of the Tariff of Abominations, and the battle of Las Piedras in South America. It is, as well, the year in which the German chemist Friedrich Whler announced the synthesis of urea from cyanic acid and ammonia.

Discovered by H.M. Roulle in 1773, urea is the chief constituent of urine. Until 1828, chemists had assumed that urea could be produced only by a living organism. Whler provided the most convincing refutation imaginable of this thesis. His synthesis of urea was noteworthy, he observed with some understatement, because “it furnishes an example of the artificial production of an organic, indeed a so-called animal substance, from inorganic materials.”

Whler's work initiated a revolution in chemistry; but it also initiated a revolution in thought. To the extent that living systems are chemical in their nature, it became possible to imagine that they might be chemical in their origin; and if chemical in their origin, then plainly physical in their nature, and hence a part of the universe that can be explained in terms of “the model for what science should be.”*

Because of its length, David's article is continued here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/view…

11 July 2006
at 6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Bondmen your last 2 post are blithering crapola. all we needed to know and then ignore the rest of the post was this and it was the irst thing stated:

“From the Intelligent Design Weblog of Bill Dembski & Friends:”

That is all we gotta know. These guys blew the case in Dover because they don't understand what they are talking about.

They are particularrly intellectually inhibited, but you are doubley so, to swallow this bag of be.

11 July 2006
at 7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

That's interesting, but “intent” vs. “design” is a rather precaious position, because it again assumes that we have the context to notice, label and discern the difference between the two. Listing things that we KNOW that we've created is adding a long list of assumptions to that idea. I found it interesting that Wohler's and the following experiments are listed by you and their source as, I assume, for proof or evidence of intelligent design, when they stress how little human presence was involved in the process. It seems even from reading the article that they could just as easily have accidently happened as been the product of an experiment or intelligent intervention. Nor does the article in question answer any related questions to the crux of the debate ie. how complex organisms are created intellegently. Reading way farther down it does certainly provide doubts to current theories of evolutionary biology, but few people who know what they are talking about think that it's a perfect theory anyway. Still, the crux of the argument seems that the possible way such things might have happened is very unlikely (intentional understatement), which does really have a very simple answer: if they hadn't, then we wouldn't be talking about it. So the article does leave the door open, in terms of origins of life, for either a designer or happenstance, with no prime evidence for either, but then, as I posited before, the interest in absolute origin of life is, to most, less important and much more difficult to theorize or study than the mechanisms of current life. At any rate, there's certainly a difference between the origin of life and the origin of species.

I must admit that my personal answer to this question: “How is it that when cognitive psychologists and computational intelligence engineers detect user intent, they are doing science, but when ID theorists detect design in biological systems, they aren't?” would be because they aren't the same thing at all.

12 July 2006
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Hmmmm… . guess this one is dead.

Too bad.

17 July 2006
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

As a Christian, an HONEST search for knowledge is important to me, as is freedom of religion (and separation of church and state, which freedom of religion relies on). Creationism is not honest, nor science, and neither is its latest incarnation, 'Intelligent Design Theory' (which is actually devoid of any actual theory). Science class is not the place for it. It's not science, and it goes against the constitution (1st amendment, Establishment clause, separation of church and state) to teach it as such in the public schools. This also goes for whatever ID creationism will now evolve into, as it did with ID's ancestor, 'Creation Science'.

Most educated Christians (and most Christian denominations) accept evolution (and science in general) fine. Creationists are a dangerous embarassment to Christianity. Dangerous because attacking science and education is just part of their strategy for US and eventually world theocracy (with them in charge). “True” Christians should fight this.

17 July 2006
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

opinion (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane

Are you really a follower of Christ? He spoke of Adam and Eve, not of evolution. I am not ashamed of the Gospel are you?

Before you get to excited, I once ridiculed anyone who did not believe in evolution. Then I looked in to it. More people should.

17 July 2006
at 7:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane: “Most educated Christians (and most Christian denominations) accept evolution (and science in general) fine. ”

Well, I have a question for those who believe that way.

Why was there death before sin?

17 July 2006
at 8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane:

Good post. You noted why I have such little empathy for Christians.

Please don't give too much credence to the hot air bloviated by the troglodytes on this site inre Christianity. “Why was there death before sin?” and assorted tripe.

If Christianity would seek to work within the confines of science and evolution, it would be a lot more acceptable to a lot more people who recognize that Christian ethics are one of the jewels of Western civilization.

18 July 2006
at 6 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

xenophonschild, yes, tripe like “Why was there death before sin?” Questions where the answer is obvious if you are at all scientifically literate… but the creationists ask anyway, because they have to. It's a question based on their dogma of the bible (including the Genesis creation myth) being 100% literal (to some degree of 100% literalness or other *grin*), and believing the doctrine that nothing died until Adam and Eve sinned. Which of course is only a valid question to the minority of Christians who actually interpret the creation myth as literal. They think since this makes evolution a problem to them, it's a problem for Christianity itself, when it's not. Most of us see Genesis as a spiritual allegory, instead of using it as a literal history or a science textbook, as the creationists do.

And the post above that, from “opinion”, was little better. Implying, because I don't interpret Genesis as he does, that I'm not a TRUE Christian (a common way fundies dismiss anyone who doesn't share their interpretations and doctrines) and am “ashamed of the Gospel” (which itself is ignorant, as Genesis is not a Gospel… maybe he confused Gospel for the word Bible?).

GOD never spoke about evolution. But then GOD never spoke about Adam and Eve, either. Humans did. Maybe they were inspired by God. That's a point of faith. But that doesn't mean the creation story is literally true, even if inspired by God, just as Jesus' parables weren't literal. The ancient hebrews used many story telling devices to make points and teach lessons. They knew not everything in scripture was literal, or should be taken that way. And many Christians today know this, also. Which makes the literalist extremists attack us for it, of course, and imply we're not TRUE Christians. *grin*

Despite that the majority of denominations (including all the largest) have official statements accepting evolution as factual, the theory as good science that isn't in conflict with Church teachings… Which of course feeds into their “they're not TRUE Christians!” copout. The literalists teach they are the only ones who held to the bible, even though they are just as selective as anyone else, about what they take as literal, and about what they ignore entirely. The rest of us admit we “pick and choose” (it's impossible NOT to when reading something like the Bible), and try to do it intelligently and understanding context, etc.

18 July 2006
at 6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Christians do not believe God wrote the bible, or that it's 100% literally true and inerrant. Fundamentalists believe that, not Christians. Christians believe people wrote the bible, but people who were (to one degree or another) inspired by God.

The bible authors may have been inspired by God, but what they wrote was also coloured by their own cultural taboos and traditions, outdated laws (secular and religious), personal biases and prejudices, sexual/gender stereotypes, limited scientific knowledge, view of history, etc…

And we Christians can admit that, and try to interpret it intelligently and in context. Fundies typically can't (or it's like pulling teeth to get them to, or they use copouts like “that's poetic, or symbolic, or a parable”).

I never even met a creationist until I came on the Internet. I live in Canada, and while we have creationists/fundamentalists here, they are a much smaller minority, with less wealth and political power. I went to a Catholic separate school, and learned evolution in Biology class in a matter of fact way, with no fuss made about it conflicting with Church teachings. Most Christians I knew (including my now elderly parents, still devout Catholics) accepted evolution fine.

Every once in a while, we get a letter to the editor of our local paper from a fundamentalist blaming all the ills of society (teen sex, violence, abortion, murder, rape, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, racism, etc etc ad nauseam) on the teaching of evolution. Even though most of these things were around in biblical times, too. Gee whiz. Most people here just treat them as the nutty fringe element, which is a good description of them. I'm sorry they built up so much power in the USA. Christians elsewhere in the world just shake our heads in sad contempt at the image American fundamentalists make of themselves.

I had an Aussie friend tell me: “Here in Australia only 20% of church going Christians (not just Christians, but only those that attend church) accept a literal Genesis.” And I've had Europeans tell me something similar.

18 July 2006
at 6:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

My faith is very important to me. I love and trust God completely. And I don't believe God wants me to lie and reject evidence and deny reality and believe God is a deceitful, evil deity, as would be required for me to be a creationist, because you have to believe God created the world and all life in it as it is today, probably under 10,000 years ago, then ERASED all evidence of it, and replaced it with evidence the earth is very much older, and evidence life evolved from earlier common ancestors, not to mention letting us SEE evolution happening today as the evidence all says happened in the past.

I also love science, and have always loved learning more about how the world around us works. Nothing I've learned (including evolution) conflicts with my faith in God. Indeed, it all makes God more real, and amazingly grand (compared to the ancient hebrews who believed in a flat earth, on pillars, with a hard dome sky with gates to let rain waters through, and the stars and planets and sun and moon were inside this dome).

Some of the outdated, simplistic, dogmatic, and anti-science things the creationists say almost make me embarassed to admit I'm a Christian. Almost. And in the USA, they have greater numbers and wealth, and have had effective propaganda campaigns for decades, spinning out dishonest claims that SOUND reasonable, to people without much science education. So you can meet non-fundamentalist Christians, and even non-Christians, who will spout creationist misconceptions of evolution too.

And unfortunately, most scientists ignored it (that trend seems to be slowly changing), hoping it would blow over and people would come to their senses, so they kept on doing good science, ignoring the war of propaganda going on.

The way I see it: There is not inherently a conflict between science and faith. Unless you try to make one do the job of the other. But science itself must remain methodologically naturalistic (or materialistic). As opposed to being philosophically naturalistic, as the creationists claim.

As I understand it, it was the earlier scientists themselves, most of whom were Christian, who instituted the naturalistic policy creationists/IDers are trying to change, making science neutral about untestable supernatural claims like whether God exists or not. Although it CAN deal with supernatural claims about the natural world, like if the earth is flat, as the bible says, or if it's young, or if species were created as they are today or evolved from earlier extinct species, or if there was a global flood (science concludes no, based on many avenues of evidence, including geological, genetic, etc)…

18 July 2006
at 6:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, my posts are getting longer and longer. I'm very long-winded once I start, and I've learned a lot about this topic and thought a lot about it, and it's good to get these thoughts off my chest and down as photons… :)

And there's so much more I could say. It's a huge topic. And I didn't even get into refuting specific creationist claims and misconceptions, which is another HUGE topic.

I'll end (for now) with this:

Two good books to recommend about evolution: “Finding Darwin's God” by Kenneth R. Miller (a devout Christian as well as a professor of Biology at Brown University, who explains why evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity, as well as what it is) and “Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species Updated” by Steve Jones (called “Almost Like a Whale” in the UK).

There are plenty of other excellent books that explain evolution, and the evidence for it, but I happen to own these two, and they're excellent. Carl Zimmer's “Evolution: the Truimph of an Idea” is also very good. It's the companion book to the excellent PBS series on Evolution in 2001.

18 July 2006
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Well said Gr8dane!!

19 July 2006
at 7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah gr8dane,

Good form, good form. Very well said indeed. Wish I could express myself as well as you.

20 July 2006
at 8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane: “Questions where the answer is obvious if you are at all scientifically literate…”

Oh? So obvious it's not worth saying? And what does being scientifically literate have to do with death before sin?

What you say is true. There are parables and stories which aren't to be taken literal. Though, some have said many of Jesus' parables were based on true happenings of the time which everyone was familiar with. But, what do you make of Jesus quoting Genesis in Mark 10:5-9? And other texts such as Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3:4.

You say your Biology class taught evolution in a matter of fact way. How can the statement, “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” ever be proved a fact?

“There is not inherently a conflict between science and faith.”

If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. There's not a problem with science and faith, but evolution faith with creation faith. And, before you attempt to promote evolution as science, consider how you would prove or disprove the philosophy:
“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

You make a great deal about a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, I may not have made a main point clear. If death was not the result of sin, then indeed, you need to answer the question, “why did God create (permit / allow / result in) death” and the classic, “why do bad things happen to good people”?

20 July 2006
at 4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr asked:
> Oh? So obvious it's not worth saying? And what does being scientifically literate have to do with death before sin?

Okay, you pushed it, so let me spell it out for you. I hope you can keep up. This'll take a few posts.

Sin does not exist in physical reality. Sin cannot be dealt with by science. It's a philosophical, religious concept. Death, on the other hand, IS a physical reality, the failure of the processes of life. Death happens when life processes cannot continue for some reason. Sin is irrelevant to it, except that some sinful behaviors are also risky, harmful behaviors and can lead to death (yours and/or someone else's). But sin is, by most definitions, an action that is harmful, selfish, and required to be a conscious CHOICE, by an intelligent organism that knows or believes the action is “wrong”.

Since we are the first such intelligent organisms (that we know of) to evolve to this level of self-awareness and able to make “moral codes”, including some pretty abstract concepts, obviously there had to be a lot of death going on before we could evolve to this stage. This is common sense.

You reject it for one reason, apparently because you believe an outdated religious origin myth instead, which says we didn't evolve from earlier, simplier species who didn't understand sin (unless you really stretch things and interpret Adam and Eve that way before eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), and thus reject the obvious fact that death happens, not just to us intelligent beings who “sin”, but to all life on earth, and always did, and that this is a central factor to how the process of evolution works, the same process that let us become what we are.

That seems to be your only reason for begging the question on how I can accept “death before sin”. Scientifically literate people know about basic biology, and the importance of death in biology, including to the evolution of us as an intelligent species. And thus not only does it answer your question, but makes it invalid.

But that's why I never bothered responding to your question, and commented to xenophonschild that the answer is obvious if you are at all scientifically literate. The question is only valid to Christian fundamentalists who believe the dogma that death REALLY didn't happen until Adam and Eve (who they believe are literal) sinned. All animals in the mythical (literal to them) Garden of Eden lived in perfect harmony. Lions laid with lambs, T-Rex (which they didn't know about in biblical times as they had been extinct for over 65 million years) used those huge jaws to eat apples, and other absurdities.

20 July 2006
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> What you say is true. There are parables and stories which aren't to be taken literal. Though, some have said many of Jesus' parables were based on true happenings of the time which everyone was familiar with. But, what do you make of Jesus quoting Genesis in Mark 10:5-9? And other texts such as Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3:4.

Jesus is also irrelevant to evolution. If he was just a wise man for his time, he was a product of evolution, as are we, and indeed, his being wiser may have been from a random genetic variation, possible because of how evolution works.

If he was a prophet, with inspired words and ideas from God, apparently modern sciences (including biology) were not on God's list of things to inform Jesus about, so he spoke about the cosmology his culture believed in. Flat young earth, everything (lifeforms included) divinely created much as they exist today.

If He was and is the Son of God and/or God Herself in human form (different Christian sects see it different ways… some accept the trinity, some don't, etc), then God would know evolution is a fact, and thus Jesus probably did too. Why would He echo the creation from Genesis? We don't know that He did. We don't have any of Jesus' actual writings. We have third party gospels from decades later. We don't exactly know which are accurate, and HOW accurate they are. He might have said something similar, that was written down or translated into more Genesis-friendly form.

But… even if Jesus DID say that, that doesn't mean he literally believed Genesis. He could have just been going along with the cosmology of the culture he lived in. He wasn't there to explain advanced scientific knowledge beyond the people of that time. Who knows. Short of asking Jesus Himself, we will probably never know.

But it's still you literalists who insist that because Jesus said it in the bible, therefore it's literal. The rest of us Christians don't feel any such limitation, any such requirement to reject modern scientific facts just because they were unknown in biblical times, and Jesus didn't speak about them either (that we know of).

20 July 2006
at 4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> You say your Biology class taught evolution in a matter of fact way. How can the statement, “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” ever be proved a fact?

It IS “proved” a fact. I put that in quotes, because science doesn't like to use the term “prove”, because the scientific method doesn't accept anything as absolutely proven. That's part of the honesty of it, and why it's self-correcting. No matter how strongly we may think something is true, science is open to future evidence and discoveries overturning it, or changing our view of how it works. And this is not a threat to science. Science advances, even when we learn something is WRONG. Especially when it leads to more correct explanations.

I could keep going on that, if you'd like. You probably don't understand basic scientific terms. Most creationists don't. But I'll get back to the main point.

It's a universally accepted fact in science that evolution happens. It's a factual process. All the evidence says it happened in the past, and observation and testing and practical uses of it show us it still happens today. All the credentialed and degreed scientists who reject it do so for religious reasons, not scientific, even when they couch it in pseudo-scientific terms, like “irreducible complexity” and the like. (Behe's pet term, which science has rejected based on the evidence it's wrong.)

Another fact that spun off from the study of evolution is common ancestry. That's also an accepted fact in biology. I don't know if science clearly states that ALL life on earth came from common ancestors, or if we can ever have enough evidence to show that, but certainly, it's accepted as fact that most does. And it's supported by a vast amount of evidence. Anatomical studies, genetics studies, etc. Plus the fact that we can and have observed evolution happening, including to the point of speciation, new species evolved from known ones. Including multiple separate species from the SAME ancestor population. The biology journals are full of examples. I know of some. My biologist friends can tell me many more.

It's too bad that the creationists typically demand to see such evidence, then refuse to look at it, or deny it's evidence for evolution, and other things showing their rejection of evolution is based on their fanatical religious bias, not any valid scientific reason.

The genetics tests we do to determine human paternity are based on some of the same ones used to show common genetic ancestry of different species. Same basic tests. Same basic things we're looking for. Just more of them between species, because the populations have been separated from common ancestry for a MUCH longer time.

20 July 2006
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

The nested hierarchy of species, as revealed by the 300 year old science of taxonomy, is well explained by evolution and common ancestry. They follow the same pattern we'd expect to find if evolution were true. If evolution were false, they wouldn't.

Creationists use the copout “common creator/designer, not common ancestor!” It's a copout because “common designer” doesn't answer or explain anything, because a divine designer could create life on earth ANY way, including NOT having lifeforms in any sort of recognizable phylogeny of nested species sharing progressively more traits as they get closer to each other in the hierarchy. For example, God could have made whales with feathers. But they don't because they did not share a feathered common ancestor with other feathered creatures. They look just as we'd expect if they evolved from earlier whale like ancestors.

Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today. This is related to the taxonomy point above. We can say they were ancestral species by studying the way they show transitional change. Not as clearly as we'd like, but some fossil records are more complete than others and show transition quite well. Unless you instead like to see God as an incompetent tinkerer, creating the same species over and over, wiping them out and remaking them patiently each time from scratch, with slight changes. That's what creationism requires you to believe this evidence shows. There's no other way to interpret it, other than that it shows “descent with modification” (Darwin's own way of describing it).

The fact that we can and do observe evolution happening today makes that even more silly. Evolution is a fact… so IF there's a God, and IF God created, as I believe God does and did, evolution is part of that Creation, a natural process like any other. Including all the processes you creationists now accept (many of which our religious ancestors did not, often for “biblical” reasons).

I'm just part of the educated majority of Christianity who has moved on from one more outdated cosmological view held by the ancient hebrews and early Christians. I hope you guys catch up soon. Hopefully before you hurt the USA and public education more than you have already.

20 July 2006
at 4:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Finally, that is NOT the “central idea of evolution” (common ancestry, per your quote). Although it IS a clear prediction coming off of evolutionary theory, and supported by all the evidence. THAT was a “bait and switch” claim. Funny how you then went on to falsely accuse me of bait and switch in your next statement.

It could be considered ONE of the “central ideas of evolution”. Here's how I'd sum up the “central ideas” of what evolution is:

Evolution is: 1) Common ancestry of all life from one, or a few, ancestral populations. 2) Any change in allele frequencies of a population over time. 3) Descent with modification due to differential reproductive success acting on random genetic variability.

Number three is basically what the modern THEORY of evolution says, based on Darwin's original theory. “Random genetic variability” is biological mechanisms that create diversity in a population, including mutations. “Differential reproductive success” means things like natural selection, leading to adaptation.

Number two is basically what we observe day to day. The part of evolution even creationists accept. It's evolution too, but creationists play silly “that's MICRO not MACRO” semantics games, even though micro and macro are just different degrees of the same process, the same change over a longer period.

Number one is a conclusion predicted by evolutionary theory (number three), and since then supported by quite clear evidence and also accepted as fact.

