-
Republicans and Science
February 2, 2012 | 104 comments
Political Hay
Answering the Dreaded ‘Evolution’ Question
Evolution is the speed trap of presidential campaigns.
It’s a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: “Do you believe in evolution?”
Evolution is the speed trap of presidential campaigns. Though a president doesn’t have much influence over state and local science education policy, reporters lie in wait for the unwary candidate, ready to pounce with a question he’s poorly prepared to answer yet that is important to millions of voters. Fortunately, there’s a reply that not only avoids the trap but helps advance public understanding.
Rep. Michele Bachmann is the latest to get pulled to the side of the road, lights flashing in her rear-view mirror. Talking with reporters in New Orleans following last week’s Republican Leadership Conference, she said “I support intelligent design,” referring to the theory that nature gives scientific evidence of purpose and design.
She continued: “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”
Government neutrality would be welcome, as Bachmann rightly notes. But unfortunately the candidate’s statement generated headlines (“Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design,” as CNN.com summarized) that made her sound like she was ready to go a lot further than the intelligent design (ID) movement, which merely advocates that Darwinian theory’s weaknesses be taught along with its strengths. Allowing teachers to discuss ID in class would be much more appropriate and advisable than requiring them to do so.
In the Republican debate last month in South Carolina, Juan Williams asked Tim Pawlenty, “Do you equate the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution, as the basis for what should be taught in our nation’s schools?”
Creationism usually refers to the belief that God created the universe in six, twenty-four hour days just a few thousand years ago — often called young earth creationism. Governor Pawlenty answered by confusing the term with intelligent design:
“Well, Juan, the approach we took in Minnesota is to say that there should be room in the curriculum for study of intelligent design. Didn’t necessarily need to be in science class, it could be in a comparative theory class. But we didn’t decide that at the state level. We left that up to the local school districts, and the communities, and parents in that area.”
That sounds nice and federalist till you think about it for a moment. In not challenging Williams’s use of the scare word “creationism,” Pawlenty seemed to accept the media’s misleading equation of young earth creationism with intelligent design, a much more modest and defensible claim.
At another recent press conference, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, dream candidate for many conservatives, fielded a question about whether he believes in evolution. He responded indignantly — “That’s none of your business!” — as if someone had inquired about his intimate relations with Mrs. Christie.
He tried to clarify, saying that “evolution is required teaching. If there’s a certain school district that also wants to teach creationism, that’s not something we should decide in Trenton.”
The problem is that the Supreme Court has declared (Edwards v. Aguillard) that teaching creationism in public school runs afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. So Christie failed to avoid the trap even while refusing to answer.
It falls, in general, to a candidate’s staff to prepare him to answer any question so that he neither embarrasses himself nor needlessly alienates any constituency. Yet evolution lies outside the expertise of most political professionals, including those behind the scenes.
Fortunately, there’s an easy way to answer that takes account of the dilemma. Asked about evolution, here’s what Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:
“Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I don’t think living creatures are nothing but the product of a purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution, including the scientific evidence offered against it.”
Dogmatic neo-Darwinians won’t like that answer (they admit of no scientific arguments against their theory, unlike in any other area of scientific inquiry). But some other scientists will be fine with it, and, according to Zogby polling data, so will the 80 percent of Americans who favor allowing students and teachers to discuss evolutionary theory’s strengths and weaknesses.
Such a formulation, true to the scientific evidence and to the Constitution, would also be devilishly hard for rival candidates to disagree with. Campaign staff and advisors would do well to commit something like it to memory.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (733) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Klinghoffer
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/24/answering-the-dreaded-evolutio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- A President Loses His Power
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.24.11 @ 6:21AM
If we Evolved from Apes, why are there STILL Apes? Species Evolve en masse. Don't they? Half of them don't Evolve, while the other half waves at them from the tree tops.
Do they?
potkas7| 6.24.11 @ 7:37AM
Darwin opens The Origin of Species with an admonition to the reader that if anyone comes away from the book thinking his claim is that Man descended from the Apes, he completely misunderstands the work.
TrueBlue| 6.24.11 @ 6:58PM
It's a bit sad that it is called the THEORY of Evolution, and yet so many people take it as hard fact to the point of refusing to accept any other possibility.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:58PM
An interesting article relating the Satanist Anton LaVey, author of The Satanist Bible), and his Darwinian mentality:
http://www.icr.org/article/kno.....-satanism/
GalapagosPete| 6.27.11 @ 11:38AM
Margie, Science is not responsible for the misapplication or misunderstanding of its theories by satanists, German dictators, or the ICR.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:45PM
You are a funny guy, I'll give you that, Pete!
'Tis true that guilt by association was indicated by me, or rather by the article I posted, but do not birds of a feather flock together? It is, I believe a scientifically proven fact is it not? :^)
Much like atheists, Democrats and Socialists.
Now, you lumped ICR (Instit. for Creation Research) in there. ICR exists to promote the true science (knowledge) or proven facts when discovered, that show the 100% existence of the Creator, God~ that what He already has spoken is true.
GalapagosPete| 6.29.11 @ 11:39AM
It's better than funny – it's even true.
Darwin and those who have followed in his footsteps are explaining *how* the world works, not how it *should* work.* This is something Ken Ham clearly does not understand: evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive; it sees what is there, it does not say that this is they way it should be, or that it's the way our society should be run.
Ham also fails to understand the idea of survival of the fittest, or he would have realized that, "LaVey's Satanism is the practical application of evolution in our society" is an absurd claim. A 6-inch lizard is far weaker than a human, but out in the desert, *it* is far fitter to survive than we are. Again, descriptive, not prescriptive.
So to German dictators, satanists, and the ICR, we add Ken Ham; they've all earned their place on the list.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:20AM
"Theory," in science, means basically "an explanation in terms of empirically testable causes."
The "theory of evolution" is a theory (or set of theories) about what makes evolution (descent with modification from shared ancestors) happen.
A scientific "fact" has been defined as "a statement so strongly confirmed by evidence that it would be irrational not to grant it provisional acceptance."
The same statement can be a "fact" and a "theory;" Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits were a "theory" that explained the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe; they were also a "fact" that was explained by Newton's laws of gravity and motion.
Common descent with modification is a "theory" that explains, e.g. faunal succession in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of comparative anatomy and comparative genomics, transitional fossils, vestigial structures, biogeographical distribution of species, etc. Indeed, it explains these things so well that, to David Klinghoffer's dismay, 99+ percent of all the biologists who have ever lived regard it as a "fact."
The "theory of evolution" is, again, the explanation for why that fact happened: modification through mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift (there are, of course, quite a few details, elaborations, and proposals for alternate mechanisms).
John Dibble| 6.24.11 @ 7:53AM
"If we Evolved from Apes, why are there STILL Apes?"
We share a common ancestor species with MODERN apes, but those modern apes are not our ancestor species either. Evolution is a tree, not a ladder - it branches.
"Species Evolve en masse. Don't they?"
No, speciation typically occurs locally. Natural selection favors those individuals who can survive in their particular environment. If two populations of a species end up in different environments, they would be subject to different selective pressures and so they would go down different evolutionary paths. Over time the genetic changes to the populations living in those different environments can become radical enough that the two groups can't even successfully mate anymore, thus making them different species. More details on how speciation works here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
KyMouse| 6.24.11 @ 10:12AM
The current issue of World magazine has reviews of two interesting books -- "God and Evolution" and "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?" You can read the article at www.worldmag.com.
To me, questions about the age of the earth are not as important as whether or not Adam and Eve really existed. Jesus, who I believe is the second Person in the triune God, spoke about them as though they were real (Matthew 19:3-6).
See also Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12-21, I Corinthians 11:8-9, 15:22; and I Timothy 2:13.
Romans 5:12-21 is especially on point concerning belief in the literal truth of Adam's sin and Jesus' atonement ("for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous"). Believe that Adam is merely a symbol of humanity, and you've cut out a crucial part of the Gospel.
axbucxdu| 6.24.11 @ 12:30PM
Horizontal gene transfer turns Darwin on his head and then spins him to boot. The genetic information transferred by viral and bacterial agents permits anti-causal heredity.
Think of it. Your child gets a cold, transmits the virus to you, and a result you've now picked up new genetic information from your descendent. This is not the way (Darwin's) Tree model operates.
Life exists more like the Internet than a tree, with minimum system energy (i.e., physics), and not natural selection, the central principle at work.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.24.11 @ 2:04PM
Not all viruses can either insert themselves into your genes (retroviruses) or transmit genes they picked up from other hosts. But to the extent that they can, they introduce a new form of mutation. I cannot see how this eliminates or reduces the importance of natural selection.
The great majority of your genes, including mutations, are still transmitted "vertically," from ancestors to descendants.
Darwin, in any case, knew nothing of the details of how inheritance worked, and had only the vaguest and most rudimentary concept of "genes" (or viruses, for that matter).
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 4:34PM
Darwin's theory of evolution provided a useful intellectual framework thatled to more detailed research into the mechanisms of inheritance leading to the discovery of DNA based genes and eventually the entire human genome. The value of a theory can be measured by how fruitful (leadig to new discoveries) it is . Evolution has been an extrodinarily fsuccesful and fruitful theory.
Should Have Impeached| 6.24.11 @ 9:08PM
"Evolution has been an extrodinarily fsuccesful and fruitful theory."
But it still doesn't explain how we got here. Think about it....
John Dibble| 6.25.11 @ 10:33AM
The Germ Theory of Disease doesn't explain how we got here either - does that invalidate it? No, of course not. Evolutionary theory is about how life diversified, not how life or the universe came about. It is a discipline in regards to that one thing, and saying that it doesn't explain an entirely different thing has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 3:05PM
Well, you either believe a rebel against God or you believe God's own Word.