20 July 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
Re: “There is not inherently a conflict between science and faith.” [I notice you left out: “Unless you try to make one do the job of the other.”]
> If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. There's not a problem with science and faith, but evolution faith with creation faith. And, before you attempt to promote evolution as science, consider how you would prove or disprove the philosophy:

It's not a “bait and switch” at all. My statement stands on its own merits. Just because you cannot accept evolution as the accepted natural process it is, and the explanation (theory) of it as good science doesn't make them any less true.
Evolution is a scientific fact, an observed natural process, supported by mountains of evidence that showed it happened throughout the history of life on earth as well as today. There is no faith required to accept it. Trying to LIE to us that there is some sort of controversy in science about whether it happens (there isn't) is not going to help your case. Some of us know enough to know that's bull. Promote evolution as science? I have no need to. The scientific community has overwhelmingly already done that. Something you guys can't undo, and can't duplicate with your creationism (even its scientific sounding stealth versions, like ID).
Creationists have two main tactics in trying to bring creationism into science classes… Try to make their BELIEF seem more like science, and try to make people think legitimate science is more of a “faith” or religious belief, like creationism is. So far, scientists aren't buying it (even the Christian ones), and neither are the judges. Nor should they. THAT'S the “bait and switch”. Not my statement.
Evolution and faith (in God) are not inherently in conflict. Evolution and Christianity are not in conflict. Evolution and Literalist Fundamentalism ARE in conflict.
When I said that to another Christian friend of mine, she even replied, “I would go so far as to say that christianity and Literalist Fundamentalism are in conflict.”
I tend to agree. That's why I'll remain an honest Christian, and reject creationist fundamentalism. It requires me to lie and sin too much, and believe God not only WANTS me to, but lies and sins Herself. No doubt why they believe their evil god is a role model for such behavior. *shrug* If that works for them/you, fine. But it's not Christianity to me. And it's certainly not science, nor should it be taught as such.

20 July 2006
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Oops, screwed up the editing of the last post. Forgot to slip in extra carriage returns between paragraphs. Oh well, bit harder to read. Still getting used to this message format.

Anyway, onward…

gr said:
> You make a great deal about a literal interpretation of Genesis. However, I may not have made a main point clear. If death was not the result of sin, then indeed, you need to answer the question, “why did God create (permit / allow / result in) death” and the classic, “why do bad things happen to good people”?

I need to answer your other attempts at question begging, like “why did God create (permit / allow / result in) death” and the classic, “why do bad things happen to good people”? No. I really don't. They are irrelevant to evolution, and red herrings. They only seem valid to you because they are part of your religious worldview, tied to questions of ultimate origins.

I'll answer them anyway. The answer is the same for both. My answer is “God, if She exists, apparently created a universe that works by natural processes. Death is based on these natural processes. Death is the result of life, not the result of sin. Bad things happen to good people (and vice versa) because these natural processes work for all of us, 'good' or 'bad' (and that's a subjective moral value, anyway, not a physical trait we can measure scientifically, same as I pointed out sin was in my first post today).”

But philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with the same questions for… well, since we evolved the capability to think of them. None of us knows “why God allows bad things and death”. We just try to figure it out in the way that makes most sense to us. Some use that as evidence God doesn't exist, or if God exists, it's evidence God is either not omnipotent or not all good. *shrug* I don't find those arguments any more convincing than I find yours.

I lean toward God “allowing” the universe to work by natural laws and processes so we can have faith in God or not, by free will. If God magically stopped all bad things from happening, in a way that makes it obvious God exists, or worse, only did so for those mortals who “worship” God like obedient automatons, punishing the rest, we'd believe for selfish reasons, because we don't want to be punished. I suspect our faith in God is worth more to God when it's not obvious God exists.

20 July 2006
at 5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

More musings based on last post:

That's also why I reject standard views of “hell”, which you're free to personally attack me on, again arguing I'm not a TRUE Christian because I don't share all your dogma and interpretations. I'm used to it from fundies. But the way I see it, if the main reason you are Christian is fear of hell, you probably missed the point. I don't believe in hell as a specific “place”. Although I could accept that the afterlife can be either heaven or hell to you, depending how you lived your life. Sorta like the concept shown in the Robin Williams movie, “What Dreams May Come”, although only as a general concept. The afterlife, for you, is what you make it.

And I don't believe such a “hell” is eternal. But only until you are forgiven. By God. By the people you harmed. And yes, by yourself. I believe going to heaven strips away our mortal biases, and we have access to all the wisdom and knowledge available to God, and that we can't help but be wise beings after that, knowing we harmed ourselves and others in life ('sinned'). All the justifications we use to defend these sins will be flimsy copouts in the afterlife, including (or especially) doing it “in God's name”.

But I'm going way off topic, with my religious and philosophical musings and faith beliefs. This also is irrelevant to the topic, evolution/science.

And of course, I'm giving you further ammunition to do your creationist trick of asserting I'm “not a TRUE Christian!”. Oh well. Like Darwin (who pointed out the flaws or weaknesses of his own theory in Origin of Species, as a good scientist is supposed to, even though most of them have since been shown not to be flaws), I gotta be honest. That seems to be what separates us from the fundamentalists. :)

There. Done. I promise. Sorry I was so verbose, everyone. But I try to give as complete of an answer as I can.

24 July 2006
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

My gr8dane, you shore are wordy.

But, after you explain all that, I guess I see why you say it's obvious. A lot was implied by your statement, though. However, you made some assumptions which I don't believe you can absolutely make. One is that death is an absolute. But, your statement, “Death happens when life processes cannot continue for some reason”, whether intentional or not, indicates you don't know why even though you call it “common sense”. Look at the various organisms. Some live a long time and others don't live so long. The “some reason” why organisms die is usually due to damage. For some reason, some can escape the damage longer than others. I think I've read scientists have thought life would go on for a long time if the cellular damage could be prevented. This indicates death is not absolute, but damage is - at least now.

Another assumption, based on false presumption, is that death is necessary for biology. You assume evolution, therefore death is necessary. But, assumptions do not make them fact. You need evidence. Likewise, assuming death didn't happen until sin does not make it a fact. Both are belief systems.

But, regardless of all that, you are missing the main question. Why did God allow death / damage to happen? And, if God didn't create life, why didn't He?

You speak of an “outdated religious origin myth”, but yet imply you are a “Christian”. Isn't a Christian one who believes in the Christ - the Messiah? Yet, you suggest He didn't exist and discredit the Bible. What exactly is a Christian to you? Sounds like the pagans to me - 'There is no God, there is no right nor wrong, what each believes is right in his own mind is right, if it feels good - do it.'

If evolution created ALL / most life from one organism, why do you even need God? Or, is that the point? So how can you pretend to call yourself a Christian? Some of your later statements indicate you are thinking on these things, and evolution is a prop you hide behind so you don't have to call God bad - that you resist the idea 'Love me or I'll torture you' type of God. Could it be these so called Christians who promote God as punishing people and the only reason to believe in Him is because of fear, have just as much a falsely assumed premise as the evolutionists do?

24 July 2006
at 10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Science advances, even when we learn something is WRONG.”

You attempt to sidetrack the issue by saying how wonderful science is self-correcting, but how could we ever learn that “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor [whether all or most], just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” is WRONG?

“or if we can ever have enough evidence to show that, but certainly, it's accepted as fact that most does.”

Yep, “accepted” without evidence. That's why evolutionism is a religion.

Yeah, you say “evidence”. Is that like the automobile descended from bicycles? They both have wheels. There's even transitions - tricycles. There's evidence the transformation is happening today. Look at some bicycles. There are iron-oxide deposits. Given billions of years, these deposits will grow and form new structures enabling more wheels. Basic analysis shows similarities between the two - axles, wheels, gears, their elemental makeup. They have common ancestry. It's “accepted as fact”!

“including NOT having lifeforms in any sort of recognizable phylogeny of nested species sharing progressively more traits as they get closer to each other in the hierarchy.”

So what if God made whales with feathers? Well the evolutionist would then question why He put them in a “recognizable phylogeny of nested….”. Don't you see that phylogeny is man's invention for classification? No matter how different or similar, there would always be some way of grouping and categorizing items. I believe in kindergarten class they have the students practice grouping the same set of items in various ways.

(You keep speaking of “flat earth”, but I'm not familiar where you find that in the Bible?)

24 July 2006
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

Why do you keep promoting statements which have proven to be false? Have you considered the Wollemi Pine among various other organisms? How do they fit with your statement? How many organisms of the past have to be found living before you stop saying they don't exist or claiming somehow they are conserved over time?

“Unless you instead like to see God as an incompetent tinkerer, creating the same species over and over, wiping them out and remaking them patiently each time from scratch, with slight changes.”

And that's your false presumption. You are assuming evolution and death.

“Finally, that is NOT the “central idea of evolution” (common ancestry, per your quote). Although it IS a clear prediction coming off of evolutionary theory, and supported by all the evidence. THAT was a “bait and switch” claim. Funny how you then went on to falsely accuse me of bait and switch in your next statement.”

Well YOU may sum up what YOU think evolution is, but asbestos provided the link to Berkeley, which I believe is considered a reputable university. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite…
It doesn't say “a central idea”, but “the central idea”. This fits their main definition and further explanations. If you don't like what they say, don't blame me.

But, either way, taking your “conclusion predicted by evolutionary theory”, is the objection I have. It's a conclusion, not a fact. It can never be proved. It can never be disproved. It was not observed. It is not observable. It is not science. It's a dogma of a religion and “accepted” as truth.

24 July 2006
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

opinion (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane

I am really trying to understand your feeling that you are a Christian. If I have understood your postings, you are not sure there is a God, you don't believe in the Bible and you say that Christ is just a part of evolution and is just a wise man. I guess I am not sure what your definition of a Christian is.

You have made some really bold statements about “true” Christians and some really misinformed claims about people that believe in the Bible. Most of which give me hope because it is obvious you have little concept of the Christian faith and therefore, if you are truly open minded, could find the Truth if you seek.

24 July 2006
at 11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

You know Gr,

I wish you would at least indicate where your definition of evolution came from. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. I am the one that copied that definition out of a highschool biology textbook because someone asked what is it do they actually teach in highschool biology. This definition (out of a highschool biology) textbook is a simplification of what evolution actually is. I think the definition itself is somewhat misleading since it implies that common ancestry is the same as direct lineage and that in of itself is wrong Gr. Common ancestry and direct lineage are not the same thing. Even though the definition doesn't actually say it, I think it could have been defined in a better way or not simplified in that manner. I am not sure who writes the highschool biology textbooks but I would imagine that most evolutionists or persons that are considered within the evolutionary field would not have agreed with this definition. So Gr I would appreciate it if you would actually indicate that this definition comes out of a highschool biology textbook.

Also the Wollemi Pine does not make the statement Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.” FALSE.

You got to be kidding me Gr. Are you trying to be disingenius here or what. It did not say every single species did it? It just says species in general meaning one or more species. You make statements like that Gr and you KNOW that they are millions of other species that existed in the past that do not exist today. Yet you point to how many species…one…. and say see it disproves it. I know you not that stupid Gr so it is you who are lying. It amazes me the capacity for fundamental christians to lie….

24 July 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

The evidence for the facts of evolution include the fossil record, biogeography, molecular biology, genetics, morphology, genetics, cell biology, and embrylogy. The fossil record provides concrete evidence for speciation, shows systemic changes with a definite time progression in almost all cases, and intermediate forms. Homologies-common features in the anatomy of different organisms also support descent from common ancestry which are consistent with the fossil record. Biogeography demonstrates the distribution of species that develop independently when for geological or other reasons species become isolated and more species develop whenever the environment is more isolated and offers less competition from existing life. How about the evidence of relatedness of very different-seeming animals both in form and in common genes given by embryology. Oh maybe the DNA and proteins that are similar but not exactly the same in many different organisms shown by molecular biology. Such results can be cross-checked with the other evidence of evolution and the progessions that are deduced coincide.

Evolutionary theory entails a definite physical framework embodied in a set of fundamental assumptions about the world - an economical framework that encompasses a wide variety of phenomena. This theory yields a specific set of equations and predictions - ones that are borne out by successful agreement with experiemental results.

gr8dane is right about how the creationist are trying to make science the equivalent of a belief system. The main difference between science and belief system is that when contradictions are found in science, or if precise measurements contradict any part of a scientific theory, they are modified or they are abandoned.

24 July 2006
at 12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Opinion,

When you said…. “am really trying to understand your feeling that you are a Christian. If I have understood your postings, you are not sure there is a God, you don't believe in the Bible and you say that Christ is just a part of evolution and is just a wise man. I guess I am not sure what your definition of a Christian is.”

You did not understand what gr8dane actually said. In most of the things you are referring to, gr8dane is talking hypothetically. Notice he never says how he views Jesus. Show me what gr8dane says that explicitly shows what his/her beliefs are regarding Jesus. He/she also does not say that he is not sure if there is a God. You need to reread his posts before passing your judgments on what he was trying to say.

24 July 2006
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“So Gr I would appreciate it if you would actually indicate that this definition comes out of a highschool biology textbook.”

Actually, Kodiac, if you look in previous posts, you'll noticed in my interaction with asbestos, i was trying to say that, but then I noticed his post listed the same thing. So, did it come out of a highschool biology textbook or did it come from Berkeley? Did Berkeley copy “the central idea of biological evolution” from a non-peer reviewed textbook which caters to the current political environment - I don't think so.

Or, is it THE definition of evolution and they both used it?

“Also the Wollemi Pine does not make the statement Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.” FALSE.”

It says species existing today did not exist in the past and conversely. It didn't say anything about most or some or a few. Surely you jest in suggesting that we take a percentage of comparison of species existing today with the past! Would you go for 51%?

No. I don't point to “one” species.

You sure are big with this lying bit. Things don't go your way so you yell lie? How about letting gr8dane tell what he means by his absolute statement instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you liars.

You go off on a tangent on facts used to support the central idea conclusion, which can be the same facts which support creation. Do you retract your definition of evolution which you found in a highschool biology textbook which is also on Berkeley's site?:
“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

“The main difference between science and belief system is that when contradictions are found in science, or if precise measurements contradict any part of a scientific theory, they are modified or they are abandoned.”

Ha, Ha. Except for evolution. But, you're right, they are modified: 'if not all, then most, if not most, then some, if not some, then a few…. 51%?

How is clinging to a faulty conclusion science and not a religion? But, then, maybe you have retracted that conclusion.

24 July 2006
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

The referenced Berkeley site is actually a teacher guide on teaching evolution to highschool biology students. It is a highschool biology course that used it. Again I think it is too simplified and that is my opinion. i am not retracting anything. Someone, I can't remember who, asked what are they actually teaching in highschool and I found a secondary level lesson plan on evolution for highschool level biology.

51% huh. Well Ok Gr lets see how many species can we count today. What is it like 10 million species. I don't know but let just say 10 million species exist today and we actually know 1.5 million. How many of those species existed say 1 million years ago? How about 10 million years ago. How about 100 million years ago. Oh wait a minute, lets see Gr thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. So you can't really talk about it in this way Gr can you. But you are right that is getting off on a tangent. So back to the problem. Lets make this really simple for you. List say 20 species that exist today that they have found fossils for say 10 million years ago? How about 10 species? What maybe 5 species then? Let's see, of the known species from the fossil record, 98% are extinct. 98%. Hmmm What do you think Gr. How many species species would that be? Over a billion species and here you are up there talking about one species that existed just millions of years ago…

Yeah Ha ha is right… it makes you wonder who is clinging to a faulty conclusion doesn't it….

24 July 2006
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

And the thing about lying.

Hey if you would at least mention everything that is being said or done or the whole context then maybe we can actually weigh the evidence and make up our own minds instead of being manipulated. You bring up the Wollemi Pine and say “Why do you keep promoting statements which have proven to be false? Have you considered the Wollemi Pine among various other organisms? How do they fit with your statement? How many organisms of the past have to be found living before”….Ok Here is what I see you saying Whoa the Wollemi Pine disproved something about evolution. Did it really Gr or did you make that up? Who is saying this? Is that you saying that or someone else saying that. On what basis are they saying that? How does it make anything false? Did you talk about low genetic variability or clonality, or how about genetic bottlenecks. You also say “other organisms of the past” ok name them Gr remembering that we can actually list 1.5 million species today.

Think about this Gr how many organisms have to be found to be not living now that were living in the past before you start saying ok maybe the evolutionists are right about this. (Psst if its 98% then we can move on from this issue right?)

Maybe lying is too strong of a word. In my opinion, you are not presenting all sides of the story so maybe we can call that ignorance? I don't know you tell me…..

24 July 2006
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Wow, I don't even know where to start in responding to gr. I'm used to dishonesty from creationists, but he's a darn good sophist, better than the rank and file creationists who just spout slogans their pastors taught them. I'll probably type up some replies to the more obvious bits when I get a chance.

For now, yes, Kodiac was right. My comment about Jesus being just a “wise man” was hypothetical, and one of THREE possible choices I gave (and there could certainly be others). It does NOT mean I personally believe that. Most of the rest of opinion's criticisms of my “Christianity” were similar, misinterpretations of what I said, or in some cases complete fabrications not based on anything I said, including that I'm “not sure there is a God” and I “don't believe in the Bible”.

I'm sure there's a God. i believe there is. But there's no evidence either way, so I don't claim to KNOW there is, or God may exist but be very different than I believe. It's a faith statement, not a knowledge statement. In that respect, I'm an admitted “agnostic Christian”. I believe God exists. But it would be dishonest to portray me as having LESS faith than you, because I'm honest enough to differentiate between what i believe and what I KNOW.

It's also dishonest to say I “don't believe in the bible”. I just don't interpret it as simplistically literal as fundamentalists do. Most Christians don't. Mostly it's just the literalist fundies who act like they are the only ones who “believe in the bible”, when there are nearly as many things they don't follow anymore either, and have big dogmatic arguments why they reject it or don't interpret it the same way anymore… but about the parts they cling to being literal, even while the rest of Christianity has moved on from that and accept those as spiritual allegory or other non-literal text, they act like we're the ones who have “compromised the bible” and other buzzwords.

But then, expecting honest argument from fanatics is not rational. It'd be nice if we as a species had outgrown such traits, but oh well.

27 July 2006
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane: “but he's a darn good sophist, better than the rank and file”

Slam as it was, I'll take it as a complement (might be the best I get from you?).

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to be manipulative and refusing to believe the Truth. Likewise, I feel you and Kodiac are refusing to see the obvious and clinging to falsehoods. Hopefully, you are honest enough to see that both sides view the other in the same way.

I said you discredit the Bible, which you could say effectively means you don't believe in it. You've said what you don't believe in it, but what do you believe in it – that it exists?

You do point out how some use the Bible, and that may be what separates me from the rank and file. For, in discussing the Bible, I'll confront those with their preassumed beliefs as much as I will evolutionists. For some reason, they don't respond back - must consider me a heretic, or something. However, I would caution you about using “the rest of Christianity has moved on” as that implies “most” and “majority” which I doubt you could find much supporting evidence.

27 July 2006
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac has been attacking me for a statement you made (assuming you are not a script reader). He thought it meant “most” species. I gave the benefit of the doubt and suggested what if we found 51% species of the past existing today. He arbitrarily said even if 2% were found today, then the statement would be false. We would like you to clarify exactly what you intended by it:

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

If you mean, as a supporting fact, that no species exists today as had in the past, then how does the Wollemi Pine, Coelacanth, and others relate to that? If you mean “most”, “some”, or “a few”, why did you even make the statement? What was it supposed to mean other than being a “feel-good” statement?

Kodiac did have a good suggestion in conversations of the past and that's concentrating on one thing. So, in regards to your above statement, relate it to the pine:

Statement: The Wollemi Pine has been discovered.
It either does or it does not exist.

Statement: The Wollemi Pine is called a “living fossil”.
While the term, “living fossil” is vague, I'm sure you understand what is meant by the term. Scientists and regular people find it to be unusual, odd, unique, or special. It, and other “living fossils”, may or may not have an exact fossil record, but the general species exist as fossils 100 million years ago, and then, I believe, it doesn't show up any more. The pine would not be expected to be rare to form fossils as some claim the fish to be. To say the tree is slightly different from the fossil record and therefore doesn't count would be an odd thing to say. Evolutionists point out species changes in 100 years so why wouldn't you expect change in 100 million? The biggest issue is that it hasn't changed as much as expected.

Either way, the above statement can be shown true (for what it means) or false. If false, maybe someone should confront the scientists and the park service.

27 July 2006
at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“The biggest issue is that it hasn't changed as much as expected.”

Gr expand on this statement. I mean be specific. Specifically on the word “expected”. Remember Gr, this species clones itself, has evidence of genetic bottlenecks, and was found in one area with almost no human contact. I see that you avoided the question of
how does this show evolution to be false. Evolution does not say it can't happen. In fact, what we are seeing here is exactly what evolution predicts. Again you are making a statement of expectation concerning genetic history when there is no expectation there. The finding of this tree in only one place and these individuals containing low genetic variability is exactly what you would expect from a historical and evolutionary standpoint. If it had high genetic variability, that would be totally unexpected. Or if these tree existed all of the world today and no fossils anywhere, that also would be totally unexpected.

Also Gr, the last known fossil for the Wollemi Pine is 2 million years old so this was the proposed date for the extinction of this species. That info can be found at http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/informat….

I am not sure why you are saying “The pine would not be expected to be rare to form fossils as some claim”. I think this could easily happen. Think about a Gr. If this tree died out in most of the world say 90 million years ago then you would not expect to find any fossils in most areas. Remember the pine has been found in only one place and it does have low genetic diversity. That would be the expectation for any population that is down to their last 23 individuals along with 16 juveniles and it comes out of a family with low genetic diversity and it clones itself. All of these things fit the observations and there are no problems with genetic theory or evolution. The only people trying to make this a problem are the creationists. Again it has to do with wanting to jump to conclusions so that they can confirm their own belief system. The research for this tree is still quite young and they are many questions still trying to be answered. Again noone from a research standpoint concerning the Wollemi Pine is saying hey look this disproves evolution. In fact if anything, it only demonstrates the power of evolution in the natural world.

27 July 2006
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

You know Australia is a very interesting place. It is the only place in the world where you find Marsupials. There have been many other significant finds from a species standpoint as well. This continent has actually been very important in the development of evolutionary theory. I would imagine the creationists wish they could blow this place up because it really does provides a unique window into the processes of evolution. Did you know that any placental animals that find its way to Australia via humans will easily outcompete their corresponding marsupial species from an ecological standpoint. Of course that is true for a lot of exotic species but the marsupials seem to be particular vulnerable to the equivalent placental species.

I think it is marvelous place and hope someday to visit it.
I was also thinking that in terms of the Wollemi Pine, it does support the idea that it is possible for species with low genetic variability to survive through many different conditions. I would suspect that it require some generalist strategies such as being able to survive harsh conditions such as extreme temperatures and/ or high variability in humidity. It is interesting to note that while these species are extremely rare in our current understanding of the world, they do exist. I think that really does demonstrate the power of evolution.

27 July 2006
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Whoops my bad. Possums and a few South American species are also marsupials but their numbers pale in comparison to the marsupials on Australia. The emphasis is you find are much greater variety in marsupials where mammals are absence which is true for islands and australia.

27 July 2006
at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“I see that you avoided the question of how does this show evolution to be false.”

Kodiac, I'm waiting for gr8dane to explain what he meant.

27 July 2006
at 8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Actually Gr, you don't have to wait for gr8dane response. YOU can figure it out for yourself. You have the resources to do it, why don't you. The statement is about taxonomy. Go look up extinction, the fossil record, nested hierarchies and evolution. What the statement is about is transitional forms. Later species are descended from earlier species that are no longer here. The point is not meant to be taken literally as an absolute. I was trying to point that out to you maybe poorly but I was trying. I was trying to get you to recognize that it isn't a specific definition of time but rather it is about the idea that you have older species from the past that newer species are descended or modified from living today. This is not an absolute time based comment. In other words it doesn't mean you can't have older species that are considered to be trasnsitional that are still living today although these are extremely rare. Actually the Wollemi Pine is now being thought of as a transitional form between two other species of trees, an older extinct one, and one that is living now. Just because something is old and may represent a transitional form doesn't mean it HAS to be extinct. It is estimated that 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth is extinct. Gr you are trying to turn this statement into something that it is not. The point gr8dane was making was the idea of taxonomy and the relationship of earlier organisms with later organisms. It has nothing to do with whether or not an “old species” is living or not.

28 July 2006
at 12:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Another assumption, based on false presumption, is that death is necessary for biology. You assume evolution, therefore death is necessary. But, assumptions do not make them fact. You need evidence. Likewise, assuming death didn't happen until sin does not make it a fact. Both are belief systems.

Ah yes, the creationist fallacy that “both are belief systems” and that we (so-called “evolutionists”, aka those of us educated enough and honest enough to admit evolution is a factual process) are “assuming” evolution is true.

I assume nothing of the sort. I presume nothing of the sort. Evolution is a universally accepted fact in science, based on the overwhelming evidence, including observation of it happening today, that we can and do test and use to get useful new or improved traits (and have for thousands of years with plant and animal domestication and breeding, which is basically controlled evolution, using artificial selection instead of natural selection). We have observed evolution, including to the point of speciation, in the lab and in the wild. All the evidence supports that it happened in the past, also, including anatomical and genetics studies showing common ancestry, that so far cannot be explained any other way than evolution.

You won't accept the evidence and conclusions of science, so you try to paint it as “all unproven faith”, like your version of creationism. Too bad that doesn't hold up to the evidence supporting evolution, and proving creatinism wrong.

Also, I did not say death is necessary for biology. I said “the importance of death in biology”. I'd say it's necessary for evolution, specifically natural selection, because it's what filters out unhelpful traits and rewards helpful ones, letting the population adapt to its habitat better. And here I'm not talking about death from old age, the cells losing cohesion after dividing so many times. I'm talking about death from your habitat. Natural dangers, like falling and other injuries, or predation or parasites or diseases, etc. Things that natural selection can help your species adapt to. But without SOME dying from those things, the population won't adapt, except for a few where sexual selection might help instead. But that would be incidental, as sexual selection doesn't care about how “fit” you are to survive in your habitat, as natural selection does. It only cares about how “fit” you are to find a mate to breed with. Many times, sexual selection leads to traits that make it HARDER to survive, like how peahens choose mates with the largest, most ornate tails, because the male has to be strong to sport such a tail… despite that having the largest tail makes them the most likely to be caught by a predator chasing them.

28 July 2006
at 1 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

But this is all a red herring, which you are using to lead us away from one inescapable fact. Death DOES happen. And it HAS happened, for millions of years. This is a fact, supported by the evidence. Not a “presumption”, based on an “assumption” of evolution being true a priori. That's the creationists who start from an “assumption” (that God created, AND did so in the way they religiously believe), and then throw out any evidence they cannot “re-interpret” to fit this belief. So it's not surprising that you guys make this false claim about scientists.

Sin is still a man-made concept, that we could only come up with after evolving to a certain level of intelligence. Not to mention to be capable of sin, you have to be self-aware enough and aware that the “sinful” action is wrong, which also requires a certain level of intelligence to evolve. And our ancestors had to have millions of years of evolution before reaching that point, with death happening inevitably to all of them, as indeed happens to all known high order organisms.

I'm not going to get into the theoretical immortality and life-prolonging speculation from your first paragraph. Not my forte, and is a red herring also, albeit a nice one to think about, especially if you're reading a good science fiction novel dealing with the topic.

28 July 2006
at 1:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> But, regardless of all that, you are missing the main question. Why did God allow death / damage to happen? And, if God didn't create life, why didn't He?

Ah, but I'm not missing it. You are. You are asking me to answer questions only God can. And She is keeping mum. The rest of us can only speculate. If I have to speculate, I'd guess that “death/damage” is how God chose to do it. Since “death/damage” is a fact, and has been for longer than we humans have been around, I'm not going to join in your denial games and believe outdated dogmas and mythologies about death not occurring until “after Adam sinned”.

Your second question is a totally separate one. And no on is saying God DIDN'T create life. Which is unrelated to evolution, which deals with what happened to life after it existed, to lead to present day species, and eventually unknown future species because the process is still going on. However, you are still stuck on your creationist fallacy of false dichotomy, believing it HAS to be one OR the other. The natural processes science studies, or God. Perhaps God created… using natural processes. Or, to put it another way, the natural processes are PART of the Creation. This is compatible with mainstream Christianity, which accepts evolution fine for this reason.

gr said:
> You speak of an “outdated religious origin myth”, but yet imply you are a “Christian”. Isn't a Christian one who believes in the Christ - the Messiah? Yet, you suggest He didn't exist and discredit the Bible.

I suggested no such thing. Nor did I discredit the bible. Although I don't put much stock in your simplistic overly literal interpretation of it.

I suggested that EVEN if Jesus DID say that about the Genesis story, it doesn't necessarily mean Jesus believed it, or even if Jesus did, that doesn't mean it was literally true. And once again, this is all speculation and opinion. Until Jesus returns and goes on Larry King Live, we can't know. I'll go instead with what we DO know, based on all the evidence: the Genesis story is obviously not literally true. Evolution is. Whether Jesus was just a wise man, or God Incarnate, I don't believe He would want me to lie about that.

gr said:
> What exactly is a Christian to you? Sounds like the pagans to me - 'There is no God, there is no right nor wrong, what each believes is right in his own mind is right, if it feels good - do it.'

Ah yes, more strawman fallacies. Tsk, tsk… I never said any of that. Actually, it's you creationists who publicly encourage teaching that in public schools, teaching ALL ideas in science class, scientific AND religious, and teaching them as if all are equally valid as science, when they clearly aren't. Creationists with their “teach the controversy!” slogan, and “teach both sides!” and implications that science class should be “democratic” and “fair”. Science IS fair. It accepts what is supported by the evidence and testing. That's it.

28 July 2006
at 1:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> If evolution created ALL / most life from one organism, why do you even need God? Or, is that the point? So how can you pretend to call yourself a Christian?

And again with the “you're not a TRUE Christian” claims, which is a variation of the “No TRUE Scotsman” fallacy, which fundies use to dismiss the majority of Christians who don't agree with their dogma, interpretations of the bible, and disproven attacks on science.

You're falsely, dogmatically assuming I'm not a TRUE Christian, that I don't sincerely believe, that I'm pretending to be a Christian… just because I'm not YOUR kind of Christian (which I see as a good thing, personally).

Back to your quote. Is that the point? No. You missed the point. The point is: Evolution is a fact… so IF there's a God, and IF God created, as I believe God does and did, evolution is part of that Creation, a natural process like any other.

Only bible literalists (and some fanatic atheists) argue with that, and make up the false dichotomy that you have to believe one OR the other, because it conflicts with their interpretation of Genesis. An interpretation most Christians don't share.

To say that God and evolution can't mix is to say that God is make believe. Because we KNOW evolution happens.

But luckily, all the creationists who tell me you CAN'T be a Christian and accept evolution also CAN'T give me one valid reason why. So I don't have to discard my faith in God QUITE yet. :P I don't know why you WANT me to lose my faith, though.

But one of the dangers of fundamentalist thinking is you guys set your OWN children up to lose theirs. With your whole binary way of interpretting the bible as “100% literal or 100% false!”, when your kids DO grow up and learn the evidence proving SOME parts of the bible are not literal and/or factual, they apply the false dichotomy they were taught, that it's 100% true or 100% false, and assume ALL religion must be false. Whereas kids of more moderate Christians who don't attack science grow up and learn the theory of and evidence for evolution, and go “Cool…” and are more likely to keep their faith in God (as I did) because they aren't taught a Christian should hate and fear and reject science like the fundie kids were.

I've met many of these former fundie kids who are now atheists. For a while, they tend to keep the fanatic binary mindset, only now they are on the other side, then mellow out and realize religions can have SOME truths to them, even if there really is no god… I've even had a few of them tell me they might have kept their faiths if they'd met someone like me at the right time.

28 July 2006
at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane,

I enjoyed reading your posts. I think you express yourself well. I have tried to avoid talking about any religious aspects when talking about evolution because as you have pointed out so eloquently, evolution is not about religion, it is about the natural world and what we actually can see.

Sometimes I get frustrated with myself because I have trouble getting right to the heart of what is being said and/or pointing out what is being misunderstood which you seem to do quite well.

For example Gr has been hung up with the statement you gave:

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

You actually talk about this when explaining “Also, I did not say death is necessary for biology. I said “the importance of death in biology”. I'd say it's necessary for evolution” which I think is meant by the above statement. Extinction makes sense in light of evolution. The first statement you gave isn't talking about a specific length of time or any one specific species. You are talking about the observation of extinction which produces the complexity and diversity that we see today. Without extinction, life on earth would be static and unchanging.

Thank-you for your postings. I can only hope that given enough time I will eventually be able to express myself as clearly as you do.

28 July 2006
at 11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

From the website:

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/information….

“The last fossil record of the Wollemi Pine is dated at about two million years ago and so the Pine was thought to be extinct -“

Not 100 million Gr but 2 million.

Also:

“Morphological, wood anatomy and DNA analysis suggest that the Wollemi is a new genus, falling between the two previously known living genera: Agathis and Araucaria.”

Meaning that this species might be a possible transitional form…

And how about:

“However, because of the unusual branching habit of this species (called coppicing - see characteristics), we can't determine how old the original tree was before this trunk was produced - possibly hundreds or even thousands of years since it was a seedling.”

Think about it Gr, how many individuals would that be if they lived 2000 years or more and you are talking about the last known fossil to be 2 million years old. A 1000 or less individuals. Wouldn't it possible to not find a member of this species for 2 million years if you were down to they were down to their last 1000 or less. Considering that the estimated number of species that the earth currently has is between 10 to 30 million and we have actually only identified 1.5 million of them, I think that is well within the realm of possibility.

And finally how about the following statement:

“If genetic variation is found, laboratory assays could be developed to study the variation. While so far no detectable variation has been found, work is continuing using alternate methods. Perhaps the Wollemi Pine has lost its variation over a long time but retained its 'good genes'.”

Isn't that what I was just talking about. Not about variability but what their actual genetics are. If they have characteristics coded for by their genes that allow them to withstand severe weather conditions because they live for such long time then wouldn't it be possible to survive for a long time even with no or low variability in their genes from a species level.

I think there is also a statement in there about being on a island continent which has help shield them from other types of enviromental change or pressures.

28 July 2006
at 1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Thanks, Kodiac. :) I have actually had many people tell me I should have gone into teaching, because I explain things well. I don't think I would have had the patience for it, personally. But I do my part where I can.

Most of my words in here are what I've learned and reasoned out in the last 8 years or so, since I've come into contact with creationists and the propaganda they spout. I didn't know how to argue it at first, even while my own science education was sufficient to see that their claims just didn't add up. Arguing with them in chatrooms has helped ME learn more about it. I had to look up more specific science, and I also came across experiences and refutations of their claims by people who had already dealt with creationist propaganda and found the evidence proving it wrong.

A good source I've found recently for debunking specific creationist claims is:
The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/li…

There are, of course, other excellent ones. Most creationist claims have long since been debunked and disproven. That they continue to use them ANYWAY, whereas science tends to “retire” disproven arguments, shows creationism is not about finding the TRUTH. It's about defending a dogma. And it's about proselytizing. And it's about attacking what they see as a rival, something that hinders their proselytizing: Science.

Sometimes I regret not having taken any philosophy or logic courses, to more easily see through the fallacies of the creationists. What ability I have is inborn or self-taught. And it took me a while to nurture it. Creationists use dishonest tactics because all too often, they WORK. Misquoting ('quote-mining') so it seems like the person being quoted is saying the opposite of what the full quote clearly says. Throwing in red herrings to get onto unrelated points, etc. I have to keep asking myself “Is that a valid point, or is it getting off of the main point because they know they can't attack the main point directly?” and other questions.

Of course, sometimes I still meet the occasional creationist who can argue circles around me. That of course doesn't mean their claims are right. It just means they are better at the tactics of argumentation and rhetoric and logic, and how best to use them to their personal advantage (dishonestly).

That, of course, is the only reason they tend to “win debates” in public. Especially when the scientists are not ready for such dishonest tactics. For example, creationists typically fire off 50 false claims about science in the time it takes the scientist to correct ONE of them. Result: the creationists “win” the debate through sheer overwhelming bullpucky.

Of course, some scientists are better than others at seeing through their tactics. I'd love to see Prof. Ken Miller of Brown University in debate, for instance.

28 July 2006
at 1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Back to…

gr said:
> Some of your later statements indicate you are thinking on these things, and evolution is a prop you hide behind so you don't have to call God bad -

Ah yes, evolution is a prop I hide behind so I don't have to call God bad. A typically creationist way of looking at things backwards and upside down. The truth is, my faith won't let me believe in the evil creationist god. Evolution is a scientific fact, based on all the evidence. It stands on its own merits. So does my faith. Neither needs “props” (much less needing to use the other as “props”). I'm just pointing out that they aren't in conflict in any way, and your creationist worldview needs you to make up strawmen of them both, painting one (evolution) as an “unproven religious belief” and implying my statements “indicate” that I use it as a “prop to hide behind” because I don't believe in your evil god, but a more mainstream Christian God instead. One who isn't afraid of us using our minds and senses to find out how the “Creation” actually works.

gr said:
> that you resist the idea 'Love me or I'll torture you' type of God. Could it be these so called Christians who promote God as punishing people and the only reason to believe in Him is because of fear, have just as much a falsely assumed premise as the evolutionists do?

Invalid question, because the so-called “evolutionists” have no such falsely assumed premise. That's why you cannot name one, and show it's false. The closest you guys can come to such a premise is attacking science's methodological materialism, despite that it was early scientists who were christian who instituted this policy as the only way to do honest science free of religious bias. Mainly because you want science to start from the false premise of your OWN creationist religious bias.

28 July 2006
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> You attempt to sidetrack the issue by saying how wonderful science is self-correcting, but how could we ever learn that “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor [whether all or most], just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” is WRONG?

You sure like that “definition”, don't you? :P It's not actually “the central idea” of evolution, but one of the major conclusions leading from it, and lines of evidence supporting it.

How can we ever learn that it's wrong? We can learn it's wrong by finding evidence inconsistent with it. Which isn't very likely because all the evidence we have is consistent with it. But theoretically, it could be falsified if evidence refuted common ancestry, if fossils were found showing all previous fossil lines of descent were wrong and just LOOKED like they all clearly showed common ancestry. I know you guys are really hoping this will happen, and you keep using fallacies like pointing out SOME scientific theories were later refuted by evidence found later. But quite frankly, give up expecting it. It's not going to happen, realistically. Science has been TRYING to find just such evidence for 150 years or more, and instead, found overwhelming further evidence supporting common ancestry. Especially now that we have genetics studies confirming common ancestry.

gr said:
> “or if we can ever have enough evidence to show that, but certainly, it's accepted as fact that most does.” Yep, “accepted” without evidence. That's why evolutionism is a religion.

You are as ignorant of basic definitions and concepts in religion as you are of scientific ones, apparently. Including what “religion” means. And you are dogmatically spouting the “there is no evidence” lie of creationism, despite all the evidence already cited that proves you wrong. I don't expect anything I say will change this fanaticism on your part, or make you suddenly decide to start being honest. Suffice it to say, both your “no evidence” and your “therefore evo is a religion too” claims have already been long exposed as absurd fantasies and dishonest rhetoric. Moving on.

28 July 2006
at 1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> (You keep speaking of “flat earth”, but I'm not familiar where you find that in the Bible?)

It's quite well known among bible scholars and historians of that culture and period that the ancient hebrews had a flat earth cosmology, as did many of their neighbours, including believing the sky was a hard dome with gates to let the rain waters through, and that the celestial objects (sun, moon, stars, planets) were moving around just INSIDE this “firmament”.