God says that He CREATED everything according to its kind.
"But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body." 1 Cor. 15:38.
I stand with Him.
Darwin says it all "evolves".
Meh.
GalapagosPete| 6.27.11 @ 11:44AM
Margie, If it was only Darwin saying it, you would have a valid point. But all research done on evolution since Darwin supports his theory, if not all his various details. (It was the 19th century, remember.)
Evolutionary theory has long since moved past Darwin. Criticizing his theory is very much like criticizing the Wright brothers because your flight was delayed.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.27.11 @ 1:01PM
"...all research done on evolution since Darwin supports his theory..."
Not true, please try again.
GalapagosPete| 6.28.11 @ 2:00AM
Oh? Perhaps then you can direct us to some peer-reviewed scientific research that undermines evolutionary theory.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:36PM
"Criticizing his theory is very much like criticizing the Wright brothers because your flight was delayed."
Haha, that was very good as far as cute goes, but if only it were true, hmm?
In fact, none of it has been proven, and in fact everything in science so far has had to bow to what the Creator has already spoken by His Holy Word: that He has created everything according to its kind.
Genesis chapters one and two.
Read and believe, for there really is no other choice. One day soon, every single knee will bow to Him, so why wait?
Wickles| 6.28.11 @ 1:53PM
Is he currently in the process of Creating anti-biotic resistant bacteria? If so, He's doing it a way that looks remarkably like natural selection.
GalapagosPete| 6.29.11 @ 11:54AM
"...none of it has been proven..."
In fact, it has been proven, scientists just tend not to use that word because one of the tenets of science is never to say that something is "proved" because it is always *possible* that new evidence may come along that will falsify a theory, even one as strong as evolution.
And not only is evolutionary theory strong, it is considered one of the strongest in science due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it. It has been proven to the satisfaction of thousands of men and women who have studied and done research for over a century and a half. I'm afraid that you refuse to accept the truth only because the idea makes you uncomfortable, not because you understand or can falsify the science behind the work.
Evolutionary theory is firmly established as scientific – i.e., real world – truth, and if you want to refute it you'll have to do much better than bible references, you would actually have to falsify it in a scientific manner: work, research, and try to prove that it's wrong – but good luck with that, certainly the ICR has been unable to do it.
patriot1742| 6.27.11 @ 7:49PM
I disagree with your premise - so far the facts do not prove it - science is only good if you can repeat an occurence - to date no one has shown where a whale evolved into a cow - the rest is just plain non-sense for people who do not believe - it is harder to believe in evolution than the truth.
GalapagosPete| 6.30.11 @ 11:30AM
"...science is only good if you can repeat an occurence..."
No, science is only good if others can repeat your results, and Darwin's results have been not only repeated over and over, they've been expanded.
"...to date no one has shown where a whale evolved into a cow..."
That would completely disprove Darwinian evolution. No scientist would ever expect a whale to evolve into a cow.
Before you attack something, you should understand what it is you are attacking.
buckeyeman| 6.24.11 @ 7:58AM
Tim,
No, that's not how evolution works at all. Darwin's original thoughts stemmed from his observations that birds on different islands were similar but had noticeable differences. He believed that subtle differences in the environment favored the survival of some individuals over others and that many generations of these minor changes could eventually result in complete divergence of species.
We now have a better understanding of the genetic basis of the slight changes that occur between generations. Species do not evolve "en masse" at all. Geographic separation means that the gene pools cannot intermingle and leads to a higher likelihood of differentiation.
While Darwin emphasized natural selection, many genetic changes are more or less random, the result of the re-shuffling of the genetic deck which occurs every time sexual reproduction occurs. Natural selection will work against maladaptive changes but lots of changes don't matter much either way - species evolve because it couldn't really happen any other way - randomness is perhaps the most powerful force the the universe.
BTW, this is quite comparable to the evolution of languages. The Roman Empire imposed its native language on most of Europe but over time this single tongue gradually "evolved" into a number of languages. Prior to mass travel and communication there was a continuum of dialects from the toe of Italy along the Mediterranean coast all the way to Portugal. These have now coalesced into named major languages (but with a few "islands" remaining where the old local languages can still be found) which could be thought of as difference "species", but they all started as a single language.
My sister and her husband, both physicians, are young earth creationists, so one doesn't have to be an ignorant cave man (sorry I couldn't resist that one) to believe in creationism. It does make sense, however, to at least understand how evolution is thought to work before dismissing it.
lydia | 6.24.11 @ 8:43AM
I tend to subscribe to the theory of De-Evolution - the regressive development of a species over time. And I offer into evidence the Congress of the United States.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
buckeyeman| 6.24.11 @ 9:06AM
Right on the first point. However, from your spelling, grammar, syntax, and subject matter, I suspect you must have graduated from the Medical College of Saint Pomme de Terre.
Either that, or you are de-evolving right in front of our very eyes.
MarkR| 6.24.11 @ 3:14PM
Love it!
William| 6.24.11 @ 5:09PM
I'm and Independent with fairly strong conservative leanings. I also strongly support freedom of religion, and I see religion as a generally positive force in the world, although I am not "religious" in the traditional sense. But the ID debate really bothers me.
If evolution is being taught in school as evidence against religion or God, then there is a problem. That's a big "IF." Evolution in itself has nothing to say on this subject. It is simply a science and should be taught as such. There are different scientific views on how evolution works, but these also have nothing to do with religion or God.
ID is NOT just another scientific theory on the workings of evolution. It is a theory that has been used for centuries as proof of God. No matter how cleverly rephrased by current ID advocates, that it what it still is; it hasn't been transformed into science. It's premise is that everything that happens in the world is caused by God and evolution is merely one more example of this (indeed, is proof of this).
I am not rejecting the ID argument. Indeed, theological arguments interest me. But any theory that proceeds from the premise there is a God, or offers a line of argument to show there is a God, or explains the world in terms of a God, belongs in a class on philosophy or religion.
I like to think that conservatives are down-to-earth, common sense, people -- as opposed to the woolly-headed idealistic liberals. But here they are acting like doctrinaire liberals. If, notwithstanding the First Amendment, schools can be forced to teach there is a religious theory compatible with evolution, then they can also be forced to teach -indeed, in fairness they SHOULD be forced to teach --that there are many other arguments for finding that evolution is contrary to religious teaching.
A. C. Santore| 6.24.11 @ 9:15AM
The authors wrote, "Fortunately, there's an easy way to answer that takes account of the dilemma."
Yes, there is. While the theory of evolution can explain how species change over time, it cannot explain how life was created.
Wade Smith| 6.24.11 @ 11:47AM
A species changing over time is not the same thing a a species changing to another species. Random change of the DNA is more likely to result in nonviable offspring that improved offspring.
The theory of probability argues against chance changes resulting in speciation. Also remember the operational definition of 'species' is two creatures that can sexually produce a fertile offspring. This is a poor definition because under this definition certain wolves and certain dogs are the same species because they can produce fertile offspring.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.24.11 @ 2:14PM
I think you're confusing "speciation" with the evolution of novel adaptions. These are different things; either can happen without the other.
There are at least a couple of dozen different definitions of "species;" none fit every species that has been recognized (e.g. a definition based on who one can, or will, sexually reproduce with has no relevance to organisms that reproduce asexually or parthenogenetically).
That point aside, speciation by rather rigorous standards has been observed (the classic example is one species of evening primrose arising from another through duplication of the entire genome -- a common mechanism in plants).
Note that [a] random changes in the genome happen all the time (the average child is born with thirty mutations) and [b] natural selection weeds out deleterious changes, so it's not terribly relevant that harmful changes vastly outnumber beneficial ones. In most species, most offspring die without reproducing; new mutations that impede fitness tend to end up at the bottom of the grading curve and die without passing on those harmful mutations.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:12PM
There is NO difference between so-called 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution, they are the SAME thing, lots of little evolution makes a BIG change.
Vern Crisler | 6.24.11 @ 8:37PM
Nonsense Kingofthenet. There is an irreducible and stacked complexity that makes macro-evolution impossible. No amount of "micro-evolution" can overcome this impossibility.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:27AM
Oddly, irreducible complexity was first proposed, back in 1923, by the geneticist Hermann Mueller (he called it "interlocking complexity," but it's the same concept). He proposed it as a possible, even probable, result of natural selection of random mutations. Mutations can modify components (and if such modifications improve function, they will be selected) so that components that used to be able to function independently now need one another to work. Mutations can delete redundant parts. Parts that function fine by themselves at one task can be co-opted by "micro-evolution" to serve part of some larger task -- and become part of an "irreducibly complex" system. Accumulated micro-evolution can build up "irreducible complexity."
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:04PM
To say that "interlocking complexity" is the result of natural selection is merely to restate Darwin's theory, not to demonstrate it. An irreducibly complex system is just what the term describes -- there are no functional precursors to the system nor can redundancy functions salvage the system. It has to work in toto or it cannot work at all.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.26.11 @ 1:36AM
At the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller wore a comment on this argument: he used part of a mousetrap as a tie clip. A system that cannot do one job without all its components may well be able to do a different job.
For that matter, a system that cannot do a job without all its components may be able to do its job when one component is taken away, and another is modified to serve two functions at once. It may not work as well, but it's possible to reshape the components of a mousetrap so that some of them can be removed. That the functions of a system can change over time, and that components can be reshaped rather than simply added or subtracted, shows that even an "irreducibly complex" system can have functional precursors.
Vern Crisler | 6.26.11 @ 2:02PM
You are merely denying the existence of irreducibly complex systems, not showing how they can come about by random process. Behe has some criticisms of Miller at:
http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 9:41PM
One example of 'so-called' irreducible complexity that Creationists trot out is the Bacterial Flagella, all the parts need to be there or you don't have a locomotion system, while that is true, it was shown if you just had a few parts, no you didn't have a locomotion system but a PERFECTLY functioning 'Syringe' to inject material, the SAME type virus uses to contaminate cells.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:23AM
First, I agree with you that large-scale adaptions can be and have been built up by the accumulation of small-scale adaptions.
Second, though, I stand by my statement that adaption and speciation are different things, can occur independently of one another, and need not share the same causes.
Jaker| 6.24.11 @ 3:12PM
Timothy
It seems to me you are descended from the half that is still waving. It's appalling how many Americans know nothing about the scientific method, how science works.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 3:51PM
Actually, I think your question should have been: "If we evolved from apes, why are there still Conservatives"? The fact that you pose this question is an unassailable indictment of evolution. Well done.
Alan Brooks| 6.24.11 @ 9:28PM
Could be that there is a design, but it is an unintelligent design.
At any rate, chaos theory is as valid as ID.
Patrick| 6.25.11 @ 1:37AM
Consider the matter one of divergence than humans morphing from a specific chimp, and the chimps just stay the same. The chimps became more chimp-like, and the humans became more human-like.
Also note, only small populations separated over tens or hundreds of thousands of years can "evolve", as any mutation in a large, interbreeding population tends not to have any substantive impact.
Chef Schnauzer| 6.24.11 @ 6:56AM
The liberals run from all things God (they can't accept that He IS ALL THINGS) unless they can twist and distort faith into their object of ridicule. Their loss. A good man should pay no more attention to them on this after all our nation is important in a temporal sense but in an eternal sense who cares about a liberal speed trap?
Alan Brooks| 6.24.11 @ 9:34PM
Chef Schnauzer is a good handle, or maybe it is your real name. But where we differ is: if God exists, God is female.
Having written that, if God appears to me one day to say, "I am a man" then I will do a 180 immediately and apologize at AS and on the nearest streetcorner to all passersby.
Patrick| 6.25.11 @ 1:55AM
God is spirit. That said, God has revealed himself as masculine. That Judaism and Christianity are both revealed religions, it would be obvious that a masculine God would only be fitting.
No, not because of bigotry, rather, that the sexes have differing natures and spiritual components that have long been considered even before the time of Abram.
Of course, in this modern era of boy-thing womyn and effeminate, metrosexual men, I can hardly fault your ignorance.
Stuart Koehl| 6.24.11 @ 7:09AM
Science and theology are complementary, not contradictory. Each has its allotted sphere, and problems emerge only when trespasses in the realm of the other.
Put in very (very) simple terms, science provides a systematic view into the operations of the material universe. It provides an understanding of HOW the universe works. On the other hand, theology provides underlying meaning to the unverse itself, providing an understanding of WHY things happen as they do, and WHO is responsible for it.
Scientific method, by its very nature, is incapable of answering metaphysical questions. Theology, by its nature, is not equipped to answer purely scientific questions.
Evolution is simply a scientific explanation of how life on earth emerged and how it reached its present state of development. Problems arrive when individual scientists, holding to a philosophy of scientific materialism (nothing exists that cannot be measured) begin writing metaphysical checks they cannot cover. Scientific method cannot prove that life arose from random factor, or that natural selection is likewise purely random and arbitrary. That is not a conclusion of science--that is an act of faith.
On the other hand, a certain species of biblical literalism attempts to impose purely biblical explanations for natural events in contradiction to observable facts (though, mind you, they are selective about this--few biblical literalists still hold to a geocentric cosmology).
Given that God is Truth, and does not willfully deceive us, we as Christians must go where the facts carry us. Scientists, whether Christian or not, likewise should go only where the facts can carry them, and neither theologians nor scientists should presume to have competence in each other's disciplines (unless, of course, they have trained in both).
This understanding that faith and reason, science and theology, are entirely compatible, is why neither the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, nor most varieties of Protestantism, nor Judaism, have any real problem with the theory of evolution properly understood.
In other words, we have here a false dichotomy, created by extremists on both sides.
Seapuss| 6.24.11 @ 8:08AM
Excellent post, Stuart. One quibble, though. Evolution does not presently have an explanation (at least not a very good one) of how life on earth "emerged", but only how it "evolved" after it emerged.
I too see no contradiction between faith and science. I like to think that God created human beings through the laws of nature, not despite them.
Young earth creationists bring unwarranted ridicule down upon all people of faith. Anyone can disprove young earth creationism on any clear night. The galaxy Andromeda is 2.2 million light years away, yet is visible to the naked eye. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, you could not see Andromeda. Yet, there it is in plain sight.
buckeyeman| 6.24.11 @ 9:25AM
My young earth creationist sister and her husband would simply reply that God created it all in its (nearly) present form. Hence, sea life embedded in stone high in the Alps was simply placed there six thousand years ago when the world was created "as is". Are you able to say that He couldn't have done it this way?
If you are just going to believe it no matter what, this kind of explanation works pretty well and is almost impervious to refutation. And it works as well for the universe as it does for the coral embedded in the limestone at my farm (although that might have been from the Flood). BTW, we all went to the creationist museum down in Kentucky a year or so ago - it was pretty well done, not all that in-your-face, and made some pretty decent points.
If you are going down the path of saying that the Bible is more of a travel guide and moral code than a literal iteration of factual events, then most Christians on this site would take issue with you. As for me, I'm just confused.
Frekki| 6.24.11 @ 11:17AM
God may well have created everything just as it is a short while ago, there would be no way to tell. And no way to use that idea scientifically if all the evidence pointed to an older creation. There are theological arguments against God creating false evidence to hide his natural works, but I don't want to explain that here. I do want "young earth" people to understand that there is no evidence for their belief outside of the Bible, and they are welcome to that myth. It is a difficult thing to fully realize how small man is in God's universe.
Stuart Koehl| 6.24.11 @ 9:31AM
"Evolution does not presently have an explanation (at least not a very good one) of how life on earth "emerged", but only how it "evolved" after it emerged."
Point taken. Most radical evolutionists use some variant of "and then all these chemicals came together and began replicating themselves molecularly"--which is akin to the Far Side cartoon of the scientists standing in front of a blackboard full of equations. Under Step 2, there is a big cloud labeled "And then a miracle happened". And one of the scientists studying the problem says, "I think step two needs more work".
cuban pete| 6.24.11 @ 11:54AM
Stuart:
Thanks for your insight. I always enjoy your thoughtful posts.
Speaking of cartoons, the discussion of evolution always reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago of two fish in a prehistoric setting propped up on their fins at the edge of the water. One fish says to the other,"Well, here goes nothing."
Have a pleasant weekend.
Nunya| 6.24.11 @ 6:00PM
Stuart, I couldn't help but laugh out loud when you reminded me of that cartoon. The Far Side was one of my favorites for years. Also pertinent to this discussion would be the one that showed 'Why evolution actually happened' (if I remember the title correctly), showing two fish, one with a bat and one with a glove, staring at a ball on the sand.
Patrick| 6.25.11 @ 2:01AM
You're a Far Side fan too? I had all the books! Some would make me laugh out loud, others would have me smack my head against the wall. Ah, the good ol' days.
David T| 6.24.11 @ 9:47AM
Seapuss--My logic professor would have said you have commited the fallacy of secundum quid (hasty generalization). You cannot possibly have enough information to determine that time is absolute and that it has always flowed at a constant rate throughout the universe.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 10:31AM
Assuming that the varius scientific laws (ie time, gravity, speed of light, etc) experienced locally are both typical and universal is an essential part of scientific understanding. To assume otherwise without evidence would render the entire endeavor pointless
For example: how can we assume the chemistry of gunpowder will result in an explosion next week maybe the laws of thermodynamics will change? The answer is that not only has all experince indicated that scientific laws are universal (going to extreme situations reveals new complexities and subtleties of physical laws rather than discrediting them, see the shift from newtonian physics to einsteinian), but also no predictions can be made if the universe is not predictable.
David T| 6.24.11 @ 1:53PM
diviz--What you say is true, as far as it goes. My point to Seapuss was that it's not possible to disprove a young earth by merely observing celestial phenomena. Take for example the super nova 1987A. We observed it in 1987, but calculated time says it happened 200,000 years ago. Which is correct, observed time or calculated time? If calculated time is correct, then light travels at the same speed in all directions (the speed of light is isotropic). If observed time is correct, light travels at different speeds in different directions (the speed of light is anisotropic). The problem is there is no reliable way to tell the difference. It would require simultaneous synchronization of two different clocks at some distance from each other--but simultaneity and synchronization are not observable in an Einsteinian, relativitic universe. Bottom line: Observed time (instantaneous to the observer) cannot be disproved by what we know now.
Patrick| 6.25.11 @ 2:08AM
Actually, distance and velocity of the observed object can fill in many of those gaps. This can be determined through redshift/blueshift and it's apparent motion or lack thereof in comparison to our own known change in location by way of orbit.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:30AM
As I understand it, there is no way to directly measure the "one way speed of light." But Maxwell's equations imply that light has the same velocity no matter which direction it is going, and a great deal of modern electronic equipment that is built in accordance with those equations would work very weirdly if the speed of light were different going in different directions.
Ralph| 6.30.11 @ 1:41AM
Actually Steven, it would make no difference to electronic equipment.