Many verses in the bible show this cosmology, and can only be interpretted (honestly) from this view. The early Christian Church shared this view. Now, it's even more silly to deny a spherical earth than it is to deny the fact of evolution, so even bible fundamentalists accept it, and since they must insist the bible is true and inerrant, have denied the bible authors EVER said the earth was flat.

For an example of what this flat earth cosmology looked like, a good one is available at: Ancient Hebrew (ie Biblical) Conception of the World: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/arti…

Incidentally, a picture very similar to that URL is in my bible, in the scholar notes before Genesis, explaining this is how they believed the world was like in biblical times.

I like the above link, but I know of others at:
The Bible and Cosmology: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cos…
Biblical Conception of the Universe: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Thre…
The Three-Story Universe - A common Cosmology of the Ancient World: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre…

The bible also calls the earth a “circle” in places. Bible literalists use this to claim it says the “earth is round”. Yes. Round. And flat as a pancake. Circles are flat. They had words for ball and sphere. But they used circle to describe the earth. Again, creationists use copouts like “well, from SPACE, where GOD lives, it would LOOK like a circle!” Feh. Lord save me from fanatical apologists who will twist anything to fit their claims.

There are other interesting websites that talk about this, including: The Flat-Earth Bible: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible…

Most educated Christians know they believed in a flat earth in that time and culture, and we know we don't have to believe it just because they did (plus all the other things they believed then, that science has since shown is false). Nor do we have to jump through hoops of denial and apologetics to wave them away or re-interpret them, because we don't have the dogma that the bible is “true and inerrant in all things” as the fundamentalists/creationists assert.

28 July 2006
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Gah, I had one more post, and it was 13 bytes over the 3000 limit. Oh well, splitting it in two:

gr said:
> Yeah, you say “evidence”. Is that like the automobile descended from bicycles? They both have wheels. There's even transitions - tricycles. There's evidence the transformation is happening today. Look at some bicycles. There are iron-oxide deposits. Given billions of years, these deposits will grow and form new structures enabling more wheels. Basic analysis shows similarities between the two - axles, wheels, gears, their elemental makeup. They have common ancestry. It's “accepted as fact”!

That made me laugh. Creationists love making invalid analogies. And the “machines to lifeforms” analogy is one of your favorites. Like the “747 made from a tornado in a junkyard”.

Bikes “evolve” only because WE design later “generations” of them, and build them. They do not “evolve” in the way we are discussing evolution, biological evolution. Making an analogy between lifeforms and man-made machines is dishonest.

Machines are not living. Machines do not have DNA. Machines to not reproduce, and through reproduction, gain mutations and enhanced/new traits that cause greater genetic diversity, and through that, give the gene pool more variation to be affected by natural selection (and the other selective mechanisms).

Nuff said on that.

28 July 2006
at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> So what if God made whales with feathers? Well the evolutionist would then question why He put them in a “recognizable phylogeny of nested….”. Don't you see that phylogeny is man's invention for classification? No matter how different or similar, there would always be some way of grouping and categorizing items. I believe in kindergarten class they have the students practice grouping the same set of items in various ways.

Whales with feathers would be explainable by ID “theory”. anything we could find in nature would be explainable by “God created them that way”. And so since it explains everything, it explains nothing.

Whales with feathers would throw our phylogenies out the window. It would imply whales evolved from feathered ancestors, despite that the other lines of evidence shows whales evolved from land mammals (without feathers). Whales without feathers, and all the other things we find in organisms, alive and dead, are what we'd expect to find if evolution is true. a whale with feathers, or other organisms that don't fit the phylogeny, would be evidence against evolution. A way of falsifying it.

Which goes back to your earlier question of:
'but how could we ever learn that “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor [whether all or most], just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” is WRONG?'

That's one way how. Whales with feathers.

Phylogenies are man-made. Of course. All of science is. So is all of religion, if you want to get technical. Including the creationist movement. And phylogenies get revised, as we fill in more details. But so far, they fully support what we'd expect to see from organisms subject to the process of evolution.

28 July 2006
at 10:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Two important new “missing links” found. :)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/a…

Named Umoonasaurus and Opallionectes.

29 July 2006
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Why do you keep promoting statements which have proven to be false? Have you considered the Wollemi Pine among various other organisms? How do they fit with your statement? How many organisms of the past have to be found living before you stop saying they don't exist or claiming somehow they are conserved over time?

Really?! You have actual scientific evidence that the Wollemi Pine existed from the beginning of time? That at the big bang, when the universe began expanding from the singularity, the Wollemi Pine was there, flying outwards from it, waiting for a sun to form to give it light, waiting for a ball of dirt to form so it could plant itself… I'd be really keen to see this evidence. As soon as you produce it, I'll give more weight to your assertion that you and the Wollemi Pine have proven science wrong that: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.

Until then, I'll assume this is just more dishonest creationist rhetoric. Anything other than “Yes, the Wollemi Pine existed from the big bang and here is my evidence…” will be an admission to me that you were, ahem, creative with the truth.

As far as I know, all known species fit with that statement. The Wollemi Pine included. Along with all the species creationists like to cite as having existed for a longer period than most, relatively unchanged. (The operative word being relatively. They continued to evolve also, but very slowly, as they were already well adapted to their habitat and successful, so new mutations would be more likely to make them LESS well adapted, and thus would be filtered out by natural selection.)

gr said:
> “Unless you instead like to see God as an incompetent tinkerer, creating the same species over and over, wiping them out and remaking them patiently each time from scratch, with slight changes.” And that's your false presumption. You are assuming evolution and death.

No. The evidence shows evolution… and death. It's absurd to claim otherwise. But this obvious interpretation of the evidence goes against YOUR “false presumption” (a religious one), so you reject it dogmatically, while claiming science is the one with a “false presumption”.

The fossil record clearly shows, in excellent detail in some lineages, transitional after transitional, showing species evolving over time. Little changes and adaptations here, new traits appearing here, etc. Creationism says evolution can't happen, at least not on that scale (they conveniently accept so-called micro-evolution, which they have redefined to be a separate process from macro-evolution, when they are the same evolutionary process, to a different degree). The only creationist interpretation left for this evidence is that God tinkered. Created a bunch of species… didn't like the results… wiped them all out, and recreated them, with slight differences.

29 July 2006
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Well YOU may sum up what YOU think evolution is, but asbestos provided the link to Berkeley, which I believe is considered a reputable university. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev…
It doesn't say “a central idea”, but “the central idea”. This fits their main definition and further explanations. If you don't like what they say, don't blame me.

You read the Berkeley site, but not to actually learn what evolution is and why it's a well-supported scientific fact, but to look for anything you think can be twisted to be a “weakness” of evolution to attack. Sad. And typical modus operandi for creationists.

The Berkeley site said that to sum up what evolution says, for people with less knowledge of evolution than the scientists who work in the field, and for teachers who will be explaining it to such people. As a general statement, it's quite good. Common ancestry certainly is a central idea of evolution, perhaps THE most important one (many agree).

But you are using it as an all-purpose definition, usable for all contexts, and not accepting any OTHER “central ideas of evolution”.

The “central idea of evolution” (in my own words, but also supported by the same webpage you got that quote from) is that life changes and adapts and diversifies and expands to fill every niche it can. The statement you like so much, about common ancestry, is a summation of that, a way of looking at the same idea from the other side. The first looks at it from the view of looking forward, saying what evolution is doing NOW. The latter (the one you're so fond of citing) is from the viewpoint of the result, looking back on the past. It's saying basically the same thing. As I said, it's a summation, to put it in easily understood words. Life changes, adapts, diversifies, branches out, one species becomes two, ten, a hundred, each adapting to its own niche in its habitat… Common ancestry certainly is an important part of evolution. But you are misinterpretting what they said as if that's ALL evolution says. And using that statement out of context to attack what people say in here, matching it up against your narrow quote-mined statement. Even while being against people who do the SAME thing with quotes from the bible (as some anti-christian atheists and others do), no doubt.

You'll dogmatically assert that this is THE central idea of evolution, because you feel that is a harder claim for science to 'prove', no matter how many scientific organizations I quote saying something else. I'm used to that by now. If you still insist that's THE central idea, and won't accept any other definitions, I know better than to try to make you see reason. Moving on.

By the way, the page gr quoted it from (unless he got it from a different page at the same site): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr…

29 July 2006
at 10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

From “DR. DINO”, Ken Hovind the guy that is a “religious leader” and one of the guys pushing creationism in schools.

“The debtor apparently maintains that as a minister of God, everything he owns belongs to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on money he receives for doing God's work,” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lewis Killian Jr. wrote when he dismissed a claim from Hovind in 1996.”

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15261

What a lying pos! this guy is supposed to be a moral leader????? this guy is supposed to be a good christian??? this GUY is supposed to know what is better to educate our kids???

THis is what the ID/Creo crowd is made up of. Lying self-centered very stupid individuals that cannot accept fact.

29 July 2006
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

asbestos, of course. Hovind is a “man of god” when the IRS guys come around, and a “scientist” (with no degree) teaching science to the flock and anyone else who will listen. In other words, he's just another con man, fleecing the chumps dumb enough to pay him money, and defrauding the government to hold on to that money.

Hovind is an embarassment, even to some creationists. That's saying a lot, because they usually don't mind saying extremely embarassing and ignorant things themselves. Hovind has said almost as many outright STUPID things as George W Bush and Dan Quayle together.

Stupid even by YEC (Young Earth Creationist) standards. Claims like:

“Scientists theorize that the T-Rex could probably breathe fire” - Kent Hovind

Hovind also tells children (on placemats aimed at them that he sells to diners and restaurants) that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time… but don't worry, T-Rex wasn't so fierce. Cave men, when faced with him, could pull his stubby little arms off with ease, and wait for him to bleed to death. The only difficulty was dodging the fire breath so you can get close enough to pull his arms off.

“In 1271 A.D. Marco Polo came back from China and reported that the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades. Now why on earth would Marco Polo say something like that just 700 years ago? Well, I think he probably said that because the Emperor of China was raising dragons to pull his chariots in parades.” - Kent Hovind

“Before you become excited, let me tell you the four reasons that I believe in fire-breathing dragons. My first reason why I believe in fire-breathing dragons is that the Bible plainly states it as fact.” - Kent Hovind

“I hadn't understood it yet because I was young, and the brain doesn't develop until you're twenty” - Kent Hovind

And even dumber things. (although that last quote may actually be accurate, at least in Hovind's case)

29 July 2006
at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> But, either way, taking your “conclusion predicted by evolutionary theory”, is the objection I have. It's a conclusion, not a fact. It can never be proved. It can never be disproved. It was not observed. It is not observable. It is not science. It's a dogma of a religion and “accepted” as truth.

Yes, yes, yes, again with the creationist dogma that evolutionary biology and science in general are “another religion too”. No matter how many times it's explained to you guys why that's just not true. I know your weak faith requires you to insist evolution is false, and NEVER let yourself be convinced it's true, no matter HOW well “proven”, no matter HOW much evidence and observation of it happening today and in the past. That's why it's so depressing talking with fanatics. They don't want to learn the facts, the truth. The want to learn comfortable fictions that support their mythology.

It's too bad it's all false. Everything. All your claims above. False.

The closest your statements come to truth is “It can never be proved”. That's because in science, “proof” is impossible. We can't even prove gravity exists. Drop something a million times, it falls. But you haven't PROVEN that it WILL fall if you drop it the millionth and one time. Maybe something is pulling it down, but not the force we call gravity, and won't do so on the millionth and one time. However, the million times is sufficient to accept it as a FACT in science that it WILL drop the millionth and one time. Things can be accepted as fact in science. Just not as absolute fact. This is part of the honesty and self-correcting nature of the scientific method (which you poo-pooed earlier).

This is what lets science change its mind later on when future evidence or research says something we thought was true is actually wrong. Maybe dropping that object the millionth and one time will see it float away. And lead to a new discovery in physics, a new principle that lets us discover practical uses (anti-gravity technology). *grin*

Mind you, that wouldn't be refuting gravity as factual. Just showing us a new force or process that we didn't know about, that lets gravity be counteracted in certain conditions. Such a discovery HAS been made before. Scientists build on the work of those who came before them. Einstein showed Newton didn't have the whole picture, and was even wrong in some details. Hawking did the same with Einstein. And so on, and so on…

Or maybe science is wrong about gravity having a natural cause, and schools should give “equal time” to “Intelligent Falling Theory”, the belief that God holds lifeforms and objects down to earth, holds the moons and planets in orbit around stars, holds stars in galactic orbit, etc… Silly? Yes. Just as silly as the equivalent claims about “Intelligent Design Theory” deserving “equal time”.

29 July 2006
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Modern biology knows Darwin was wrong about some things, also, just like Newton, Einstein, and the rest. Just not about evolution by variation and natural selection (which is still part of the larger modern theory of evolution), which is basically what Darwin's theory was. But we know more about the details now than Darwin did. And will continue to learn.

Because science sometimes corrects or even throws out some things thought to be true at one time, does that mean science is going to change its mind about evolution by natural selection? Theoretically, yes, it could. Science is open to future evidence either falsifying evolution (and hopefully leading to a better explanation of the evidence and observations we are now calling evolution), or evidence showing that maybe evolution happens, but some of our explanation (theory) on how it works is inaccurate, leading to the theory changing and becoming more accurate. The latter has happened many times already, and no doubt will continue as we learn more about it. The former (that evolution will be falsified, refuted, thrown out) is not realistically going to happen, even while science is open to the possibility because it MUST as part of scientific method. It's pretty much here to stay, even if our understanding of the details of how it works change (including radical changes in places). Don't hold your breath that evolution will be “proven wrong” someday.

But another thing creationists like to do is cite things we “used to know” that we now know (scientifically) aren't true, implying “evolution's turn will come, and it'll be on the junk heap in a few years.” This is a fallacy. Citing some things science HAS discovered are incorrect is not a valid argument that one particular scientific theory (or the process it explains) WILL be found incorrect or false and thrown out.

Here's a quote that shows very well the difference between scientists and dogmatic religious leaders, because science advances even when we learn something is WRONG, whereas religious leaders often rely on convincing people that their answers are the RIGHT ones NOW, and MUST be accepted as such.

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” - Thomas Edison

That's why science is self-correcting and honest. It encourages people to disprove what we think we have learned. As I said, science advances, even when we learn something is WRONG. That's why peer-review is so important in science. You publish your findings and work and evidence in journals, for other scientists to read, and if they so desire, they can go “I am skeptical of that, I'll try to prove it wrong.” And they are encouraged to try.

Creationists act as if the scientific refusal to accept anything as absolute fact, and the self-correcting nature of science because of this, is a weakness. Instead of the great strength it is.

29 July 2006
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Here's how science defines “fact”, as it uses the word: from the National Academy of Science: Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow, based on the evidence.

Or as Gould put it: “In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” — Stephen J. Gould

Is evolution as well supported as gravity and other accepted scientific facts? Yes. More so than most. Or in Gould's words, it's 'perverse to withhold provisional consent' that evolution happens. That's why there IS NO controversy in science about whether evolution happens. It's an accepted fact that it does. Not just on the overwhelming evidence it happened in the past, but because we can and do see it happening today. Both naturally, and at our own instigation and testing.

The average person takes MOST of our scientific knowledge “on faith”. The point is, when creationists use this to argue that science is “just another religion”, they're wrong. While most DO take scientific findings on faith, they don't HAVE to. Part of scientific method is “showing your work”, citing your evidence, explaining how you tested (tried to disprove) your theory, what the results were, etc… It's there if you want to study it. No “faith” required.

Most of us don't bother doing so unless it's something that interests us. NONE of us can go and study everything in science. It's no longer possible for a scientist to keep up with every discovery in every other field. Most have enough trouble keeping up with the MAIN things in their own field. But it's there.

You creationists just have a religious bias against ever accepting this fact. So denying the evidence exists or claiming it means something else, so you can claim science is “just a religion also” is your main tactic for rejecting it.

29 July 2006
at 1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

I pointed out earlier that nothing in science can technically be proven. Only supported by the evidence and tested repeatedly without being disproven. Things can certainly be disproven in science, falsified, shown to be incorrect, in part (inaccurate in some details, missing out certain important factors, etc) or in whole (shown to be totally false, hopefully leading to a better explanation of the cause). That's what scientists do. TRY to disprove their theories, etc. Predict what would HAVE to be true if their theory is correct, and then TRY to disprove it. We've TRIED to find evidence disproving evolution. Instead, all new evidence further supports it. To the point that we don't even bother trying to disprove it. Evolution is the single unifying scientific theory of life and an essential element of scientific literacy. As noted scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Creationists act as if creationism hasn't been TRIED by science, hasn't been tested, hasn't been given a fair shot. That's wrong. Creationism used to be the default worldview, without any evidence supporting it. Then we learned scientifically creationism was wrong. New evidence and study disproved its claims, showed the creation myth in Genesis (and the origin myths in all other religions) is not an accurate description of what happened (and still is happening). We discovered evolutionary biology and chemistry and physics and geology and cosmology instead. And it's been TESTED for several centuries now. Every test further shows the creationists are wrong and science is right. Most Christians have moved on from the outdated worldview and accept science just fine. Even the creationists accept MOST of it, but balk at some, like biology showing life is interconnected, related by common ancestry, still changing. The more literal ones (“YECs”) even reject geology showing clearly the earth is very old (around 4.55 billion years) and physics and astronomy showing the universe even older (approx. 13.7 billion).

29 July 2006
at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Hovind has said almost as many outright STUPID things as George W Bush and Dan Quayle together.”

WHY oh WHY do we have to put things in the POV of Repub/Demo argument, or within confines of party loyality????

I am a republican that HATEs this BOE and their “labeled” persons such as Connie Morris as “Conservative Board members”. Well, they are NOT “Conservative”, they are just plain asinine.

I like ALL of your points and do read them and support them. But that one was a cheapy and out of context and irrelevant. YOu want my support….keep it on topic. ie fight the good fight against fundamentalism and keep from having creo/ID in the classroom as science.

This is not a Conservative versus Liberal issue, this is an issue of what is correct for free thought and betterment of education.

29 July 2006
at 2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

asbestos, I wasn't bashing conservatives. Despite that most creationists are also conservatives… But Bush has said a LOT of dumb things. This is an observation about BUSH, not conservatives.

Hovind is a conservative too. Most of the creationists are. I never pointed that out, though. A lot of conservatives also disagree with the religious conservatives who support the creationism movement in politics. And we need more of them to step up and vote against these turkeys. Especially in the upcoming election.

Some even argue Bush and friends aren't conservatives or republicans, but are neocon nuts who have hijacked the Republican party, and more moderate Republicans need to take it back from them.

That would be nice. I don't have a problem (in general) with those more moderate Republicans.

My comment was never meant to be a “cheap shot” at political conservatives. I'm sorry you took it that way. It's just a fact that Bush and Quayle have said a lot of dumb things. I was just pointing out Hovind has said even more.

29 July 2006
at 10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

I guess I should have said teaching pseudo-science to the flock… :P Although even that is being kind to the things this man claims.

30 July 2006
at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane,

Well I can pretty much predict that Gr will disappear for awhile and then make a sudden reappearance armed with some alledged new claim. I say alledged because is always turns out to be something that has already been hashed out in the past and dismissed as a dishonest or irrelevant creationist tactic. She will probably say something like well I wanted to wait till you had calmed down and you were acting a bit more civil etc etc. Whatever….

As always thank-you for your insights.

30 July 2006
at 7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

HGA what is beyond YOU and YOUR thought process, is that a bible banger does not a “Conservative” make.

Read the GOldwater book then you can start in on what a *conservative* is. But judging by your post, you have no clue.

I have always said I was a conservative. But I am a AUH20 conservative. Connie Morris crew are *not* conservative in politics, eventhough you may lable them as *social* conservative.

“Hovind is a conservative too.”

He may THINK he is a conservative, but he is as *conservative* as a talibahn member! Which is to say he is NOT a conservative, he is a raging bible banger.