Your first statement was right though - there is no way to measure the one way speed of light because of the "relativity of simultainiety".
Robert L Hamilton, Engineer| 6.25.11 @ 11:51AM
You neglect one constant: If you have a god that created the universe 6,000 years ago that god could have created the light streaming from Andromeda 6000 years ago now impinging upon us. Fantasy cannot be questioned. It is what it is.
Ralph| 6.30.11 @ 1:45AM
"Fantasy cannot be questioned" - Thanks for your assertion Robert, I'll take that on board as best I can.
But if God wanted to create a universe with a purpose, and man was the centre of that purpose, why WOULDN'T he have created a mature universe. Why waste billions of years evolving stuff when He can do it all in a blink!!!!
GalapagosPete| 7.1.11 @ 11:58AM
This is called, among other more pejorative terms, "Last Thursdayism."
Anyway, I thought you people hold the position that your god doesn't experience time as we mere mortals do, so why would it make a difference to it how long something takes?
Ralph| 7.2.11 @ 5:14AM
Then it's "Last Thursdayism forever!!!"
Some form of "Last Thursdayism" seems to be necessary in any case since the universe seems in many ways to be like a clockwork clock running down. Ergo, something (or someone) must have wound it up in the first place.
It's true that billions of years may not have given God boredom, but we also believe that God revealed what He did in the Bible, so "Last Thursday" was actually 6000 yrs ago.
Cheers
GalapagosPete| 7.6.11 @ 2:32AM
"Some form of "Last Thursdayism" seems to be necessary...something (or someone) must have wound it up in the first place."
Why? What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
"...we also believe that God revealed what He did in the Bible..."
We know you believe that, but you have been unable to either explain why you believe it or why anyone else should.
Show us the evidence.
George S| 6.24.11 @ 10:28AM
Theology does encroach on the scientific and that's why we have these arguments. If you take a literal verse from the Bible, the earth being created in seven days, that presents a problem as to how did the author possibly know that. Does that dismiss the Bible? No, it is simply human nature to state a narrative in terms that can be understood. If the Bible were in fact an accurate historical record, then there would be no need to believe in God, it would be a fact that no one can dismiss. Religion would then, by definition, not exist (and other religions will be proved as myths). So when the Darwinists use their theory as scientific fact, they are saying "debate over" and are now ascribing their "bible" as a historic record -- a bible that is inarguably true, when in fact it, too, encroaches on its theological cousin by asserting the underlying belief is fact.
Stuart Koehl| 6.24.11 @ 2:07PM
But, until the 19th century, such biblical literalism was the exception, not the rule. Throughout most of its history, the Church has (mischaracterizations of the Galileo incident not withstanding) supported the development of the sciences in the belief that a rational God governs the universe through rational and discernible rules.
Only with the rise of scientific materialism from the mid-18th century onward do we find people saying that science and religion are not only antithetical but openly hostile. The continental Philosophes did so in pursuit of an antinomian agenda, and used fallacious and misleading arguments to do so. But not until the mid-19th century do we find scientists as a class beginning to elevate scientific materialism as the sole legitimate form of epistemology.
In the United States, as in the United Kingdom, mischaracterizations of Darwin lay at the heart of the problem, and many American (and British) Evangelicals reacted by developing an extreme biblical literalism standing in opposition to the new science.
Both approaches are in error, because each operates from fallacious initial assumptions: scientific materialism from the position only that which can be measured is "real"; biblical literalists from the position the Bible can and should be read only in the most facile and literal manner.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:16PM
Explain to me why 'Faith' is a GOOD thing? Now Faith has alot of definitions, so I am not talking about faithful as in inter-personal relationships, but specifically the 'Belief without proof' to me that is the Mark of an Idiot?
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:01PM
Like the guys who believe in dark matter or alternate universes? I agree... Mark of an Idiot.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:33AM
Perhaps Kingofthenet should rephrase his complaint so that it speaks of "belief that is not proportioned to evidence."
There are observations of the motions of distant galaxies that imply that they have more mass than we can see. "Dark matter" is inferred to explain this observation in a way consistent with other observations. Multiple universes are an implication of inflationary Big Bang theory (which is supported by multiple lines of evidence); alternate universes are required by one interpretation of quantum physics. As far as I know, no scientist insists that we know for a fact that either exists.
TrueBlue| 6.24.11 @ 6:57PM
The fact that faith in God is the basis for most of the moral codes followed on Earth would be a good thing to me. Yes faith can be perverted to create horrible situations like religious fanatics and the acts they deem wonderful, but that is the fault of men, not God. It's a side effect of us having free will.
Belief without proof isn't a good thing though, that's why science and religion are complimentary and not contradictory. Science is the tool God gave us to discover how he made the universe to work. The better we understand His work, the closer we are to God.
You cannot see the wind, only its effects, and yet you believe it is there; but what is a miracle if not proof that God exists? Many things happen that are outside the ability of science to prove, and yet people have seen these things happen or even been the ones to make them happen. Faith in God isn't "Belief without proof" it is "Belief in what you cannot see with your eyes."
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:38PM
KOTN,
Did you read TrueBlue's post?
Patrick| 6.25.11 @ 2:17AM
Do you have proof that electricity is flowing through your outlets? Have you, this very second, taken out a volt-meter to test? Yet you believe that you have power. What if your testing equipment is giving a false reading?
People live their whole lives with mountains of assumptions, and no plausible amount of science could ever begin to be accomplished without the acceptance of things not proven and re-proven.
Simply put, you live your whole life with faith. That you do not have such faith for a prime mover is your own problem.
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 11:54AM
Here is my problem with your responses, sure I can't see electricity or wind(except LA) but I can measure them with test devices. But that is a minor quibble, here is my BIG problem, God (and Jesus) apparently were VERY active a couple thousand years ago and beyond that, with TONS of interactions with 'regular' folk. Doing all sorts of great miracles and STILL the vast majority didn't 'believe'. You have one of his OWN Disciples who laid eyeballs on the guy, not believing, so is he in Hell? No he is a Saint, that's fair? I hear this 'free will' argument and it's garbage, I CERTAINLY believe in Law Enforcement and the Justice system, that doesn't seem to stop alot of people from committing crimes here and now. Proving you exist and having me fallow you are two different things.Why did this 'talkative' God suddenly stifle himself? Not a whimper in 2,000yrs, sounds about right for a old Fairy Tale, not so much if true.
TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 2:47PM
Every story of a person who survives something nobody should have been able to live through; every person that suddenly wakes up from a coma after their family was told they would never wake up; every time someone suddenly is able to see, or hear, or walk again after being told by doctors there is no possibility of being able to do so again. Those are your proof that God is still at work in the world, those are your measurements.
Do you need another Great Flood to believe He is still active in the world? Jesus Christ, his only son, has already died for our sins. What more do you want? I'm not saying you should be worshipping God, but why not follow His teachings? At the very least you will be a better person, living a just and moral life. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
Why is the "free will" argument garbage? Would you rather He made us do everything? How would that actually benefit us as people, being nothing but dolls? You give your own proof by bringing up Law Enforcement and the Justice system for there being "free will." The laws of Man are not much different than the laws of God. They are there for all to see and follow, but in the end it is each person's choice to do so.
GalapagosPete| 7.6.11 @ 10:44PM
No, TrueBlue, those are mostly just evidence that doctors don't always get it right.
As for a "story of a person who survives something nobody should have been able to live through", give us an example.
axbucxdu| 6.24.11 @ 12:59PM
Stuart Koehl| 6.24.11 @ 7:09AM wrote:
"Science and theology are complementary, not contradictory. Each has its allotted sphere, and problems emerge only when trespasses in the realm of the other."
Kant's Antimony 4 is a double-edged sword. The neo-evos never give a thought to this. Once science trespasses into the transcendental, it is no longer science. It's good that the Almighty has Kant patrolling that DMZ.
Stuart Koehl| 6.24.11 @ 2:08PM
Quite right. Thank you.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 3:53PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A bit of clarity in a morass of liturgical turgidity.
I find no contradiction in science and faith. Hell, I prayed fervently in every math class.
Vern Crisler | 6.24.11 @ 8:39PM
The theory of evolution is not science. It is a substitute for science and critical thought.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:28AM
Succinct and an excellent comment!
GalapagosPete| 6.29.11 @ 10:49PM
Well Vern, thousands of scientists consider evolution to be real science, the result of 150 years of research and critical thought, so I guess I'm going to have to side with them.
Darin| 6.24.11 @ 7:11AM
Micro-evolution is known to exist. We see this when plants, animals, and people change as their environment changes. Evidence of micro-evolution is often used to support other types of evolution, which is a dishonest leap of thinking.
Macro-evolution has never been observed and there is no evidence of it. Despite over 150 years of trying, this theory has never been proven. Charles Darwin thought the cell was a very simple structure consisting of protoplasm. He did not have access to today's microscope technology. We now know how complex a single cell is, how interdependent and precise are its functions. The very nature of this complexity speaks against a belief that this happened by accident or random chance.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 8:54AM
Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus...there's your series. I left some genera out, but that's the evolution of the horse. You can go from Ambulocetus to Pakicetus and other genera of archaeocetes to see the evolution of the whale. If you want to see a fossilized snapshot in time of a major character developing, let's say flight feathers, there's Archaeopteryx lithographica. The division between hominins which are quadrupeds and those which are bipedal? Take a look at the pelvis and hips of Australopithecus anamensis and later hominins...all the way to our own. Darwin's HYPOTHESIS was and has been proven. There is no "microevolution" or "macroevolution," there's just evolution. When one species becomes another is a subject for debate...when one genus becomes another is fairly obvious. Daspletosaurus was a Tyrannosaurid, and it was obvious when Daspletosaurs developed into Albertosaurs and genus Tyrannosaurus. The question then becomes which Albertosaurs are libratus and when do those become sarcophagus, and when do members of genus Tyrannosaurus become members of species rex or bataar (I lean in the direction that Tarbosaurus isn't a different genus from Tyrannosaurus...if Maleev had found those fossils in Montana and not Mongolia, the debate wouldn't even be taking place). The scientific fact is that evolution has happened and is happening. The only question remaining is what is the mechanism that moves it forward? Mutation doesn't answer all the questions...perhaps for some radical changes which occur unexpectedly...but most likely evolution is environmentally driven: A herbivore with a better digestive system is more able to thrive on certain plants. Its teeth will be evidence of its survival, but unfortunately, the soft portions of its digestive system won't survive. But as the plants develop defenses against being eaten (alkaloids in the leaves, for instance), the individual animals with body chemistry to better break down and neutralize those poisons will survive to breed. The plants with coarser leaves or shoots may not be palatable to members of that species with less specialized teeth. Perhaps those individuals die of starvation, but the individuals with stronger and more specialized teeth survive to breed...they produce young, and the process continues. When do they become a new species? That's arbitrary and hard to determine. When do they become a new genus? When they have developed enough differences over time to be obviously distinct from their forebears.
Evolution has happened and is happening. To deny it is to deny the facts.
cowgirl| 6.24.11 @ 10:12AM
If Darwin is right, then why did he allow the lie about the dog/human fetus in the Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species... Haeckel's photos were fake. He also stated in the the Forward of the Origin of Species that he did not have all the facts to back up his theory - translated - he really made it all up.
Futhermore, Darwin was a drunk and flunked out of dental school He had no formal training or knowledge of biology to begin with. He married his first cousin and produced 10 children, 3 of whom died as young children due to issues that arise one marries a close relative. If Darwin was right about mutations, then his mutated children should have mutated into a new being instead, they died.
Since you claim you are an expert on Evolution, please answer my questions - I have asked these questions of many, many evolution believers and they usually answer them with the you are stupid response...
1. How did blood clotting evolve?
2. How did the nervous system evolve?
3. How did our individual dna evolve?
4. How did man verus woman evolve?
5. How did it evolve that woman bear children and men do not?
6. How our intelligence - that which animals do not posses - evolve?
7. HOw did the process of the development of an egg and a sperm that then transforms into a embroyo which then transforms into a human evolve - since this complicated planet named earth came from two atoms colliding, how did the process of human evolve from two atoms colliding to the 9 month process of pregnancy?
8. How did our emotions evolve?
9. How did our ears, nose and eyes evolve giving us the ability to hear, smell and see?
10. How did the pumping of blood through our bodies evolve?
11. How did animal's instincts - either flight or fight evolve?
That should be enough for now. I eagerly await your response since no one I have ever met who believes in evolution can give me fact-based answers.
Happy Trails.
look it up| 6.24.11 @ 10:37AM
All very good questions that have been diligently research and there is a great deal of literature on all of them explaining the fascinating development. Because this forum does not provide anywhere near enough space for detailed explanations, I would recommend reviewing some of the literature. www.wikipedia.com is an excellent place to get started and provides not only a brief but detailed explanation but also numerous citations to other sources.
However, I doubt you are authentically interested in any of the above questions or you would have already researched the readily available answers.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:18PM
"All very good questions that have been diligently research and there is a great deal of literature on all of them explaining the fascinating development"
Nice reply - however you cannot answer the questions - neither can Wiki. I have read Darwin's works - he cannot answer the questions neither.
Again - You believe in evolution and you can't answer my simple questions. Why - Because evolution cannot answer them.
TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 5:38PM
As a sidenote, Wiki can be editted by pretty much anyone, which allows for a lot of opinion to be placed in its articles since nobody actually fact checks it. It's useful for anything that doesn't have a lot of bias on a subject (which evolution most certainly DOES), but for the rest it is only useful as a point to start off of before going elsewhere for the actual facts.
GalapagosPete| 6.30.11 @ 1:32AM
Not sure why you're so concerned with Darwin himself, since his work has been expanded upon for over 150 years, but let's examine your claims.
"...the lie about the dog/human fetus in the Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species..."
Dog/human fetus? What are you talking about?
"Haeckel's photos were fake."
They were drawings, not photos, and Haeckel certainly was wrong. This has nothing whatever to do with Darwin, however.
"Futhermore, Darwin was a drunk and flunked out of dental school "
No, he wasn't a drunk, never flunked out of anything, much less a "dental school", which didn't even exist at the time. The first dental school opened in 1840. In the US. Darwin would have been 30 and living in a different country. And by this time he had already completed his voyage on the Beagle, which set the course for his life's work.
"...he did not have all the facts to back up his theory - translated - he really made it all up."
If he made it all up he was a special kind of brilliant, because he was right about most of it, as 150 years of research has shown.
But you give him far too much credit; he probably actually worked it out from his travels and research.
"He had no formal training or knowledge of biology to begin with."
Which was very common in those days; many naturalists (as scientists were called in those days) never had any formal education in their fields, they learned from their research.
"...10 children, 3 of whom died as young children due to issues that arise one marries a close relative."
Annie had scarlet fever, and possibly tuberculosis; either or both likely contributed to her death. There is no information available on the cause of death for the other two. There is no indication that it had anything to do with Charles and Emma being cousins, although that was Darwin's constant fear.
"If Darwin was right about mutations, then his mutated children should have mutated into a new being..."
A "new being"? Like the X-Men? I have no idea what you're talking about.
So the things you said about Darwin are either false - I think there's a word for that - or are, to put it kindly, speculation.
Regarding your questions: yet again, I fail to see your point. Even assuming that we don't know any of these things and never do, so what, exactly? Are you under the impression that if we have no answer now we never will? I should point out that we are ignorant about many more things than we have answers for; all this means is that there is much work to be done to understand natural phenomena. In the words of Dara O'Briain, "Of course science doesn't know everything, if it did it would stop."
What you seem to be saying is that the best argument you have to support your position is ignorance. You should be aware that that's not a good thing.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 10:48AM
Where did I claim to be an "expert"? I just pointed out the evidence for species adapting and when sufficient adaptations have taken place, as well as physical modifications, a new species or new genus is present.
As to "how" those adaptations and characteristics evolved, they evolved because there was a survival advantage to them. Perhaps when multi-cellular life developed blood, there was a creature which was prey to another. It had what would have been an imperfection that caused its blood to harden when exposed to air. This clotting factor provided a survival advantage, and it lived to breed and pass that on to its offspring. Since blood doesn't fossilize, all that we can do is speculate and make reasonable assumptions. Why are there separate genders? Again, there had to be a survival advantage to developing male and female as opposed to asexual reproduction.
DNA is a nucleic acid and nucleic acids have been present since the beginning of life. They served to mediate the production of proteins from amino acids at the beginning of life on Earth.
As to our intelligence, it's not different than the intelligence of other animals, although we have the capacity of reason to a greater extent than other animals. Among any form of life, two things lead to survival in order to breed: Intelligence and luck. A stupid animal may be lucky enough to not get eaten, but its less intelligent offspring may not share that luck and end up getting eaten. The more intelligent animal may not be lucky, but if it breeds, and its offspring breed, over time, that species will gain in intelligence as the smarter animals will succeed and survive.
How did sexual reproduction evolve? Again, there had to be a survival benefit to it, or else we'd likely create pods and develop asexually, as some worms do.
Eyes, ears and other sensory organs developed from previous structures used for different purposes. Sight likely was an imperfection in an ancient creature wherein distinguishing variations in light provided an advantage. Hearing is different between fish and land animals...in mammals, our jaws have modified from being multi-bone structures into single-bone structures. Due to bilateral symmetry, we have on each side the three bones called the malleus, incus and stapes. In therapsids and pelycosaurs (ancestors and relatives of the mammals) those bones formed both part of the chewing apparatus and hearing system...again, it was adaptive for those bones to not be used in the jaw, but still serve a sound transmission purpose.
The cardiac system likely developed as a means of transmitting both oxygen and nutrients to the different parts of the body. Soft tissue doesn't fossilize in general, so any answer would be speculative at best. Fight or flight would have evolved based on local environmental conditions, and I'm pretty certain the individual ancestral animal's own temperament would have had something to do with it, as well. A little twerp trying to fight a big predator would have ended up a meal...and that pretty much settles the issue for his genetic line.
Considering how you asked your questions, plus your obvious hostility to anything dealing with Darwin (not all mutations are helpful...and inbreeding isn't a good idea. Look at Tennessee. We got Algore from them. Or West Virginia and Bobby Byrd...those are two great examples of why inbreeding is a bad idea), I doubt you'll accept any of my answers, all of which are based on facts and current knowledge. All science can do is work with the evidence we have. Since things don't change much...animal behavior is a constant...we can make extrapolations based upon present conditions. If a given characteristic is adaptive, it is passed on. If not, it isn't. Everything in a derived species serves a survival purpose, whether it's human intelligence or a dog's panting. WHY something evolved is a question that likely can't be answered because we will never have the totality of knowledge about the entirety of life's history.