30 July 2006
at 7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

I got mixed up with Gr's *cut and paste* things. The things I agreed with were the ones supportive of evolution as science. I thought his statments on the Creo things were the cut and paste and not his response.

for the record:

creo/id Out of Science because it is not, and COnnie baby is NOT a conservative (politically speaking) and a whacko, and those that support the “treach the controversy” or “give options to evolution for creation fo Life BS” need to shut up. NO place for that in Science.

I see what you meant HGA.

30 July 2006
at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Right, Kodiac. And I was perfectly calm when I typed all that. But you're right about typical creationist tactics, including using emotive arguments to muddy the waters, and accusing their opponents of “getting emotional”.

I saw a hilarious quote recently:

“Debating evolution with creationists is like playing chess with pigeons; they knock the pieces over, crap on the board, then fly back to the flock declaring victory.” - (author anonymous)

Excellent analogy! :)

31 July 2006
at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane,

roflmao

I think I just found a new name for Gr…..

:-)

31 July 2006
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

well I wanted to wait till you had calmed down and you were acting a bit more civil etc etc. Whatever….

Or, maybe I believe what Kodiac said in so many words that only losers post here and I'm wondering why I am posting here. So, when I have other things to do, why bother?

Kodiac: “From the website:

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/information…….

“The last fossil record of the Wollemi Pine is dated at about two million years ago and so the Pine was thought to be extinct -“

Not 100 million Gr but 2 million.”

Well, Kodiac, it depends which site you read from. I believe you were critical about comparing pollen, and that was what I've read was 2 million years ago. So, what are you trying to pull? I've also read 90 million years ago. But, I think this should be reasonable, “The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica” And as far as an alternative explanation for their existence, I'm sure you've read those.

The rest of your post about ages, it sounds as if you are trying to rewrite evolution.

And, “Considering that the estimated number of species that the earth currently has is between 10 to 30 million and we have actually only identified 1.5 million of them,” I find unbelievable. But, if true, fascinating. Very fascinating. Evolutionists make statements of FACT based upon knowing possibly less than 10% of living organisms?!

31 July 2006
at 4:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane: “Evolution is a universally accepted fact in science, based on the overwhelming evidence, including observation of it happening today,…

Problems: Universally, Observation.

I highly doubt you can show evidence evolution is an “universally accepted fact in science” any more than saying most Christians believe in evolution. And I KNOW you can't show “observation of it happening today.” Later, you said about the assumed premise of evolution, “That's why you cannot name one, and show it's false.”. I, nor anyone else, can show evolution to be false. That's why it's a belief system.

And by “evolution”, I mean:
“The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.”

I know it, you know it, and everyone involved in the debate knows what people mean by the word evolution. While the above may been out of a highschool biology textbook, displayed on Berkeley's website, and be a major conclusion rather than the central idea, it is “the central idea” as being taught in our schools which is a major issue at hand. Or you may prefer what was listed as from the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary:
“evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.”

Now, I have been warned that:
Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as “evidence” that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution.

If you want to practice that manipulation, then how would you like it if I did the following using the reasoning of how evolutionists attempt to use:
I believe, have faith, speculate, conjecture that God created life.
He said life would reproduce after it's kind.
Are there any mechanisms which would support it? We find genetics and heritability. They are established and observable facts.
Therefore, creation is a scientific fact.
Why can't evolutionists accept science?

Do you see, just because the supposed “mechanisms” may be true, it doesn't make the conclusion true. And the conclusion is what I'm objecting to as having no evidence it's true. Maybe finding support to fit with it, the same as support for creation.

31 July 2006
at 4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Sin is still a man-made concept, that we could only come up with after evolving to a certain level of intelligence. Not to mention to be capable of sin, you have to be self-aware enough and aware that the “sinful” action is wrong, which also requires a certain level of intelligence to evolve. And our ancestors had to have millions of years of evolution before reaching that point, with death happening inevitably to all of them, as indeed happens to all known high order organisms.”

And there you go again with recursion. You are throwing out all other alternatives and assuming evolution is true, therefore humans had to evolve to self-awareness. Which is interesting in what type of mechanism would lead to and cause self-awareness?

“Ah, but I'm not missing it. You are. You are asking me to answer questions only God can. And She is keeping mum.”

She? I never heard, WHAT do you believe about the Bible? Anything other than, “It exists”?

You keep saying what you didn't say about the Bible, even though I have a hard time understanding you didn't. To say that I interpret the Bible as 100% true is one of those strawman fallacies which you falsely accuse me of. I don't know anyone who believes that. Which I'm sure will illicit a “pick and choose” complaint from you. You confront me about saying you are not a TRUE Christian. Actually, I'm questioning how you could be ANY type of Christian. But, I'm open to listening to your definitions. What is a true Christian (One who believes in Christ) to you? What DO you believe about the Bible and Christ if it's not what it looks like you DON'T believe about them?

“The truth is, my faith won't let me believe in the evil creationist god.”.
Please explain.

Flat Earth. It sounds to me you are saying because people of Bible times had a false belief, therefore the Bible has the false belief even if you can't find it within it other than using an overactive imagination. Of course people falsely believed things back then just as they do now. Look at the conflicts of belief between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Saying the Bible speaks of earth as “circle” doesn't prove it says it's flat nor spherical. And, if you believe how the links you gave makes leaps in conclusions and how they “will twist anything to fit their claims”, I can see why you would believe the evolution conclusion. Are you trying to prove the Bible says the earth is flat or just discrediting the Bible? Sounds to me like one of your fallacies.

31 July 2006
at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Bikes “evolve” only because WE design later “generations” of them, and build them. They do not “evolve” in the way we are discussing evolution, biological evolution. Making an analogy between lifeforms and man-made machines is dishonest.”

Designed? My mistake. And we “just KNOW” life wasn't designed, huh?

“Machines are not living. Machines do not have DNA. Machines to not reproduce, and through reproduction, gain mutations and enhanced/new traits that cause greater genetic diversity, and through that, give the gene pool more variation to be affected by natural selection (and the other selective mechanisms).”

If I recall, they are trying to get machines to repair themselves and even to make more like them. Maybe just a science fiction dream at this point, but if they were able to in the future, are you saying it would change things? Then why did you say it. Also, why do you immediately disqualify living things as having not been designed? Is it just one of those things which doesn't require consideration?

“That's one way how. Whales with feathers.”
I doubt it. I came across something, which I don't recall, about scientists finding a fossil with or without feathers other than expected. Immediately, it was re-explained as “expected”. Maybe it was the Protoavis fossil (There's another one for you, Kodiac) found by Chatterjee, but I couldn't find the specifics again.

“Really?! You have actual scientific evidence that the Wollemi Pine existed from the beginning of time? That at the big bang, ”

gr8dane, what does beginning of time, big bang, expanding universe have to do with your statement? Because I can't prove my belief on life somehow removes all criticism of your statement? And I wasn't saying the pine proved science (which you like substituting in) wrong, nor even evolution - only your statement.

“(The operative word being relatively. They continued to evolve also, but very slowly, as they were already well adapted to their habitat and successful, so new mutations would be more likely to make them LESS well adapted, and thus would be filtered out by natural selection.)”

So, you are making a statement,

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

But, then you are saying it doesn't really have much meaning? No specifics to it, just a general claim that is beyond criticism?

31 July 2006
at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“The fossil record clearly shows, in excellent detail in some lineages, transitional after transitional, showing species evolving over time.”

And I don't suppose there'd be any point to asking you for them as if I questioned if they were transitional, you'd say something like, it's a FACT they are transitional and I'm only refusing to believe, blah, blah, blah.

You say evolution is a fact, then you say if I don't believe it, the only conclusion is to say that “God tinkered” — because “evolution is a fact”. Oh, self taught logic student; maybe a class would be in order (Me sounding like Kodiac, huh?!)

“You read the Berkeley site, but not to actually learn what evolution is and why it's a well-supported scientific fact, but to look for anything you think can be twisted to be a “weakness” of evolution to attack. Sad. And typical modus operandi for creationists.”

Hah! And isn't that what you do? By the way, asbestos listed it. And no, I wasn't using that to “twist” anything. Kodiac actually came up with it earlier and said it was from a textbook. I keep asking what “evolution” is, and all I get are the “mechanisms”. That was a summary statement which says what evolution is, which is what I've been taught, which is what the whole conflict about what is being taught in schools, which is what the debate is about, which is what YOU mean it to be. I'm not saying it's “ALL” what evolution is, but “the central idea”, the major idea as you've said. Don't be dishonest.

If evolution is something else other than the central idea, please tell me, without listing all the mechanisms. The mechanisms only point to a central idea or ideas. And, that is what you evolutionists keep switching back and forth on.

Your analogy with gravity is a dismal one. Gravity is observed. Gravity is the item considered the fact. Mechanisms of evolution (and creation) are observed. But that doesn't make either one (common descent from one, or a few, or creation) a fact.

“The former (that evolution will be falsified, refuted, thrown out) is not realistically going to happen, even while science is open to the possibility because it MUST as part of scientific method. It's pretty much here to stay, even if our understanding of the details of how it works change”

Let me get this straight. Evolution is the conclusion based upon the mechanisms (how it works). But the conclusion is not realistically going to change, only how it works. Did you catch that. Conclusion C is based on mechanisms A and B. Mechanisms A and B may change to fit the conclusion, but the conclusion C is here to stay.

31 July 2006
at 4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

I don't want to be accused of firing “off 50 false claims about science in the time it takes the scientist to correct ONE of them”, so directing this back to my question, what do you mean by your statement? or have you decide it wasn't exactly true:

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

31 July 2006
at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

WELL Kansas has made it on the MAP!! Just checked out Wikipedia….and YES we have a page that would make you so proud!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_e…

By the way check out Wiki on :

Discovery Institute. THese guys support succession of Washington and oregon with Britich COlumbia reverting into “Cascadia”.

What a bunch of loons!

31 July 2006
at 6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

asbestos, yes, what a bunch of loons. Laughable loons. But laughing is probably not the best or wisest action (at least not after the initial reaction from the absurd things they say), because they are deadly serious. They believe this crap. They MUST. They are brainwashed that to compromise on their creationist beliefs (and their world domination 'manifest destiny' sort of aspirations) is to FAIL their god…

Kodiac was dead on about gr. Probably from long experience with him. He came back rehashing all the same crap I've refuted already, trying some of it from a new angle, hoping to confuse the issue more, and when we get frustrated and throw up our arms, he wins by default (in his view and, he hopes, the view of everyone watching).

I didn't even see anything worth responding to, because it all looked like false claims we've already debunked. But when I have time, I'll look through it for anything worth commenting on.

Cascadia, huh?

British Columbia… I know Eastern Canada doesn't go in for creationist nonsense much (in general), but many areas in the prairies probably do (it's sort of our own “bible belt”). BC is on the other side of the Rockies. I'm not actually sure how successful the creationists have been at peddling their snake oil there.

31 July 2006
at 10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Cascadia is on the Discovery Institute site. They were the ones with that eminent domain theft of personal property for “economic development”, when the rail deal fell through…these yahoos sold the property at triple the value after stealing that private property in the first place.

These people have zero ethics. I have no clue why they fancy themselves “true christians”.

1 August 2006
at 9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane: “I didn't even see anything worth responding to, because it all looked like false claims we've already debunked.”

Not even explaining what you mean by your statement?

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

1 August 2006
at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

The last known fossil of the Wollemi Pine is established to be 2 million years ago. They have occurred UP TO 90 million years ago. Read Below:

“Before pollen from the Wollemi Pine became available, the closest match to the
species in the fossil record were leaves of a conifer called Araucariodies,
preserved in 50-65 million year old sediments in New Zealand and Tasmania. Dr
Mcphail found the pollen to be a match to a fossil pollen type first described
in Victoria in the early 1960s and now known to have occurred up to 90 million
years ago. This means that the Wollemi Pine would have been part of the
landscape when dinosaurs roamed.

Fossil pollen and spores are often used to provide a history for living plants.
The age and location of fossil pollens allow species to be traced over time
and place, building up an evolutionary framework. Pollen is a reliable marker
to look for as it produced by plants in vast amounts and survives very well
over time due to the strength of its cell wall. The appearance of pollen from
different plants is also very distinctive which means that precise
identification is often possible.

Thanks to petroleum exploration data, the Wollemi Pine has a well-established
fossil history. It is thought to have been moderately common in rainforest up
to around 30 million years ago, growing in Tasmania, at Bega and Bombala and
around a meteor impact crater near Perth. The most recent specimens have been
found in two million year old sediments in Bass Strait.

Sorry Gr you are wrong again. It is 2 million years.

I just love the way you completely avoided the rest of the things I was saying by saying that I just don't understand evolution. Really intelligent Gr and a way to completely avoid talking about any of the actual points that I brought up. Kind of like pigeons on the chessboard wouldn't you say.

Oh by the way, you do understand that the processes and mechanisms of evolution are always being “rewritten”. That is why it is not a belief system. It can be rewritten based on actual observations in nature and repeated testing. Evolution itself is an established fact but the way that evolution occurred is still being “rewritten”. That is the beauty of science Gr, self-correcting. Can't do that for a belief system.

1 August 2006
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

“Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

You of all people should know that many statements can be taken in many different ways. This statement is not about a specific species or a specific amount of time. If you read it in the context that it was in, it is about the fact that later species evolved from earlier species or the relationship between older and younger species. It is about evolution. There is nothing in this statement that says that a specific species has to live and die at a specific time.

1 August 2006
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

So about the pine, would you say it or a very similar relative was in existence 250 million years ago, pollen from it existed 90 million years ago (implying it did too), and continued to exist in the fossil record up to 2 million years ago. And the tree still exists today. I don't know why you are so insistent on emphasizing 2 million years ago other than confronting it's absence from the fossil record for “a long time”. I think this is another instance of we are each talking about different things. Did you think for some reason I didn't believe the pollen didn't exist 2 million years ago? That would be strange thinking from reading my last comments about it.

=========

“I just love the way you completely avoided the rest of the things I was saying by saying that I just don't understand evolution.”

Well, you can fire off 50 questions in the space of time it takes to answer one of them….

Pick one thing you are not wanting me to “avoid” and let's discuss it.

=========

“”Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

You of all people should know that many statements can be taken in many different ways. This statement is not about a specific species or a specific amount of time. If you read it in the context that it was in, it is about the fact that later species evolved from earlier species or the relationship between older and younger species. It is about evolution. There is nothing in this statement that says that a specific species has to live and die at a specific time.”

Actually, I am well aware that statements can mean different things. That's why I was asking gr8dane, what he meant. Notice that I have not been trying to say what it means after you pointed out what it means to you. However, I have not a good grasp on what gr8dane means by it. Nor for you for that matter other than it means something different to you other than what it initally appears to me.

1 August 2006
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah Gr,

Here is your statement from earlier

“but the general species exist as fossils 100 million years ago, and then, I believe, it doesn't show up any more.”

And then you say…

“Did you think for some reason I didn't believe the pollen didn't exist 2 million years ago”

Not pollen Gr fossil. Can you say it with me? They found fossils of this tree 2 million years ago. So your first statement is wrong. Not 100 million years ago, 2 million years ago. Please say they found a fossilized tree 2 million years ago….

So before it was there are disagreements over the actual dates and what species was what and now it is of course they exist 2 million years ago, the point being it was a long time ago. I don't know, sounds like to me you are changing your tune there Gr. You keep saying 100 or 90 million years ago as the last existing fossil of this tree but I have given you proof that the last known FOSSIL of this tree was only 2 million years ago and that fossil is in Australia (Bass Strait) which is where the only known members of the Wollemi exist today.

I did point out to you that IF (I say if because they are not really sure due to the coppicing) the tree does live 1000s of years then 2 million years ago really is not that long ago when talking about those kinds of life spans. It would be well within the realm of possibility for such a species to exist for long periods of time (millions of years) without fossils being discovered if they exist at low population levels, only in one area and are protected from the different environmental pressures being on an island.

1 August 2006
at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“Pick one thing you are not wanting me to “avoid” and let's discuss it.”

You said:

“The pine would not be expected to be rare to form fossils as some claim the fish to be.”

But the pine itself would be expect to be rare since its it is part of the conifer family whose populutions peaked about 300 million years ago with a worldwide distribution and have been dwindling over time. In fact it disappears completely from the fossil records of the northern hemisphere by the end of the Cretaceous period. The following statement from the site I have cited says:
“Until about the middle of the Tertiary (30 million years ago), plants in the Araucariaceae grew in the forests of the southern super-continent of Gondwana (which included Australia, Africa, South America, Antarctica and India). The Araucariaceae family then began a slow decline in range and diversity as flowering plants, better adapted to climate change, began to evolve and gradually displace conifers.”

So Gr your implication (of the tree being different than the fish) was completely irrelevant. The reason why fossils are not being found more recently for this tree is because it was being displaced as a species and it was being distributed less. You would have less of a chance of finding a fossil if fewer and fewer individuals actually exist. Plus the distribution patterns in the fossil record happen over a period of 300 to 2 million years. Not exactly an abrupt change.

“To say the tree is slightly different from the fossil record and therefore doesn't count would be an odd thing to say. ”

Again completely irrelevant.

“Evolutionists point out species changes in 100 years so why wouldn't you expect change in 100 million? The biggest issue is that it hasn't changed as much as expected.”

Again this is irrelevant when discussing a particular species. Scientists would not have the expectation of change if they were dealing with a species that clones itself, is in a severe bottle neck, and is found in one place in the entire world on an island protected from everything. Scientists also “expected” low genetic variability because this species is part of a family that has low genetic variability. Again you are not really making a valid point Gr.

Ok now discuss…..

1 August 2006
at 5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Sigh. Here we go. At least I hope this is slightly different from the bacteria paper.

“Not pollen Gr fossil. Can you say it with me? They found fossils of this tree 2 million years ago. So your first statement is wrong. Not 100 million years ago, 2 million years ago. Please say they found a fossilized tree 2 million years ago….”

First, you are discounting pollen from being fossils. (This sounds like you should be explaining this to me). Second, show me where they found non-pollen fossils of the tree 2 million years ago, and I'll believe you. I found where some stated they found pollen. Maybe you can show me where they found something else. Your link says, “The last fossil record of the Wollemi Pine is dated at about two million years ago”. It doesn't say what - whether pollen or otherwise. Your other quote started with, “Before pollen from the Wollemi Pine became available, ”

Please show me if it's not pollen, and we can move on from this.

==========

“So Gr your implication (of the tree being different than the fish) was completely irrelevant. The reason why fossils are not being found more recently for this tree is because it was being displaced as a species and it was being distributed less. You would have less of a chance of finding a fossil if fewer and fewer individuals actually exist.”

Now I see what you mean about me “avoiding”. I guess I did, as what you were saying was completely off from what I was saying. I had just read more about the fish (since you kept pointing it out, and figured you were conniving an attack, so I was heading you off at the beginning) and where they were explaining why you wouldn't find many fossils. I was only saying trees aren't in the deepest oceans and so therefore would imply more readily become fossils. But, what you say makes sense.

=======

“”To say the tree is slightly different from the fossil record and therefore doesn't count would be an odd thing to say. ”

Again completely irrelevant.”

Kodiac, that's what I just said. Do you not see that? Are we really having that much difficulty in communication or are you just trying to be disagreeable?

===========

“Again this is irrelevant when discussing a particular species. Scientists would not have the expectation of change if they were dealing with a species that clones itself, is in a severe bottle neck, and is found in one place in the entire world on an island protected from everything.”

And, I guess this is another “avoiding”. I just don't know what to say. Part of it deals with what gr8dane has yet to clarify (and yes, you've explained what it means to you several times). This is a point where I accuse you of rewriting evolution.

Evolution predicts changes over time except if species are cloned, lack variability, isolated,…., except, unless,….

I just don't know what to say.

1 August 2006
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Not even explaining what you mean by your statement? “Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

It's pretty self-explanatory. There are species alive now that didn't exist in the past. There were species then that aren't still around, either because they were modified by evolution enough that we consider them different species, or because they went extinct.

I believe, based on known species from the fossil record, the current estimate is that 98% of species tended to go extinct.