Mutch Moore| 6.24.11 @ 10:06PM
Very commendable and benevolent point by point offering here by Mathew Quigley in reply to an apparently frustrated cowgirl's imponderables. Quite an admirable, comprehensive reply considering it's extemporaneousness. Stupendous! Not "stupid" by any measure.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:25PM
I am not frustrated - I know when I post questions like this however I usually frustrated the evolutionist because try as you may - evolution cannot answer them. Unfortunately Mutch Moore Quigley speculated - he did not answer the questions with facts - that mean he would need fossils and all those nice things that come along with proving a theory. Did not happen.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:22PM
Nice long reply. However, you did not answer any of the questions, why? Because the theory of evolution is just a theory. There is no proof. I have no hostility towards Darwin. My facts are irrefutable on Darwin's life. Evolution is a religion - one must have faith to believe in it. All you can do is speculate - therefore it is not science.
Matthew Quigley| 6.26.11 @ 12:21PM
I answered EVERYTHING you put forward. Skeletons fossilize, soft tissue and behavior don't. You keep focusing on Darwin, but I have news for you: Darwin was over 150 years ago. Biological science, paleontology and animal behavioral studies have moved on since then...creationism hasn't. Creationism is a monument to the stupidity of man...it is MAN claiming to know all. it is MAN taking literally the words of a culture (the Hebrews) who taught using PARABLE and stories meant to make a point. If you want to believe that the Earth was made in a week five-thousand years ago while denying the evidence of immense age and the changes of animal life throughout BILLIONS of years of time, you are free to do so. You could have a skull of Homo gautengensis staring you in the face and you'd deny the fact of it being the remains of your earliest known ancestor. The DNA sequences of a bonobo and a human could be right in front of you, and you'd call it "speculation." Scientific hypotheses must be explicable and flasifiable in order to be valid. In other words, a likely, replicatable, predictable outcome must exist for a hypothesis to be valid. Based on cladistic analysis, ancestry and family relationships have been predicted and validated for THOUSANDS of animal and plant groupings. As for evidence of said relationships, all one needs to do is look at basal characters. The next time you eat chicken, look at the thighbone, the wing and the leg. The wing is the animal's hand and arm. The radius bone is curved. The thigh is it's femur, and is shorter than it's tibia (the leg). The chicken has a S-curve in its neck, a diapsid skull...bluntly, the chicken is a theropod dinosaur with derived characters of fused finger bones (used for flight, although chickens are secondarily flightless), and backward-pointing pubes, again, a derived character to support flight. That wasn't made by someone saying "Wazzy-booya deus ex machina alakazot!"...those characters evolved from a little animal that lived sometime likely in the Sinemurian or Pliensbachian faunal ages of the Jurassic Period...anywhere between 196 and 183 million years ago. The evidence for the derived characters is found in Archaeopteryx, but also in Dromaeosurs, Ornithomimids, Avimimids, and, yes, Tyrannosaurids. Bluntly, all a bird is is a derived Coelurosaur. It shares ALL the basal characters and some of the derived (non-lifestyle specific) characters of ALL Coelurosaurs. ALL animals share the basal characters of their ancestors. Cetaceans are descended from land-dwelling ungulates, and have the astragalus bone to show it. Humans are descended from Australopithecines and have the pelvis to prove it...but more significantly, we have the nostrils to prove an even more ancient primate relationship, and that's with the Catarrhini. The proof is there on your face...unless you lack a nose.
I knew you wouldn't accept my answers because they are non-theistic. All you've shown yourself to be, Cowgirl, is a typically closed-minded, willfully ignorant creationist. People like you are why the media depict Conservative as mindless yokels, because your attitudes fit the stereotype to a tee.
cowgirl| 6.26.11 @ 9:32PM
And here we have Matthew speculating again. You cannot answer the questions and have no fossils or proof of your speculating. Furthermore, you are speculating that I believe in God. Then you call me names. Typical hysterical liberal. Evolution is joke and you believe in it.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 2:58PM
Heh, speculating is what Darwin did too.. 'til he was 6 ft. under.
GalapagosPete| 6.30.11 @ 1:36AM
No, Margie, science was what Darwin did, and so well that after 150 years his theory has only grown stronger.
GalapagosPete| 6.30.11 @ 1:35AM
Well, if you have abetter explanation for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth, feel free to tell us.
And provide your evidence, of course.
TrueBlue| 6.27.11 @ 6:06PM
"DNA is a nucleic acid and nucleic acids have been present since the beginning of life. They served to mediate the production of proteins from amino acids at the beginning of life on Earth."
Unfortunately that bit can never be proven as the start of life since there is no way to go back in time, and any tests conducted now will never have the same atmospheric or oceanic conditions that such a theory depends on.
Also, using "assumptions" and "extrapolations" to prove your theory is the same as using faith to prove yourself right. So by asserting that your theory is correct you are forced to admit that the other is also possible, else you invalidate yourself.
Evolution is a THEORY that requires faith that certain things are true in order to prove itself. Just as Creationism and Intelligent Design are theories that require faith in a greater being (or beings) to prove themselves true. There is no possibility of proving Evolution as Law, even were we able to travel back to that time, since the mere act of us being there to observe would change the conditions that were supposedly present at the time. However if you have faith in God there is consistent proof every day that he exists as miracle after miracle occurs across the planet. Neither is any more intelligent than the other, they both require FAITH in certain things to be true.
The creation story is not meant to be taken literally. It was put in a scale that humans could understand, but time itself is a human concept. Each "day" written in that story could easily be 100s of millions of years, an immortal being treating such time as nothing but a few days in our own reckoning.
The difference between them of course is that if you have faith in God (regardless of incarnation) then proof is all around you; the best part is that Creationism/ID still allow for Evolution to also be true. If you believe in only Evolution, then all you have is a theory that cannot ever be proven by Man.
buckeyeman| 6.24.11 @ 1:31PM
You are stupid.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 1:41PM
Good way to address the issue...go ad homeinem.
buckeyeman| 6.24.11 @ 7:35PM
Matt, Check the way the reply button works and you'll see I was replying to Cowgirl 'cause she threw out this torrent of nonsense and then said people usually respond by saying she is stupid (if she's not, her post certainly is). But in reality, I was trying to be funny. You know, by throwing back the phrase she mentioned.
Anyway, if you thought I was referring to you I apologize. Your posts today were brilliant, except for the part where you spelled "hominem" wrong.
Matthew Quigley| 6.26.11 @ 12:23PM
Buckeyeman: My post was aimed at cowgirl, not at you.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:26PM
Buckeyeman:Thanks for proving my point.Cowgirl
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 3:58PM
You go, cowgirl!!
There are 2 choices only: One either believes every Word of God, or they believe an atheist rebel named Darwin.
"Every Word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.
Love it. Love Him.
W| 6.24.11 @ 4:05PM
Margie, are you cowgirl?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 4:22PM
No, but I wouldn't mind being her!
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 4:24PM
Here's a fabulous website I found yesterday that shows "scientific" knowledge. That shows many of science's "discoveries" were already in the Bible:
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Enjoy!
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:29PM
What a sad, narrow little world you inhabit. Fortunately, God and I live elsewhere.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:06PM
How did you evolve?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:14PM
"Futhermore, Darwin was a drunk and flunked out of dental school He had no formal training or knowledge of biology to begin with."
I thought it was some pretty impressive work by Darwin, that he managed to do it all the while being Drunk and uneducated, makes him a bit of a Superman?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:22PM
Atheists love to "believe in" Darwinism.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:29PM
Are you impressed with the faked Haeckel's fetus drawings in the Chapter 1 o f Orgin of Species?
Matthew Quigley| 6.26.11 @ 12:26PM
Science moves on. Origin of Species was published in the 1850's. Hey, why don't you ask us about Eoanthropus dawsoni, like the other ignorant Creationists do? Maybe you'd like to find out something about that little item?
cowgirl| 6.26.11 @ 9:50PM
I will move on when you prove Darwin's theory of evolution is law. One must have a hypothesis, followed by a theory then the proved by laws. Evolution cannot and will not ever be proved by scientific laws.
Eoanthropus dawsoni - yes I know about this anthropological hoax. Again evolution is a joke.
cowgirl| 6.26.11 @ 9:50PM
I will move on when you prove Darwin's theory of evolution is law. One must have a hypothesis, followed by a theory then the proved by laws. Evolution cannot and will not ever be proved by scientific laws.
Eoanthropus dawsoni - yes I know about this anthropological hoax. Again evolution is a joke.
cowgirl| 6.26.11 @ 9:50PM
I will move on when you prove Darwin's theory of evolution is law. One must have a hypothesis, followed by a theory then the proved by laws. Evolution cannot and will not ever be proved by scientific laws.
Eoanthropus dawsoni - yes I know about this anthropological hoax. Again evolution is a joke.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:44AM
Cowgirl, Darwin had ten children in the 19th century. Childhood mortality, by current standards, was hideous (his contemporary Charles Dickens also had ten children, two of whom died young; Darwin was doing slightly worse than average in the child-survival department). It is perhaps worth noting that his surviving sons included two successful scientists (both inducted into the Royal Society), a successful military officer and member of parliament, and a successful businessman and mayor.
Darwin himself did not know about mutations, but he knew that new variants in a population had to arise somehow. He suspected that more of them would be harmful rather than helpful, but used the term "natural selection" to refer to the tendency of the helpful ones to survive and be passed on, while the harmful ones died out with their bearers.
Side note: two of his children died of common childhood diseases; the third death seems indeed to have been the result of birth defects, though not necessarily the result of a mutation.
Haeckel made drawings, not photos, and the structures he drew exist, though his drawings exaggerate the similarity in their appearance. Those drawings, by the way, were hardly his only contribution to embryology.
cowgirl| 6.25.11 @ 9:39PM
Wrong on the three children who died - they were Hemophalics.....