Going beyond my original statement (and your red herring speculation about what it meant), I could get technical here and say ALL species existing now did not exist, at some point. You creationists dishonestly use examples like your Wollemi pine and the crocodile and other species that SEEMED to be around for a long time relatively (and that's the operative word) unchanged. You cite these examples as if they disprove, or even are a problem for, evolution. They aren't. They perfectly fit what the theory predicts we'd find. No one says evolution happens at a constant rate. If a species is already well adapted to its habitat, with no pressure to adapt to something, they tend to change VERY slowly, as variations TEND to make those with them LESS well adapted, and thus tend to get filtered out by natural selection.

1 August 2006
at 9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Okay, just read Kodiac's post about the Wollemi Pine. Gee, a creationist making a false assertion again. What are the odds? I guess it's not like the crocodile and other species that creationists like to cite as remaining (relatively) unchanged for long periods. Although to a young earth creationist, even a few million is a “long period”, so it's all relative. *grin*

I'd never even heard of the Wollemi Pine before this, but that's a typical creationist tactic. Picking some little known species and claiming it somehow is a problem for biologists to explain using accepted evolutionary theory, when it's not.

The point is, creationists aren't after the truth. They are out to defend their dogma. Mostly out of ignorance, but even when you show them evidence their claims are wrong and/or science is right, they'll “interpret” it in a way that seems (no matter how flimsy) to support their claims, and they claim that it's the scientists who are actually doing that, fitting the evidence to the pre-chosen belief, when the opposite is true. We saw gr do that several times, to me alone, not to mention to others. This was even used as justification for his “science is just another religion, and creationism is TRUE science” assertions.

By the way, holygrailale is right that Karl Popper “recanted” on his assertion that natural selection was not testable. He also explained that even his original comments were taken out of context by creationists. A good explanation of it is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA…

1 August 2006
at 10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

If anyone noticed I'm treating gr differently, it's that I just can't take someone that seriously who basically asserts that “science is just another religion and (my) religion is TRUE science”, while showing he doesn't even understand science, either what it says, or why (including the evidence, and including how the scientific method is used to determine things).

This is while repeating already disproven lies like that science came up with evolution first, THEN tried to fit all evidence to it (basically creationists are projecting their OWN use of this trait onto science when they claim that), and that there is no evidence supporting it, and/or no observation of evolution happening today, no matter how many examples are given that disprove this assertion (like bacteria/insects/plants and other life evolving resistance to our antibiotics/insecticides/herbicides, etc, and even evolution to the point of speciation that we observe, in the wild and in the lab.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but the more dogmatic and dishonest they act, the more they lose credibility and respect, and I can't take them seriously. And I don't feel like rising to their bait and responding to every challenge they make. Especially if the answer is obvious if you are willing to think about it honestly, or if I (or someone else) has already answered it sufficiently. Creationists tend to be fanatics who sometimes even admit they'll NEVER accept evolution, no matter how well “proven”. That's why most scientists don't even want to respond to that silliness at all.

Me, I'll still answer questions from them, once (not over and over), even if it's obvious THEY won't listen, if there are others watching/listening who might learn something. Once I know the person I'm talking to is a fanatic, I'm not really talking to educate them, but to correct their false claims for people watching on the sidelines, who may be on the fence, not knowing enough either way, and inclined to believe the creationists' claims (which can SOUND reasonable if you don't know the scientific reasons why they are false). For too many years, not enough people have been doing this, and that's a big reason why so much of the USA is ignorant about what evolution is and why it's a scientific fact.

One thing I've only recently (last few years) noticed is that creationism is NOT just a fundamentalist view. They've been preaching their propaganda so long, a lot of non-fundie Christians, and even non-Christians, have started to swallow it. Sad. And I don't want to see them hijack the school system and use it to peddle their propaganda more efficiently.

2 August 2006
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

> Not even explaining what you mean by your statement? “Another fact that supports common ancestry: Species existing today did not exist in the past, and species from the past don't exist anymore, as they are extinct or modified today.”

Even though you rattled on for three posts, you didn't seem to get very specific, but as far as I can tell, you mean the following by it:

Some species live now, which didn't live in the past.
Some species lived in the past, which don't live now.
Some species live now and in the past.

So, I can only conclude your statement doesn't really mean much.

It is either raining or it isn't. That is a FACT, huh?

“I'd never even heard of the Wollemi Pine before this, but that's a typical creationist tactic. Picking some little known species…”

Just because YOU haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it's little known. Just do a search on the internet. In fact, you can even order the trees. It appears to be quite well known in Australia and in the news here. Maybe it's just something you aren't familiar with.

“and they claim that it's the scientists who are actually doing that,”

I don't know about others, but I've never claimed that. I have claimed evolutionists do that.

“This was even used as justification for his “science is just another religion, and creationism is TRUE science” assertions.”

Nope, I never said that. What are YOU trying to pull? (This is evidence that you are grasping for anything to prove your dogma). Your created quotes don't even make sense as it's circular reasoning.

Speak of avoiding, you say “no matter how many examples are given that disprove this assertion” in attempting to defend you have already disproven the assertion evolution has not been observed. You have not. You avoided the direct and distinct explanation of how one can observe mechanisms but not evolution (as you and everyone else knows what means). Then you intentionally jump back to claiming it has been observed. That's because you CAN'T observe evolution and that's why you are getting frustrated and so are making up things.

Never heard of the Wollemi Pine, nor probably many other organisms, and, if Kodiac is correct, no one knows even about much more than 10% of all currently living organisms, but yet can make assumptions that conclusions are FACT!

“I don't want to see them hijack the school system and use it to peddle their propaganda more efficiently.”

Why, would you rather see the school system hijacked to peddle a definition of evolution which you don't even agree with in whole (at least say you don't)?

2 August 2006
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I guess the whole point here is what does all of this have to do with “disproving” evolution. Evolution does not preclude species like the Wollemi Pine from existing. Here is your statement…

“Evolution predicts changes over time”

How does that statement conflict with the Wollemi Pine? I don't see any conflicts there. You see the word “predicts” in there. Does it say Evolution will change everything absolutely over absolute time. Does it say that if a species is not variable that it will always die or go extinct by a certain amount of time? Nope. It just makes a prediction which is based on a large number of observations. Sure we can rewrite evolution. Do you know why? It isn't a belief system. It can be rewritten. I don't understand why you sit there and whine like a little 3 year old stamping your feet saying no fair you can't change, you can't do that. Sure we can. Why can't we. I mean this is not a belief system Gr. This is all based on our observations and if we find something that is different we can ask questions about it. We can make changes in the theory to fit those new observations. For example we already know speices will go through genetic bottlenecks and can and will survive from it. Look at the cheetahs. They are of course of a much younger evolutionary age. I am just saying is can happen. It did happen, look at the Wollemi.

Here is your complete statement…

“Evolution predicts changes over time except if species are cloned, lack variability, isolated,…., except, unless,….”

Are you trying to say something here Gr. I don't see any valid points here. Maybe you should expand on this point. Give us your full understanding of what you are trying to say here. Be sure to include many examples of what you are talking about and give lots of definitons. Be sure to give us your alternative theory.

2 August 2006
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

(What about the pollen?)

Kodiac, my objection was not that scientists can “rewrite” evolution or any of the other “beauties” of science, but that YOU are.

You, and other evolutionists who are not scientists, who do not understand all there is, but who will quickly change major theories of evolutionists who are scientists.

That's my objection. You rewrite evolutionary theory to fit in with your current debate use. (Now I suppose you're going to claim I'm jumping to the other side). Do you really think the Wollemi Pines are going to result in an official rewriting of evolution? I know one article said “rethink”, but I doubt there will be any change. It will just be ignored.

2 August 2006
at 2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah Gr,

The pollen, well I can't get into some of the research papers that talk about morphological comparisons of Wollemi to later species of the same family. Apparently much of the fossils of leaves and bark are being reevaluated now to determine if the actually represent the Wollemi instead of closely similar species. I don't have time right now to go get all of this information which would require a visit to Linda Hall or Anshutz Library. I was reading about fossil specimans of the Wollemi were being discovered 2 million years ago in Australia but then the document I was reading from never says what it means by specimans so I was trying to find writings that say leaves or bark. The point being is I know and see from the creation sites that they are really hyping up about this pollen bit and dismissing it as being something you can't use to say what the timeframe this species is in or even what type of species it is. So I already know where you are trying to go because unlike you I read everything. Maybe not comprehending everything but I do recognize where you are getting your ideas anyway. At any rate, this is a common tactic with the creationist which is really a distortion of what is really happening in the field. There are several efforts underway right now to go back through the fossil record currently available and look at them in light of the new species of Wollemi pine. Again you commented on a confusion with the actual age and the only “confusion” I am finding is being promoted by creationists. You might to reevaluate the statement that the “oldest known fossils” found were 90 million years ago meaning that younger fossils have also been found. Note how that does not read “the last known fossil”. Almost every non-creationist site I have found all indicate that scientists thought that this species went extinct 2 million years ago. But actually now that is under question because now they are finding more recent fossilized pollen in Australia. So you see how there is still a tremondous amount information being put out by the researchers on this species and yet all of that is being ignored because it doesn't work very well when you are trying to argue from a specific creationist position.

But of course all of this is unnecessary since you do seem to agree that it would be more and more difficult to keep finding fossils (as in leaves branches, and pollen) if there are less and less individuals around. Also I was reading that the fossils of leaves and branches or bark would be much less likely to form given their enviroment that they are limited to such as the drier soils. Pollen on the other hand are far more likely to be found because of their waxy nature and their ability to disperse.

2 August 2006
at 2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Now Gr,

I want you to find that sentence that says “rethink” and let us know if it is evolution they are rethinking or is it “genetic theory”. Notice the difference. But I see that you chose to leave that out and let the reader think it said evolution. Did it say evolution or did it say genetic theory?

Just trying to figure out what is it you actually read there Gr. As I said before evolution itself is no longer question and established fact. The processes and mechanisms still are being debated and yes “rewritten”.

Again no details on your own alternative theory, no definitions, no validity….

Just whining….

2 August 2006
at 4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“So I already know where you are trying to go ”

Except I'm not.

“Note how that does not read “the last known fossil”. Almost every non-creationist site I have found all indicate that scientists thought that this species went extinct 2 million years ago.”

Kodiac, I may have said something like you are wanting me to say on initially reading the National Geographic site. But, did you miss where I said I think we are talking about two different things? Forget the 2 million years - It exists TODAY!

Two million or not, you admit it existed 90 million years ago, relatives exist 150 - does that change anything about it not changing? Does existing 90 through 2 million years ago sound like an exception?

“now they are finding more recent fossilized pollen in Australia.”

No, duh! You'll find living pollen if you look under the trees themselves.

Why do you seem to always resist when I point out we are talking about different things? That's where I get this “script” business. You are anticipating what you think I'm going to say and I'm saying something else. Unfortunately, your current script is “all you've got”. So, you read from the script anyway.

“I want you to find that sentence that says “rethink” and let us know if it is evolution they are rethinking or is it “genetic theory”.”

Whatever. You're right. There is a big difference and I mistakenly generalized it. That was a long time ago, and I forgot what it said. So, that emphasizes my point all the more. Evolutionary theory will not change just because of the tree and organisms like it - they will be ignored.

–––

“As I said before evolution itself is no longer question and established fact. The processes and mechanisms still are being debated and yes “rewritten”.”

Kodiac, leaving all the emotion behind and taking the statement as you put it (maybe you meant differently), does that sound reasonable to you - just the logic now, not what it's talking about?

A conclusion is based upon processes and mechanisms.
The processes and mechanisms may not fully explain the conclusion.
Therefore, the processes and mechanisms may be “rewritten” or otherwise reworked to better explain the conclusion.

2 August 2006
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Even though you rattled on for three posts, you didn't seem to get very specific

Actually, I was as specific as I needed to be. That's all I said in the original statement, in the context I used it in. YOU were the one trotting out all those red herrings and misconceptions of what I said.

gr said:
> but as far as I can tell, you mean the following by it:
Some species live now, which didn't live in the past.
Some species lived in the past, which don't live now.
Some species live now and in the past.

More misconceptions, based on your dishonest attempts to equivocate. You are acting like “the past” is a set event. It's not. It's ALL of TIME before NOW.

That's why I didn't need to, nor could I, “get more specific” about my original statement. It was kept general on purpose, because “the past” wasn't defined either. If you want to get technical, ALL species did not exist at SOME point in the past. And at SOME point in the past, ALL species that existed then no longer exist now.

I could even twist your third statement and say ALL species existed now and in the past. IF you define “the past” as five seconds ago. See how that works?

The fossil record clearly shows that species from the past stopped existing… either by going extinct, or by evolving into new species. Sometimes both (going extinct, after one or more populations of sub-species branched off of them). The fossil record also clearly shows the species existing now did NOT exist before certain periods, but a line of transitional species did.

You can deny that all you like, or equivocate it away by confusing strawman tactics and red herrings like “well, is that 100% of species, or 99% or 51%?” and acting like “the past” is a single specific event or time. Doesn't change that it's a scientific fact.

Moving on.

You still have yet to show the Wollemi pine was created/formed at the Big Bang. So I'll take that as an admission you lied.

2 August 2006
at 5:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Just because YOU haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it's little known. Just do a search on the internet. In fact, you can even order the trees. It appears to be quite well known in Australia and in the news here. Maybe it's just something you aren't familiar with.

More equivocation. Ask the average person on the street, and most probably don't know what it is. And it's a red herring, as it's NOT what you claimed it was. Kodiac showed that quite well. Kudos. I had no interest in that as I knew it was a red herring.

gr said:
> “and they claim that it's the scientists who are actually doing that,” I don't know about others, but I've never claimed that. I have claimed evolutionists do that.

More equivocation. The evolutionists ARE the scientists.

There are two main definitions of “evolutionist” that are at all valid. 1) scientists (mostly biologists) who actually work on evolutionary theory and related fields. 2) anyone who is educated enough to know evolution is a scientific fact, and at least a general grasp of what it is and how it works.

I prefer the first definition. The second (and more common usage) leads to semantical abuses like:

Creationists having a third definition: “Anyone who believes in evolution”. You guys dishonestly, dogmatically assert that 1) it's an “unproven belief” and is NOT the central unifying theory of biology (implying that it's not REALLY science, as if there are plenty of scientists who reject it when there aren't) and 2) that the average person on the street who accepts evolution “because scientists say so” without actually understanding it themselves (just as they accept gravity, electromagnetism, and thousands of other things as true without understanding the science of it) makes it “just another faith, like ours” instead of “science”.

The first assertion is wrong because you dishonestly claim some controversy in science where none exists. The tiny number of scientists who reject evolution (especially that it even happens at all) do so purely for religious reasons. Even if they use their knowledge of science to make up scientific sounding arguments (like the completely refuted “irreducible complexity” bugaboo of Michael Behe).

Personally, I think using the term “evolutionist”, other than referring to scientists who work in a field dealing with evolution and our understanding of how it works, is as silly as calling everyone “who believes in gravity” a gravitationalist. And evolution, like gravity, is still a scientific fact, no matter how many people “believe in” it, or why they do (evidence or because they're told it's true), which is why the second assertion is false.

2 August 2006
at 5:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah Gr,

Back with the script are we. Really Gr you need to stop letting your emotions drive you. I can't help it that this is all so upsetting for you. You sound like a politician trying to dodge a question when directly confronted. Uh Uh that was a long time ago….Uh I can't remember…. um um I was just trying to make a generalization.. or how about a misdirect…..uh see that just proves my point that everything is being ignored.

Hmm Hmm. Well ok. Yes I can just see it now all these publications that scientists have been putting out the last 10 years on the Wollemi Pine means they are just completely ignoring it aren't they. Yeah you are right, they are really trying to sweep it under the rug. Like some big conspiracy. And there's that “other organisms” you keep talking about like you got some big list somewhere.

“Two million or not, you admit it existed 90 million years ago, relatives exist 150 - does that change anything about it not changing? Does existing 90 through 2 million years ago sound like an exception?”

So now you have “relatives” now is it. Then you are saying “not changing”. So tell me Gr, you must have intimate detailed knowledge of what the genetic variation of what the relatives were at 150 million years, and then the species at 90 million and then 2 million. See how you twisted that. Where does the “not changing” come from. What do we actually know here. There is a group of individuals in the Wollemi pine genus that exist today that show low genetic variability. They are similar to other species in the same family of Aurac. But now you are telling me that you have proof that these species are genetically identical to the species from 90 million years ago. Really now. That is news to me. I didn't know they could compare genes from fossils to the genes of species living today. So tell me Gr what is that is “not changing”? Also have you not been paying attention. How widespread is this genus, or even this family. Hmmm. Yeah. Down to their last handful individuals. We could have just wiped them out completely. No one would have been the wiser. Yet as always science seems to be determined to report everything. Damn those scientists.

“A conclusion is based upon processes and mechanisms.
The processes and mechanisms may not fully explain the conclusion.
Therefore, the processes and mechanisms may be “rewritten” or otherwise reworked to better explain the conclusion.”

And pray tell me what is that conclusion Gr. What conclusion do you think processes and mechanisms explain. Does it explain that it did happen or does it explain how it happened? What is the difference between processes and mechanisms and the actual observations that we can observe in the natural world. Logic dictates that you recognize a difference between what has happened and how it happened. Think about it Gr.

2 August 2006
at 5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

So to sum up last post, equivocating that it's the evolutionists, not the scientists, who are “dogmatic” about evolution is dishonest because it falsely implies evolution is NOT the universally accepted fact it is, that there is actual disagreement in science about the main mechanisms of it, much less about whether it happens. There isn't. Nor are scientists (which you dishonestly call “evolutionists”) “dogmatic” about it. The fact is, you have no evidence against evolution, and they have plenty FOR it. Far more than enough that it would be “perverse to withhold provisional consent” that it happens. You're the one demonstrating dogmatic responses in refusing to accept this evidence and the conclusions science makes about it.

gr said:
> “This was even used as justification for his “science is just another religion, and creationism is TRUE science” assertions.” Nope, I never said that. What are YOU trying to pull? (This is evidence that you are grasping for anything to prove your dogma). Your created quotes don't even make sense as it's circular reasoning.

Well, you're already an admitted liar, so that you're lying again about something you blatantly said earlier is not really surprising to me. You DID assert evolution and science are “just another religion”, with the usual “you are dogmatic” and “you interpret evidence to fit your conclusion” and other common creationist assertions and projections, no matter how many times they've been proven false. You DID assert that creationism is TRUE science, as if the scientific community will someday “catch up” with you creationists and accept this, as if creationism hasn't already been tried and failed.

No, those are not direct quotes from you. Nor did I claim they were. But they are accurate summations of what you argued. Same with the parts in quotes in my older messages. I'm guessing that's why you're saying “nope, never said that”, because they aren't direct quotes. But it IS what you said, nevertheless. Everyone else saw you do it. Lying about it won't save your bacon. If I cared enough about you, and thought you'd retract claims shown false, I'd go up and give direct quotes from you backing that up, but my messages are already verbose enough, and everyone else can read it fine in your original messages.

2 August 2006
at 5:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I forgot to add. We have certainly discussed alot concerning the Wollemi pine and maybe are trying to get down into the nitty gritty of its life history and trying to see how that fits in with our current genetic paradigm. Then you keep bringing up the overall theory of evolution and somehow think that this discussion is having any kind of impact on the overall concept of evolution.

Here is something to think about Gr…

Evolution is the central unifying concept of biology. Like Theodosius Dobzhansky argued “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

The evidence for the facts of evolution include the fossil record, biogeography, molecular biology, genetics, morphology, genetics, cell biology, and embrylogy. The fossil record provides concrete evidence for speciation, shows systemic changes with a definite time progression in almost all cases, and intermediate forms. Homologies-common features in the anatomy of different organisms also support descent from common ancestry which are consistent with the fossil record. Biogeography demonstrates the distribution of species that develop independently when for geological or other reasons species become isolated and more species develop whenever the environment is more isolated and offers less competition from existing life. How about the evidence of relatedness of very different-seeming animals both in form and in common genes given by embryology. Oh maybe the DNA and proteins that are similar but not exactly the same in many different organisms shown by molecular biology. Such results can be cross-checked with the other evidence of evolution and the progessions that are deduced coincide.