Haekel's drawings (excuse the photo miswording) comparing the dog/human fetus were fake. He purposely drew them alike to help prove the theory of evolution. Haeckel was convicted in 1874 for this fraud. An outright lie. Human embroyos do not and never had had gills. Haeckel was also a racist, anti-semite and a strong advocate of eugenics. Haeckel's buddy Darwin was also a racist - that is very clear in Darwin's writings.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.26.11 @ 1:42AM
None of Darwin's children had hemophilia. Haeckel's fetus drawings included several species, from fish to pig to human, and while humans do not have gills, as embryos we do have brachial arches, just as fish embryos do, and the first brachial arch does indeed produce the jaw and inner ear bones.
"Racist" is a relative thing. In Darwin's time, there were creationists who argued that the different human races represented completely different, separately created species; Darwin specifically noted that his theory implied that this could not be the case. Darwin was significantly less racist than most of his contemporaries.
cowgirl| 6.26.11 @ 9:43PM
Haeckel's drawing were deemed fradulent and he was convicted thereforth. You are defending fraud and racism by defending Haeckel.
It is almost equivalent to those who believe in the Religion of Global Warming and it's god Al Gore. On one hand the Global Warming nuts want everyone to live in a tent and walk to work, but it is okay that their god Al Gore has a carbon foot print bigger than China. In other words, fraud is okay as long as it fits their belief in Global Warming religion.
Darwin's three children who died in infancy did not die from childhood diseases. Even Darwin himself suspected that his "inbreeding" marriage had much to do with their deaths. Today we know that inbreeding raises the risks of offspring will inherit bad genes from both parents thus increasing their risk of deformations or in Darwin's terms mutations.
GalapagosPete| 6.30.11 @ 1:39AM
cowgirl, We're waiting for your evidence that any of Darwin's children were hemophiliacs.
John Navratil| 6.24.11 @ 10:32AM
Matthew Quigley,
It isn't the series that is in doubt, it is the mechanism. The DNA as a communication mechanism is subject to random variation and transcription error (Downs, e.g.) but it remarkably error tolerant. It's why we are generally born with the same number of fingers and toes from generation to generation. Dipping into the pot of randomness, even tempered by natural selection, to explain large jumps in the genotype begs the question of why a species can be reduced in numbers too small to avoid extinction, while one random variation is sufficient to launch a new species.
It's hard to be a Darwinist and worry about the Snail Darter, too.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 10:51AM
The what Darter? ;-)
David T| 6.24.11 @ 3:03PM
Quigley--Call me a "fact" denier. The evidence for horse evolution is widely disputed, even among evolutionists. It's a collection of very fragmentary bones and fossils gathered from strata on different continents and arranged in a convenient way in order to support an evolutionary presupposition. Fossils of the earliest "horses" were found, not in the lowest strata, but in layers close to the surface, sometimes next to modern horse fossils. The evidence for whale evolution is also not convincing. Pakicetus, the "walking whale," consists of fragments of skull and jaw, but it grew four legs in the evolutionists' imagination. Likewise, the "legs" of Basilosaurus were not for walking but for grasping during the reproductive act. Ambulocetus? There's no evidence to tie it to the whale. As for Archaeopteryx, it had feathers because...it was a bird!
If evolution were true, the physical evidence in the fossil record would be overwhelming. Instead, we have some fossil fragments and a lot of gaps. It's an article of faith among evolutionists that evolution is true. And nothing will stop them from finding the "facts" to prove it.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 4:10PM
Feathers are a defining characteristic of some branches of theropoda...there's evidence that Dromaeosaurs were feathered, and very likely that Tyrannosaurids carried display feathers. Birds are theropods, feathers are a character of theropods, but not a defining character. Neither is a hard-shelled amniotic egg, as less derived reptiles still reproduce in that manner (exception being some snakes)...likewise, just because a monotreme reproduces using hard-shelled eggs makes it no less a mammal.
All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. As for your ignorance about arcaheocetes not being whales, whales today do have vestigial hind limbs, and every once in a while, a whale is caught where those limbs show up externally...and have hooves. Does that make them NOT a whale? Other primates don't often grow bald, but because some old male chimps and orangs DO get bald pates, does that make them NOT chimps or orangs? You really need to gain some knowledge about derived and basal characters...feathers aren't diagnostic of an animal being a bird, but rather of being a theropod (although some evidence exists--disputed at present--that some Ornithischians also had feathers). Occasionally fossils of more ancient animals are found near fossils of more recent animals, but this isn't evidence of the two being contemporaries. Occasionally geologic conditions result in a fossil being freed from older rock, and then being re-fossilized in newer strata. Chemical and radiological dating shows the true age of the "contemporary" fossil.
Hate to tell you, but your horse is a descendant of Hyracotherium, same as mine...and likely his millions-of-times great grandsire probably was frolicking around Wyoming's Green River formation back in the Eocene along with every other horse on this planet's earliest ancestors.
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/ambulo.htm
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/archie.htm
David T| 6.24.11 @ 8:50PM
Quigley--You need to keep current in the field if you're going to be a convincing evolutionist.
D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009:
"[Oregon State University] research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.
'Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions,' Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that 'some scientists disagree.'
'Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about,' Ruben said. 'But now there are more asterisks all the time. That’s part of the process of science.'”
Finally, Quig, I really don't mind if my horse is a descendant of Hyracotherium. What I do mind is someone telling me so without solid evidence to back it up. I don't claim to be an expert in the ancestry of the horse, but I know a horse's ass when I see one.
Matthew Quigley| 6.26.11 @ 12:28PM
Look in the mirror much?
David T| 6.26.11 @ 12:46PM
My wife liked your comment very much.
She always reminds me that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Andrew Scott| 6.25.11 @ 10:43AM
How do a varied series of fossils demonstrate that one evolved from the other through a series of random mutation and selection? The fallacy is enormous. Could we use the same reasoning to conclude that a Volkswagen Bug naturally evolved into the Jetta?
If you dug up the skeletons of a poodle, a greyhound, and a chihuahua, would you cite them as examples of evolution from one species to another rather than members of the same species which were deliberately bred?
Your reasoning is fallacious. You assume your conclusion.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.26.11 @ 1:44AM
Volkswagons don't reproduce and cannot be bred. And who is supposed to have been selectively breeding, e.g. prehistoric hominids, or whales with hind limbs?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:17PM
There is NO difference between so-called 'Micro' and 'Macro' Evolution, they are the SAME thing, lots of little evolution makes a BIG change.
The Bishop| 6.24.11 @ 7:12AM
I tend to subscribe to the theory of De-Evolution - the regressive development of a species over time. And I offer into evidence the Congress of the United States.
Clint| 6.24.11 @ 7:49AM
Indeed, Your Eminence.
And Obama Appears To Be A Devolved Monkey & The Peter Principle Poster Boy.
JimH| 6.24.11 @ 8:15AM
Are we not me? We are DEVO.
JimH| 6.24.11 @ 8:15AM
Sorry. Are we not men?
Clint| 6.24.11 @ 8:48AM
Obama Got His "Energy Dome" Hat On.
Doctor_X| 6.24.11 @ 7:18AM
I wonder how it would play in the media if a candidate was smart enough to show the difference between micro and macro evolution. You can support micro-evolution, the changes in finches that Darwin observed and reject macro-evolution which is ape to man. There is proof of micro-evolution, however it does not follow that the proof is sufficient to prove macro-evolution.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 7:33AM
Exactly!
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 10:43AM
There are no candidates (or anyone else) "smart" enough to show a distinction between micro and macro evolution, becuase there is no such distinction.
Micro and macro evolution are useless categorizations fabricated by creationists when biological systems (such as bacteria) working fast enough for evolution to be observed under ordinary timescales were used to rebut the position that evolution doesn't happen.
Nick| 6.24.11 @ 11:55PM
Diviz,
There have been know such observations of bacteria evolving. Stop making up such things.
diviz| 6.26.11 @ 10:34PM
The most currently significant example of bacterial evolution is multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus a bacterium strain that due to ongoing exposure to environment containing antibiotics (such as methicillin) has evolved a means with which to thrive in such an environment. This traits did not exist before synthetic antibiotics and do now. One of the more interesting experiments recently was subjecting a completely non-resistant strain of staph to increasing concentrations methicillin and takeing sample out every couple of generation. The samples were DNA sequenced and the specific path of evolution mapped. Quite fascinating.
Even most IDists don't contest bacteria evolving because the evidence is so blatent. As noted above IDists conjure an unsupported distinction between micro and macro evolution.
Just making stuff up is the province of ID/creationism proponents.
Nick| 6.27.11 @ 12:19AM
Diviz,
The bacteria didn't evolve anything.
The fact that some of the bacteria survived the antibiotic, and then reproduced, is no different than the mosquitos who survive pesticides, reproduce, and then the subsequent generations also survive the pesticide.
The staphylococcus aureus is still staphylococcus aureus, and the mosquito is still a mosquito. Neither has evolved.
When the ebola virus hits an African village, everyone who becomes infected does not die. There is not a 100% mortality rate.
If those who have survived ebola in the past and had children, and those children got ebola and survived; did these same children evolve into a new species?
Nick| 6.27.11 @ 12:33AM
Oops! That should be: If those who survived ebola in the past WENT ON TO HAVE children, and those children...
Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 7:38AM
If a candidate is a creationist they should be honest with voters and then ask if the questioner is trying to impose an anti-Constitutional religious test on the Presidential race. If so shame on them.
Obama is illustrative of devolution as he grows stupider and stupider every day.