All I can say Gr is that we may have a long long way to go…

2 August 2006
at 5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr, as for your assertions that there is no observation of evolution happening, and that we haven't (and can't) give any, that's horsepucky also. I know I've given several already, including that bacteria and viruses and insects and plants and other organisms evolve to adapt to things, including what we throw at them to kill them. Another is the black and white moth example creationists like to attack and falsely claim is invalid. Many others. The journals and literature are full of examples of observed evolution. Yes. Even including up to the point of speciation (the beginning of “macro” evolution). I know of ten or more such examples of observed speciation. Some of my biologist friends can give me hundreds more.

One particular method of speciation, involving “Ring Species”, is especially fascinating to me.

Definition of Ring Species: Situation in which two reproductively isolated populations living in the same region are connected by a geographic ring of populations that can interbreed.

What that means is (in my own words), a species will spread out, often around some natural barrier (mountain range, sea, etc, even around the world), and when the outer edges of them meet up again around the obstacle, they are basically two different species from each other… even though they can interbreed with their neighbours back the OTHER way, and they with theirs, right around the circle.

This would only be possible if science is correct about evolution, and if the creationists are wrong about micro and macro being two different processes, one possible and observed and the other impossible, blocked by some unknown barrier to speciation they can't explain or even prove exists.

Some ring species links:

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolu…

An example of a Ring Species (Salamanders): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/lib…

Songbird shows how evolution works: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1…

More about Ring Species: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

I had a few more good ones, but the links are dead now, and I haven't had the time to check if they just moved to a different URL.

And these are just about Ring Speciation. There are many more examples of more general speciation I can give you.

Typically, when I do, creationists continue to deny they exist, or deny these are examples of observed, tested evolution (all are, even the bacteria adapting to our antibiotics), or play silly semantic games like “moving the goalposts”, widening the definition of evolution… if you say you will show observed evolution, and you cite bacteria, they go “that's just a single trait, not a new species”. If you show speciation (new species), they say crap like “yeah but that's still a bacteria or worm or fruit fly [or whatever the example was], not a NEW species, like showing dogs evolving from cats!”.

2 August 2006
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “Back with the script are we. Really Gr you need to stop letting your emotions drive you. I can't help it that this is all so upsetting for you. You sound like a politician trying to dodge a question when directly confronted. Uh Uh that was a long time ago….Uh I can't remember…. um um I was just trying to make a generalization.. or how about a misdirect…..uh see that just proves my point that everything is being ignored.”

Oh come on Kodiac! I explain why and you even criticize my admission of error.

Are you toying with me?

Then you add,
“Yes I can just see it now all these publications that scientists have been putting out the last 10 years on the Wollemi Pine means they are just completely ignoring it aren't they.”

You know full well what I meant. Don't pull an Ale on me.

2 August 2006
at 7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Hmm, I should have checked it first. The last link in my Ring Species section seems to be dead now. It redirects to their new domain name, I guess. Oh well. The nature of the web.

I'm sure there are lots of other good webpages about ring species, if you look for them.

2 August 2006
at 7:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I'm not trying to pull an “Ale” on you. I am trying to understand exactly what you are saying. You said that they are ignoring this species in terms of evolution and I merely pointed out to you actually the opposite it true. They are looking at this species very carefully. I think the actual researchers on this program are giddy with how much the media has paid attention to them. All of them are looking at how it fits in with genetic theory and what exactly is the evolutionary history of this species. In fact, finding this species has been an evolutionary gold mine because it is helping researchers clarify actual evolutionary relationships and it has given them a better understanding of how to look at the fossils especially of pollen. How can you sit there and say they ignoring it Gr. Hell half the freaking papers you pull up on this species is something about evolutionary patterns or history. And you are telling me they are ignoring it??????!!!!!!

What is exactly is it do you think they are “ignoring”?

2 August 2006
at 8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Here is a 2005 article on the Wollemi Pine I found in the American Scientist that I thought you might enjoy reading.

http://www.geol.lu.se/personal/VIV/Mc…

Of course you might find it suspect since they don't say anything about how it might “disprove” evolution….

3 August 2006
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

“Ale Maneuver”? I only know the “Picard Maneuver”… :P

3 August 2006
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane,

What??? Don't know the Ale Maneuver????!!

Gasp Sacrilige!

:-O

I practice the Ale Maneuver every chance I get…

The only thing I struggle with here is trying to decide whether to go with the Stout or the Pale….

:-p

3 August 2006
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Oh, THAT Ale Maneuver… :) I know the maneuver itself. We're taught it from a young age. We just don't call it that up here in Canada.

3 August 2006
at 7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac:
>”A conclusion is based upon processes and mechanisms.
The processes and mechanisms may not fully explain the conclusion.
Therefore, the processes and mechanisms may be “rewritten” or otherwise reworked to better explain the conclusion.”

“And pray tell me what is that conclusion Gr. What conclusion do you think processes and mechanisms explain. Does it explain that it did happen or does it explain how it happened? What is the difference between processes and mechanisms and the actual observations that we can observe in the natural world. ”

I believe you tell me the conclusion is Evolution.

“Logic dictates that you recognize a difference between what has happened and how it happened. Think about it Gr.”

That sounds like, “but here we are”, type of logic.

3 August 2006
at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“I could even twist your third statement and say ALL species existed now and in the past. IF you define “the past” as five seconds ago. See how that works?”

gr8dane, I realize you were being general about the word “past”. I wasn't holding you to any specific time. What I'm wanting to know is what you mean by the statement, if anything.

If you mean, “If you want to get technical, ALL species did not exist at SOME point in the past. And at SOME point in the past, ALL species that existed then no longer exist now.”

And at that point, if you mean by red herring you are objecting to me pointing out the pointlessness of your statement, I guess you're right.

=============

“More equivocation. The evolutionists ARE the scientists.”

Wrong. Evolutionists MAY be scientists just like creationists MAY be scientists. ALL evolutionists are not scientists (you for example), neither are all creationists scientists. Scientists may be evolutionists or creationists. If you prefer your first definition, go back and read your SOME and ALL species bit. Saying evolutionists are the one and the same as scientists is an improper equivocation on your part.

Scratch all that (I left it in so you'd see what I thought you meant), you explained it below. Ok, so you are narrowing evolutionists to scientists who work with evolution. Guess that would make them scientists. Thank you for clarifying that. I had used the term more generally than you meant. So, what would you call a non-scientists who believe in evolution? Would you also say a creationist is a scientist who ?works in a field dealing with creation?

========

“The first assertion is wrong because you dishonestly claim some controversy in science where none exists. The tiny number of scientists who reject evolution (especially that it even happens at all) do so purely for religious reasons.”

Another statement. Should I ask you to explain what it means before I confront it? Shall you generalize it to the extent that it means nothing different from “it is raining or it's not”?

“So to sum up last post, equivocating that it's the evolutionists, not the scientists, who are “dogmatic” about evolution is dishonest because it falsely implies evolution is NOT the universally accepted fact it is,”

gr8dane, saying evolution is NOT a universally accepted fact is my main point. That is not dishonest of me. It may be dishonest of you to say it is. Before I even took logic classes, my teachers would give tips on test taking and say when a question use “all” and the like, the question is most likely false. You just said there were a few scientists who didn't believe in evolution. Now maybe you are saying universally means something like “most”, “some”, ….

It is also my point evolution cannot be a fact because only the mechanisms are observed. Evolution is a conclusion from the facts. Conclusions change based upon new facts.

3 August 2006
at 7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Nor are scientists (which you dishonestly call “evolutionists”) “dogmatic” about it.”
But that is the opposite of what you said. Evolutionists are scientists, but that doesn't mean all scientists are evolutionists.

“The fact is, you have no evidence against evolution, and they have plenty FOR it. ”

Ok, what kind of evidence would I need. And don't go off on “how many angels can dance on a pin” type of nonsense.

“You're the one demonstrating dogmatic responses in refusing to accept this evidence and the conclusions science makes about it.”

Is it not scientifically acceptable to question whether the current conclusion is correct or if different conclusions should be made about observable facts? Even long held ones?

“No, those are not direct quotes from you. Nor did I claim they were. But they are accurate summations of what you argued.”

Nope. You substituted in science for evolution. Evolutionists may be scientists as you say, but evolution is not equal to science. Unless you are using evolution is a branch of science bit. But, that still doesn't mean you can substitute in a specific for a general.

Saying I think science in general is a religion is dishonesty on your part. But, your intent is to show I'm some sort of wacko and the intentionally switching of terms is just one tactic you use, isn't it.

If we were arguing whether the earth is flat or not, confronting me with facts such as what happens if you go in a straight line would be a simple task. However, if I were to respond such as, well I don't like boats, or I wouldn't want to fall off the edge so why would I want to go in a straight line, would show I am wacko. However, this case seems to be the opposite….

“I know I've given several already, including that bacteria and viruses and insects and plants and other organisms evolve to adapt to things, including what we throw at them to kill them.”

You're still not getting it. You have shown mechanisms. You have shown adaptation to the environment. You have shown breeding barriers. All quite interesting and what I've studied in school.

“This would only be possible if science is correct about evolution, and if the creationists are wrong about micro and macro being two different processes, one possible and observed and the other impossible, blocked by some unknown barrier to speciation they can't explain or even prove exists.”

Still doesn't make it an observed FACT. Only an observed mechanism which “may” or “could” result in evolution “: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms.”

3 August 2006
at 8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> If you mean, “If you want to get technical, ALL species did not exist at SOME point in the past. And at SOME point in the past, ALL species that existed then no longer exist now.”
> And at that point, if you mean by red herring you are objecting to me pointing out the pointlessness of your statement, I guess you're right.

I suppose from a creationist viewpoint, it IS pointless. And it must forever remain so. Or you MIGHT have to accept evolution is the obvious fact that it is. Oh no! We can't have that! :-O

Too bad it makes a valid point to the rest of us. It's a statement of what we observe in the fossil record. And it's clear support of evolution.

Another reason I'm glad I'm not a creationist. I'd be required to believe anything not fitting my dogma is “pointless”…

gr said:
>”The first assertion is wrong because you dishonestly claim some controversy in science where none exists. The tiny number of scientists who reject evolution (especially that it even happens at all) do so purely for religious reasons.”
> Another statement. Should I ask you to explain what it means before I confront it? Shall you generalize it to the extent that it means nothing different from “it is raining or it's not”?

Like all the other statements you wanted me to explain, it's pretty self-explanatory already. The next paragraph you quoted even further explained it, so moving on…

3 August 2006
at 8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> gr8dane, saying evolution is NOT a universally accepted fact is my main point. That is not dishonest of me. It may be dishonest of you to say it is. Before I even took logic classes, my teachers would give tips on test taking and say when a question use “all” and the like, the question is most likely false. You just said there were a few scientists who didn't believe in evolution. Now maybe you are saying universally means something like “most”, “some”, ….

This is not a test, and we're not asking questions just to trip up unwary students. Nor did anyone use “all” and the like. I used “universally accepted” because there is a pretty solid consensus among scientists (especially ones actually read up on and especially those working in fields related to evolution) that evolution happens.

The tiny number of scientists (defined in this instance as people with the required degrees to qualify for the term) who reject evolution as factual do so purely for religious reasons, not scientific. Thus, from the viewpoint of science, there are no valid arguments or evidence against evolution, and it's universal (or near enough the distinction doesn't matter) that evolution is a scientifically accepted factual observed process, and that the theory, while incomplete, is a pretty good explanation of the process, with no alternative theory, or need for one. Evolution works.

Creationists try to get around this by trying to manufacture a controversy where one does not exist. You claim it's NOT so well accepted in science as it is, and even assert that it's becoming LESS so when the reverse is true and has been for almost 150 years. You claim to have an alternative scientific theory (ID creationism), but don't. Even the IDers admit they have no theory yet, much less evidence.

“We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” —Dr. Paul Nelson. “The Measure of Design.” Touchstone magazine, 2004.

Mind you, other creationists have admitted ID isn't about science. It's about religion. It's about proselytizing Christianity. I think a far more important quote comes from Phillip Johnson, as it truly reveals what ID is all about: “The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'”

That right there explains ALL of your dishonest argumentation and rhetorical tactics. All smoke and mirrors. Mind you, you're good at it; I'll grant you that. But I see it for what it is.

3 August 2006
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> It is also my point evolution cannot be a fact because only the mechanisms are observed. Evolution is a conclusion from the facts. Conclusions change based upon new facts.

No. Evolution is a factually observed process. We can and do see populations change. It's the mechanisms we infer. We don't directly see mutations happen. But we study the genes of the parent, and the offspring, and see mutations IN them. We can infer how they happen. We don't directly see natural selection, although it's reasonable that would happen, based on what we know. And the results (adaptation) are what we'd expect if it were happening.

But it's a fact that we observe, both in the lab and in the wild, species changing, generation by generation, faster when there is more pressure on them to adapt or go extinct. We've observed evolutionary change hundreds or even thousands of times faster than any known degree of change found in the fossil record, which supports Gould and Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium theory that species may remain (relatively) the same for long periods, then have sudden bursts of evolution when their habitat changes in some way and they must adapt to it.

Also, yes, conclusions can change based on the facts and evidence. However, the evidence and facts all support that evolution happens factually.

Continuing in that line of thought, you also said:
> Is it not scientifically acceptable to question whether the current conclusion is correct or if different conclusions should be made about observable facts? Even long held ones?

Yes. Even long held ones can change. However, sometimes in science, conclusions are SO well supported by evidence and testing, over such a long time, that science is no longer actively trying to disprove it or find further evidence to support it. That evolution happens is one such thing. Does that mean you or another creationist or even a scientist who is a creationist cannot go out and try to find such evidence against it, maybe even come up with a competing scientific theory (there are none yet) that hopefully explains the evidence and observations better than the currently accepted theory (evolution)? No. You can do whatever you like. And as soon as you have something valid to publish, it will be peer-reviewed and the scientific community will judge how good of a case you made. But that same community is no longer even trying to “prove evolution”. It's well enough supported they don't have to. For example:

“Scientists most often use the word 'fact' to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.” - National Academy of Sciences

3 August 2006
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> Nope. You substituted in science for evolution. Evolutionists may be scientists as you say, but evolution is not equal to science. Unless you are using evolution is a branch of science bit. But, that still doesn't mean you can substitute in a specific for a general.
> Saying I think science in general is a religion is dishonesty on your part. But, your intent is to show I'm some sort of wacko and the intentionally switching of terms is just one tactic you use, isn't it.

No one said evolution is EQUAL to science. It is, however, science. In the same way corvettes are cars. One is a subset of the other. YOU asserted it's NOT science, but religion instead.

And creationist dishonesty goes further. You don't just attack evolutionary biology, a valid and well accepted part of science. You attack many areas of science. Young Earth Creationists attack the most (short of Flat Earth Creationists, of course). I don't recall from your earlier posts if you yourself are a YEC, or if you are a more “moderate” creationist, Old Earth Creationist or something similar. The farther you go toward YEC, the more science you have to deny. From what I recall, you did paint the old age of the earth and other parts of science as “evolutionist dogma”, but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. But the point is, creationists don't just attack evolution (a valid PART of science), but many other things. Physics and cosmology (including big bang), chemistry, geology, biology (abiogenesis as well as evolution), etc. You just tend to slam ALL that unwanted science together and slap a big “Evolution!” label on it, and imply it's ALL based on a “materialistic evolutionistic assumption” or similar nonsense.

That is why I substituted science. Two reasons: 1) evolution is NOT science, but it's very much a PART of science, and 2) you guys don't just attack evolution, you attack so much other science.

But feel free to continue painting me as the dishonest one. I'm used to it.

3 August 2006
at 9:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

GR, put a fork in it it is done. Whether you like it or not, the rightful and correct science standards will be replaced, and Corkins is fired!

The fat lady is singing, the old hound dawg is howlin', however you want to put it, it is OVER.

Thank you for playing, but would you PLEASE return to your original programming.

3 August 2006
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Whew man, shouldn't have drank those stouts because now I will probably embarress myself but oh well here it goes….

So is this something we are going to go round and round about the merry go round Gr or are going to be able to connect or agree on what we are talking about. Who knows but then again who cares…

“I believe you tell me the conclusion is Evolution.”

“It is also my point evolution cannot be a fact because only the mechanisms are observed. Evolution is a conclusion from the facts. Conclusions change based upon new facts.”

So are you talking about the fact that evolution has happened or are you talking about the theories and hypothesis of HOW evolution happened. I know that you don't want to separate them out Gr but of course that is reality for you. Yet another creationist tactic to the rescue. Y'all love to just highlight every little debate that scientists have over mechanisms and processes, essentially the hows of evolution, and love to hide the fact that everything they are debating about is in view of the FACT of evolution. Evolution is a well-established fact. If you don't agree with that Gr then you need to deal with the observations in the fossil record, biogeography, molecular biology, genetics, morphology, cell biology, and embrylogy. These are not just about processes or mechanisms we are talking about here, these are real world observations in real time. You are not paying attention to the larger picture here Gr and the larger picture tells us overwhemingly, evolution has happened. It has happened like gravity happens or heliocentrality happens. It is a part of life girl. You want to talk about those things, we can talk about those things.

It is like you are arguing about gravitational theory. Why don't you guys go over to the physcists (and oh I don't know if they are all scientist or some scientists or blah blah whatever that was all about) and start telling them that gravity is not a fact. What don't you tell them the Sphaghetti Monster is pushing all of us down with his noodly appendages. You do understand they all argue about processes and mechanisms and they don't have it figured out. Why don't you guys bother them for a while. Oh I see gravity doesn't threaten your fundamental religious views concerning creation.

3 August 2006
at 9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“You're still not getting it. You have shown mechanisms. You have shown adaptation to the environment. You have shown breeding barriers. All quite interesting and what I've studied in school.”

You aren't getting it Gr. Don't you get it, it is about change. If you recognize adaptations as change then such changes can have more changes or such changes can die out. Extinction happens because of change. Speciation happens because of change. Species become reproductively isolated from each other because of change. What do you expect here? Do you have this expectation that you should be able to see a Dog changing into a cat? That isn't what happens. What is it you want girl?

“If we were arguing whether the earth is flat or not, confronting me with facts such as what happens if you go in a straight line would be a simple task. However, if I were to respond such as, well I don't like boats, or I wouldn't want to fall off the edge so why would I want to go in a straight line, would show I am wacko. However, this case seems to be the opposite….”

Ok start responding here girl….

Here is a bunch of topics Pick one and lets discuss

The fossil record provides concrete evidence for speciation, shows systemic changes with a definite time progression in almost all cases, and intermediate forms.

Homologies-common features in the anatomy of different organisms also support descent from common ancestry which are consistent with the fossil record.

Biogeography demonstrates the distribution of species that develop independently when for geological or other reasons species become isolated and more species develop whenever the environment is more isolated and offers less competition from existing life.

Evidence of relatedness of very different-seeming animals both in form and in common genes given by embryology. Oh maybe the DNA and proteins that are similar but not exactly the same in many different organisms shown by molecular biology.

3 August 2006
at 10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane,

Actually Gr is a YEC. I have noticed for the most part that she has avoided talking about it for whatever reason. Based on her previous posts though, she has tried to bring YEC beliefs into some of her arguments. Usually though when she does start talking about it, she will end up backing into a corner and then drop it. So your recollections and or suspicions are right on the money.

You know I find the comment of Gr being good at rhetorical tactics to be curious. Never really thought abou it I guess. Usually once you start getting down to the nitty grittys or the actual research or the heart of the matter, Gr usually will gradually drop the topic, disappear and then reappear with something new. My guess is, our conversations concerning the Wollemi Pine are over with. So I am giddy with excitement looking forward to learning more about some unique aspect of evolution and evolutionary theory.

3 August 2006
at 11:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac, that was the impression I got, that Gr was a YEC. I thought I remembered YEC argumentation… But I wasn't sure, and I was too lazy to scroll up and scan through all her posts to see.

What I meant by rhetorical tactics is just that she's a sophist, better than the average rank and file creationist who just spouts slogans, but not MUCH better. She actually responds to arguments, but selectively, choosing the ones she thinks are “weak” or can be misinterpretted or strawmanned or “refuted” by false assertions or sidetracked by emotive arguments and red herrings. I just meant since she doesn't have science or evidence on her side, she uses rhetoric to attack with.

I didn't mean that I actually respect her and her actions. I don't find dogmatic fanaticism and dishonesty all that commendable. As a “fellow Christian” (even though they deny I am), I find creationists embarassing in general.

4 August 2006
at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“Thus, from the viewpoint of science, there are no valid arguments or evidence against evolution, and it's universal (or near enough the distinction doesn't matter)”

Okay. Glad you explained what “universal” is.

“The tiny number of scientists (defined in this instance as people with the required degrees to qualify for the term) who reject evolution as factual do so purely for religious reasons, not scientific.”

I had just read an article saying scientists from Communist China don't have the “ideological blindness” of Western scientists. And they are not Biblical Creationists. Any truth to that?

Attributed to the Guang Ming Daily,
“In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory…. In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion.” Guess there's others who think the same. Maybe scientists from other countries are part of the “tiny number”?

“That right there explains ALL of your dishonest argumentation and rhetorical tactics. All smoke and mirrors. Mind you, you're good at it;”

If others do something, and I happen to believe any part of what they believe, then I'm guilty? Well, I read someone was being charged criminally for misusing funds for science. He MAY have believed in evolution. You do. Therefore, you are guilty of misusing funds?

“No. Evolution is a factually observed process. We can and do see populations change.”

Again, the bait and switch of “evolution”.

“No one said evolution is EQUAL to science. It is, however, science. In the same way corvettes are cars. One is a subset of the other. YOU asserted it's NOT science, but religion instead.”

However, I said corvettes are too expensive. You switched that around and said I claimed that cars are too expensive. (they may be, but not what I said)

“As a “fellow Christian” (even though they deny I am), ”

Which you picked and chose not to define.

4 August 2006
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,

“So are you talking about the fact that evolution has happened or are you talking about the theories and hypothesis of HOW evolution happened. I know that you don't want to separate them out Gr but of course that is reality for you. Yet another creationist tactic to the rescue.”

Actually, saying evolution has happened is the conclusion from the observable facts of supposedly how it happened.

People like to find evidence to support their conclusions. Evolutionists and creationists both observe the facts. They each find support - and some areas not explained.

“These are not just about processes or mechanisms we are talking about here, these are real world observations in real time. ”

Umm, processes and mechanisms are not observed?

“If you recognize adaptations as change then such changes can have more changes or such changes can die out. ”

That just struck me as “the trickle down effect”.

“Homologies-common features in the anatomy of different organisms also support descent from common ancestry which are consistent with the fossil record.”

Bicycles have wheels, cars have wheels. But, wait, they are designed, and more importantly, they are not alive. How does being “alive” somehow remove all consideration they may have been designed.

“has tried to bring YEC beliefs into some of her arguments. Usually though when she does start talking about it, she will end up backing into a corner and then drop it.”

For example?

“My guess is, our conversations concerning the Wollemi Pine are over with. ”

Was there something else you wanted to talk about it? I was unable to open the link you gave me. I tried it on another computer. I will try some other ways. But, what more would you like to talk about the pine?

4 August 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Wow. A right wing, religious creationist, praising Communist China, along with a quote mine from one of their newspapers (yes, those are known for honesty and accuracy). Religious fanaticism creates as many strange bedfellows as politics. Oh, that's right. The Creationist movement is as much political as religious.

What it's not is scientific.

gr then said:
> “No. Evolution is a factually observed process. We can and do see populations change.”
> Again, the bait and switch of “evolution”.

Again, false claims of bait and switch, from a known bait and switcher.

You're zero for zero, here. Perhaps you should either 1) go study science, see what it actually says, not what your religious sect says it says, or 2) give up speaking about science and just go help the poor or something.

gr said:
> “As a “fellow Christian” (even though they deny I am), “
> Which you picked and chose not to define.

Which I CHOSE not to define, because 1) asserting I'm not a TRUE Christian is a fallacy and a dishonest tactic used by fundamentalists to dismiss the majority who don't agree with them, and 2) it's irrelevant to the topic. Science (of which evolution is a valid and necessary part, no matter how much you want to bury it and send us back to the dark ages, so your sect can control people easier).

I'm not here to defend or explain or “define” my FAITH. Just pointing out your fallacy of false dichotomy (God OR science) is false and NOT held by the majority of Christians. It's another red herring to lure us off the topic, as well as to slander and dismiss who you consider “traitors” because we accept science just fine. Even the parts that go against your weak and outdated faith in an ancient creation myth.

4 August 2006
at 12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

I am out of time to play today got other things I need to finish.

Eventully, I will however go and find all of our previous conversatoins concerning the distance of the moon and the geologic column and all of the biblical things related to the 7 day creation act, the age of the earth and the universe etc. Do you really want me to go back and pull all of that stuff back up or are you just trying to be evasive here. Let's just make it easy for both of us and save us alot of time here. Do you or do you not agree with the idea of a young earth (meaning less than 10000 years old). A simple yes or no will suffice here. Or maybe I should ask how old do you think the earth is? gr8dane is right. Many of the things you argue about are things that the YEC group bring up hence the reason why you are thought to be a YEC. If you are not a YEC then just say it. I am not a YEC.

You never answered the question of what exactly do you think they are ignoring about the Wollemi Pine? Trying googling the american scientist and the Wollemi Pine. One of the choices will be the American Scientists which requires membership or money to view the article. There are other sites that actually have the entire text of the article anyway so you should be able to get into those. The site I cited is a PDF file so you do need the PDF software such as Acrobat to bring it up.

“Actually, saying evolution has happened is the conclusion from the observable facts of supposedly how it happened.”

That statement doesn't make any sense. As an easier illustration to understand make it gravity instead of evolution. Saying that gravity is happening is the conclusion from the observable facts of supposedly how it happens. Huh? The observable fact that an object will come back down to earth when you throw it up in the air supports the concept of gravity but it doesn't tell you anything about how it happens. I am not following you Gr. Going to have to expand on your statement there.

“That just struck me as “the trickle down effect”.”

Sorry you lost me there too?

4 August 2006
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

“Bicycles have wheels, cars have wheels. But, wait, they are designed, and more importantly, they are not alive. How does being “alive” somehow remove all consideration they may have been designed.”

Lost “Agin” (my Forrest Gump imitation) Sorry Gr you are right bikes and cars are not “alive”. Organisms are “alive”. Bikes and cars only evolve (change) when their designers (thats us) change them. Organisms evolve when their {insert whatever designer you prefer} change them? So now you are agreeing that organisms evolved through design. Ok. Organisms evolved because a benevolent designer found better ways to make us. This isn't science but hey pretty cool philosophy…

And has nothing to do with “Homologies-common features in the anatomy of different organisms also support descent from common ancestry which are consistent with the fossil record.”

Try Again.

Out of here……

4 August 2006
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

There is no evidence there is a “designer”, much less that lifeforms are “designed” (other than the ones we've modified ourself through breeding over the last ten or twenty thousand years).

Science is “materialistic”, aka “naturalistic”, for very good reasons. Including that there is no evidence of “supernatural causes”, no way for us to study them, etc. So science starts from the assumption that things have natural causes, and then tries to find out what they are and study and test them.

From studying lifeforms and fossils, we discovered the process of evolution, and worked out its main mechanisms. And understanding these has let us figure out why species show apparent “design”. Natural selection letting species adapt to conditions important to that species, for instance. Almost as if “designed” for that habitat.

It's not a hard concept to understand. Unless you have a religious bias against even trying.

4 August 2006
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

That was to gr's use (again) of the invalid “machines to lifeforms” analogy:

“How does being “alive” somehow remove all consideration they may have been designed.”

That's how. Our machines are not subject to the mechanisms of evolution that cause adaptation and apparent design.

Nor is science saying there IS NO deity, and that it CAN'T have designed anything. As I've pointed out before, science is neutral about supernatural causes, assuming things have a natural cause, because that's the only one we can look for and study. And it usually finds it. “Materialistic” science is successful. “Creation Science” leads us to just believe God did it, and not to question or try to understand how. It's the antithesis of science.

If there is a deity (as I believe) and if this deity DID create the universe (again, as I believe), it apparently did so so that this universe would follow certain natural laws and allow certain natural processes. Evolution is one of them. Creationists can't accept that because it goes against their immature, outdated literalist faith. It needs to “grow up” like most mainstream religions have, and see science is not its enemy.

4 August 2006
at 4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

gr8dane:
gr said:
> “As a “fellow Christian” (even though they deny I am), “
> Which you picked and chose not to define.

“Which I CHOSE not to define, because 1) asserting I'm not a TRUE Christian is a fallacy and a dishonest tactic used by fundamentalists to dismiss the majority who don't agree with them, ”

Which, if you are claiming is dishonest, then you should show how so.

“and 2) it's irrelevant to the topic.”

Is that why you keep brining it up? You bring it up, but when I question you on it, you say it's dishonest, red herring, irrelevant.

Hmmm.

4 August 2006
at 5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said (re: dishonest tactic of dismissing moderate Christians as not TRUE Christians):
> Which, if you are claiming is dishonest, then you should show how so.

Sure.

1) It's just not true.

2) It's a logical fallacy. A variation of the “No TRUE Scotsman” argument. You can find a website explaining it yourself, or go here, and see why it's a dishonest TACTIC: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/…

3) Generally, only fanatics use it. Most denominations have members who do the “you're not a TRUE Christian if you're not in MY sect, which is the TRUE faith”. Sects of other religions do the same thing, including Muslims (and they've gone to war with each other and still are over it). But creationists specifically do it not just for people of other sects, but people who don't share the same doctrines, “moral values” (or bigotries masquerading as moral values), interpretations of the bible, etc.

4) it implies THEY (the creationists) are the TRUE Christians, and have the monopoly on truth. I'm sure in your own brainwashed minds, you sincerely believe this. Doesn't make it true. It's your opinion, and a seriously biased one at that. I'm content to let God decide. You aren't. You believe you have the authority and hubris to do God's job for Her. Very arrogant. Another trait common to fundies.

5) I'm not using it on you guys. I personally don't think you're very GOOD Christians… Attacking science, lying about it, attacking the majority of fellow Christians because we don't believe your lies, disobeying the constitution to push your beliefs on everyone else, etc. But I've never said you're not TRUE Christians. Although my own Christianity won't let me join in your evil actions and beliefs.

I could probably keep going, but really, the case is a slam dunk already. And dinner's almost ready.

4 August 2006
at 5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

gr said:
> “and 2) it's irrelevant to the topic.”
> Is that why you keep brining it up? You bring it up, but when I question you on it, you say it's dishonest, red herring, irrelevant.

Really? I'm always bringing it up? Hardly. You and opinion and whoever else brought it up several times, accusing me of not being a TRUE Christian, especially if I cannot agree with your man-made fundamentalist literalist doctrines. And I'm used to this sort of attack from fundies all the time.

If, on the other hand, you meant I'm bringing up that you guys are always attacking me and saying I'm not a TRUE Christian, that's just a statement of fact. It's a common creationist tactic. You and opinion did it before I pointed it out the first time, if I recall.

If instead, you are making a fallacious argument that even mentioning i'm a Christian is “mentioning it”, and thus giving you justification to do your “you're not a TRUE Christian” routine, and/or starting your interrogation style tactic of 20 questions of what Christianity means to me (so you can go “aha you aren't a TRUE Christian!” when I say anything you disagree with). I tend to not even get into those games, and tell them I'm not even going to answer their interrogation style questions, and why.

Of course, their usual course of action is to come to the conclusion they intended to come to anyway, that I'm not a TRUE Christian, because a TRUE Christian WOULD answer all their questions. *laughs* But again, I expect such duplicity from fanatics.

I mention my faith in “evo vs creation” debates for one reason. To refute the false dichotomy fallacy of creationists that you can “believe in God OR evolution but not both” and other false claims making this out to be a “religion vs science” battle. Most of us Christians are fine with honest science (like evolutionary biology). It's mostly the fundamentalist minority who aren't. That's the only reason. In THAT context, it's relevant to mention it.

Explanations of the nitty gritty details of my faith are NOT relevant. You just want them to be so you can justify using your dishonest attack tactics to dismiss the majority of Christians who don't agree with you.

Mmmm, dinner smells ready. :)

4 August 2006
at 5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

You are nutcase girl. gr8tdane didn't “bring it up”. You did silly girl. Remember way back when you said this…

“You speak of an “outdated religious origin myth”, but yet imply you are a “Christian”. Isn't a Christian one who believes in the Christ - the Messiah? Yet, you suggest He didn't exist and discredit the Bible. What exactly is a Christian to you? Sounds like the pagans to me - 'There is no God, there is no right nor wrong, what each believes is right in his own mind is right, if it feels good - do it.”

See how YOU brought it up and gr8dane's response of
“asserting I'm not a TRUE Christian is a fallacy and a dishonest tactic used by fundamentalists to dismiss the majority who don't agree with them, ” is right on the money. YOU Gr implied that gr8dane was not a true christian and you even implied that gr8dane religion was paganism.

And the idea of being a christian is irrelevant to the TOPIC of evolution. Pay attention girl.

Things that make you say hmmmmmmm…

4 August 2006
at 5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Sorry gr8tdane beat me to it….and gave a much more comprehensive and logical response then I did. Ah well need to do more of the “Ale manuever”

4 August 2006
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Ack, I really need to go through my links, and update or clear out dead ones. The “No True Scotsman” link I gave doesn't work for me anymore.

But the page it redirected me to gave this as the new link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/moder…

6 August 2006
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac: “
>”You speak of an “outdated religious origin myth”, but yet imply you are a “Christian”. Isn't a Christian one who believes in the Christ - the Messiah? Yet, you suggest He didn't exist and discredit the Bible. What exactly is a Christian to you? Sounds like the pagans to me - 'There is no God, there is no right nor wrong, what each believes is right in his own mind is right, if it feels good - do it.”

See how YOU brought it up”

No, I don't. What was that in response to?

Both of you:

Where did I say gr8dane, (or anyone), is “not a TRUE Christian”?

6 August 2006
at 4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Don't play the poor misunderstood poster with us GR. You have stated it in numerous posts that those that “believed” in evolution could not believe in God, that the 2 were mutually exclusive.

From the top 10 errors in the Evo/Creo/ID “debate” by Bruce Wightman, Ph.D., and is associate professor of biology at Muhlenberg College

“6. Evolution demonstrates that God does not exist.
1t is unfortunate that atheists and materialists have used evolution as evidence that counts against the existence of God. This is not a logically defensible position. Simply because a natural process requires no supernatural intervention does not mean that no supernatural being exists. Evolution is no threat to God any more than gravity or electricity.”

“10. Evolution and intelligent design demonstrate an inevitable conflict between science and religion.
This is wrong on at least two counts. First, it conflates the diversity of religious thought into a single position and defines it as “religion.” In fact, most mainline American Protestants sects and the Roman Catholic Church have accepted evolution. Pop~ John Paul II wrote in favor of evolution, as did Pope Pius XII. Second, thoughtful academics, such as John Polklnghorne and Ian Barbour, have shown how biology and theology can inform and enrich each other. There need be no contradiction.
I am an optimist and I hope to see the intelligent design era end in a good place. It is my hope that the “great center of American politics” (whatever that is) will see this as an opportunity to reject both the false science of intelligent design and the logical sloppiness of materialist conclusions from evolution.”

We are going to be here all the time from here on out. Get THAT message to your fundamentilist yahoo friends. Your stupid view of the world WIL BE confronted at each and every opportunity you pop off. You will be made to look like the fool you are, and the fundamentalist whacko that you are. Your PR stunts, church meetings, and public addresses will be populated by scientists at every turn. The likes of Hovind, Dawkins, and Behe, along with Calvert, Corkins, WIllard, and Bacon ad nasauem will be confronted, we will back you into the box…and we are going to keep you there!

6 August 2006
at 5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Gr,

Oh good golly Miss Molly. You got to kidding me. The ultimate “I didn't say that” denial. Well Gr my respect for you just took another big hit. Guess it won't matter to you but that denial really disappoints me. Hope you have a nice life there girl…..

6 August 2006
at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

Pretty disgusting when they deny something everyone else saw them do/say. Just like a little kid caught red handed. “I didn't do it!”

7 August 2006
at 8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

So, you all can paste post after post with no problem, quote top 10 errors, but for some reason you can't even post where you think I said, gr8dane, (or anyone), is “not a TRUE Christian”?

Could it be because I didn't?

I can believe you'll show where I question if gr8dane is a Christian, and then contort it to where I say he is “not a TRUE Christian”.

Suppose I were to claim to be a senator. But, for some reason, according to what I say, you think that maybe I'm not a senator. So, you question me. Then I say, fallacy, fallacy, “No true Scotsman”. Don't you at least deserve hearing how I think I'm a senator?

Do you see a pattern here. Whether it's evolution, Christian, or anything else, gr8dane thinks he's above question. Any statement he makes is above question. If you do persistently press him, it comes out to be meaningless. Other times, he refuses to define, because he knows you'll find out he doesn't mean anything by it.

7 August 2006
at 8:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hmmm….Kind of reminds of Bill Clinton on the witness stand….

“Well that depends on what your definition of “is” is….

Once a politician, always a politician.

Quite the rhetorical trick some of those fundamental christians against evolution have…..

7 August 2006
at 1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

I can't believe gr is still attacking my Christianity. Give it up. You lost. It's not even relevant to the topic. We all see through it as just your tactic to smear the Christian majority who accept evolution fine. You're claiming you have valid reason to “question my Christianity”. You don't. Your silly “senator” analogy was cute, though. Too bad there are a LOT more Christians who accept evolution around than there are senators.

holygrailale, I'm not surprised gr made the same sort of claims about you. It's a rhetorical strategy that she thinks serves her well, I'd imagine. At least for earning points among the other “already converted”. The rest of us see through it.

7 August 2006
at 7:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“I can't believe gr is still attacking my Christianity.”

What Christianity? You have yet to define.

I know, I have no valid reason to ask.

Just like no valid reason to ask if evolution is true.

It's a FACT - why should I question it.

7 August 2006
at 7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Well I guess that takes care of that.

Gr has finally consented “Evolution is a FACT.”

Whew now how about that “ale manuever”….

7 August 2006
at 10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

*has an ale with Kodiac*

Cheers! That's about the best we'll get out of gr. :-P

7 August 2006
at 11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

*pulls a case of Canadian beer from the fridge and passes one to holygrailale*

Dembski? Is he really calling himself a “Design Evolutionist” now? Someone told me that, but I haven't confirmed it. You know, changing names after “Design Theorist” failed utterly in Kitzmiller vs Dover.

8 August 2006
at 3:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr8dane (Anonymous) says…

I love the titles they make up on the Daily Show. :D

But yup. The creationist movement has “evolved” over the decades. Not so much in beliefs. But in names, tactics, etc. They are trying to sound more and more like science, while accusing science of being “a religion”. So “Design Evolutionist” sounds like an understandable next step. Too bad they'll probably be just as devoid of actual science as all the other incarnations of creationism. But they'll TALK a better game, hoping no one notices it's the same centuries old nonsense, in shinier packaging.

LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, July 8, 2006

Group promotes science standards

Campaign coincides with state school board elections

Evolution

Evolution in Kansas

More like this

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Douglas County Visiting Nurses, Rehabilitation & Hospice Care 785-843-3738

LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, July 8, 2006

Group promotes science standards

Campaign coincides with state school board elections

Evolution

Evolution in Kansas

More like this

Discussion

Post a comment

Post a blog entry

Top ads RSS

Marketplace

Douglas County Visiting Nurses, Rehabilitation & Hospice Care 785-843-3738