A. C. Santore| 6.24.11 @ 9:21AM
Your last sentence is not correct. He might appear to grow stupider and stupider every day, but he is still wreaking havoc while convincing many that he is doing good things.
That takes some intelligence. Evil intelligence, of course, but still intelligence.
J.C.Eaton| 6.24.11 @ 10:05AM
Well, in any event, he is dead-eye Dick on the first one. My answer would be"What the hell difference does it make to the nation at large what I think about that?" The US Supreme court has narrowed what can be taught in the public schools on the point;private schools, God love 'em, can teach what they like on the question; and local school districts will do a better job of running their operations without the nose of the Dept. of Education, which I promise to close down if elected, will ever do. Thanks for the question.
W| 6.24.11 @ 7:52AM
Strict evolutionists cannot explain how life started. Nor can they explain that once life, if we evolved from apes, why did we evolve and why did apes remain un-evolved. They always say we share 90 or 95% of similar body orgain functions with various animals, but all that means is blood systems, breathing, hearing, seeing, and digestion are similar in life. And strict evolutionists are usually also atheists, so there is an anti religious aspect that drives them. This is clear in the books by Dawkins and other athiest/evolutionists. I agree you may be able to reconcile some aspects of evolution with God creating life. But without God how do you explain the first life, the origin, and man?
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 9:03AM
Apes did evelve. A chimp is more specialized for an arboreal life than is a Proconsul. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, bonobos or gorillas, but rather from an animal which shared a common ancestor with those animals. Our branch lived in an area which became savannah, and in order to survive, our ancestors had to adapt to live on the ground. That led to bipedalism as a survival mechanism (a greater field of vision due to height, easier to travel long distances to find food in open country), and the resultant development of the brain and its subsequent advantages. Chimps and other African great apes ancestors were in regions that remained forested, and they became more specialized for life in the trees. Yes, they spend time on the ground, but even gorillas aren't truly terrestrial as are humans, and they are quadrupeds. Apes DID evolve...they specialized by evolution into more efficient tree dwellers.
W| 6.24.11 @ 9:27AM
Thanks, Matthew, please explain:
1. Why did we evolve from whatever? Is it because of the savannah?
2. When did man appear?
3. How did the first life start?
John Dibble| 6.24.11 @ 10:14AM
I'll take a crack at this:
1. IIRC the savannah is the type of environment we think the ancestors who started walking upright in for the reasons Matthew stated. Another advantage our ancestors eventually gained was the loss of the thick coat of fur and getting sweat glands. This enabled us to cool down more efficiently than other animals, allowing for persistence hunting during the hotter periods of the day when other animals wouldn't have been wanting to move around a lot due to the risk of overheating. This let us have a steady diet of more meat, which gave us the nutrition to support larger and better brains. This method is still used by some living in the savannah today. Here's a video demonstrating the method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo
2. Well, that depends on how flexible your definition of man is. There isn't necessarily a clear line where one species begins and another ends. Genus homo, which includes homo erectus and neandrathals, appeared roughly 2.5 million years ago. Homo sapiens appeared roughly 500,000 years ago. Homo sapien sapien (modern man) appeared rougly 200,000 years ago. You can get more details on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._evolution
3. Evolution has to do with the diversification of life rather than life appearing. The scientific field dealing with the origins of life is abiogenesis, which is the study of organic matter developing from inorganic matter. The basic idea is that on early Earth the atmospheric composition and general conditions of the planet were different and allowed for certain kinds of chemical reactions that eventually allowed for some kind of self-replicating molecule (or set of molecules that replicated eachother) to develop. The evidence for this is not as solid as the evidence for evolution, but there's still some good evidence for it. Once again, you can get a crash course at Wikipedia.
W| 6.24.11 @ 10:24AM
John, How did the "early Earth" originate? How did the "inorganic" matter originate? Why did we evolve as you say and the other apes in the savannah did not?
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 10:58AM
The population that led to humans evolved...they survived. The population that didn't adapt to the changing conditions went extinct. That's just the way it is. Where the forests remained, the apes became more adapted to an arboreal life (chimps, for example). They did evolve...they became better tree dwellers. Life and existence aren't guaranteed..it was a survival advantage for our ancestors to move onto the ground, and the ones who did better lived to breed. It took millions of years to become human, and it was not assured that it would happen, but it did...and that's what I find very cool. There was no guarantee that Hyracotheriusm would evolve into my horse, but he did...and also into zebras and donkeys. And I also am pretty pleased it happened. Adapting to different conditions can produce an animal as ugly as a camel or as pretty as a horse...and I never cease to be amazed at what life is capable of given the varied conditions on this planet.
John Dibble| 6.24.11 @ 11:00AM
1. Earth came about through a variety of processes. Gravity attracted matter to matter, forming the sun and the planets. Earth happened to get the gasses and conditions good for life. We're not entirely sure what the exact conditions where, however, though as I mentioned before experiments based on hypothesized early conditions have produced good evidence for abiogenesis.
2. Inorganic matter is any matter not associated with life. The Big Bang is the 'start' of the universe as we know it, and matter possibly came into being then. How this happened we do not know for certain, though not knowing is not an excuse to throw God into the gaps of our knowledge. The intellectually honest thing to do is to admit our ignorance on the subject and keep investigating in the hopes of figuring it out one day.
If you'd like a bit of a crash course in our current proposed explanations and have an hour to spare, I find this lecture enjoyable - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
You might try one of Hawking's books if you want a deeper understanding.
3. The populations capable of breeding with one another may have been separated by enough distance or by geographical barriers such that they couldn't transfer new mutations between populations. Evolution has two primary mechanisms - gene mutation and natural selection. The former is random in which genes it happens to, so different populations will get different mutations. (I'll note that mutation tends to occur at a somewhat non-random rate, however) The latter is non-random, and always favors the traits that help with survival and reproduction, but due to the random nature of mutation which traits different populations get will not always be the same. Therefore, any other species of apes living in the savannahs would not necessarily go down the same evolutionary path.
Wade Smith| 6.24.11 @ 11:58AM
Under the assumptions of the 'big bang' theory the resulting explosion would have been at such a high temperature matter could not exist. This would have resulted in an expanding 'cloud' without any variations. This would result in uniform cooling which would result in matter particulating from plasma into a uniform distribution of dust.
The uniform distribution of dust will result in a uniform gravitation field and therefore there would not be an aggregation of matter into suns or planets.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 1:18PM
Why would you assume the big bang was uniform? It seems like a reasonable assumption based on some of the common inutitions about what causes turbulence but the question requires research rather than dismissal. The evidence of the macro structure of condensed matter in the universe along with the that of the measured microwave background radiation indicates that the the big bang was almost but not quite uniform, which resulted in the subsequent galactic evolution.
One of the keenest questions being researched is: what causes a big bang to ripple?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:31PM
A 'self replicating' molecule is like a virus, it straddles the line between being alive and being inert. You know you can take virus, dry them out to crystals and put them on a shelf, and at a MUCH later date put them in a good environment and they will still replicate.
W| 6.24.11 @ 4:19PM
What does this mean? Where did this molecule or virus originate?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:35PM
Well you got Chemicals, you got lightning you got water. All you need.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:07PM
That's why we see spontaneous life all over the place now... duh! I mean, all you need is chemicals, lightning and water. Hell... it's like that all over the south during spring. We even have the humid enviornment to help promote life once it starts!
Oh... don't forget you need a SERIOUS streak of luck on the galactic crapshoot.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.26.11 @ 1:46AM
Darwin had very little to say on the origin of life, but he did make this note: if the precursors of living cells were forming spontaneously today, they'd be gobbled up as fast as they appeared by life that already existed.
W| 6.24.11 @ 5:16PM
Let ..me ..ask...you....real...slow. Where did all these molecules, water, lighthning originate. This means where and how did it start... take your time....
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 5:28PM
Are you talking about how the Sun and planets formed? Well you see there was this large cloud of Gas...
W| 6.24.11 @ 7:57PM
King, you and The Right must be the same person, there can't be two persons this dense, unless you just chose to ignore the questions, You are the same person
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:47AM
Stellar nucleosynthesis.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:35AM
"herefore, any other species of apes living in the savannahs would not necessarily go down the same evolutionary path."
Maybe they went down the path and ended up on Broadway, and maybe this is why the Planet of the Apes "the play", has been such a success there. Or maybe that other big hit, "Damn Monkeys".
Sorry, I'm just having waaay too much fun.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 10:16AM
I never ask the "why" because it's ultimately irrelevant. Living conditions change, and populations either change with those conditions or go extinct. As to when did man appear, that depends...do you mean genus Homo or species and subspecies sapiens sapiens? The earliest KNOWN member of Homo is gautengensis which dates from two million to 600,000 years ago. Bear in mind, that's the earliest KNOWN member of Homo, it's possible and indeed likely that an earlier species could be found. There were species which overlapped in existence...Neandertal, for example, shared space with sapiens sapiens (us), and it appears that among Europeans and European descendants there are Neandertal DNA elements present. Some paleoanthropologists maintain that's a result of evolving from Neandertal, others that it's evidence of interbreeding. My own opinion is that it could be six of one, half a dozen of the other.
How did the first life start? The best evidence indicates that abiogenesis started when amino acids organized into proteins...most likely through natural chemical reactions. So far as I know, there is no hypothesis as to how those chemicals came about or what produced them.
I'm not a theologian. I've always believed that religion explains the "why" and science, as imperfect as it is, explains the "how." Perhaps what evolution is is proof of the actions of a Creator...or maybe life was just strewn around the galaxy by aliens. I don't believe man has the capacity at present to fully grasp the greater questions...why is there life? Where did we come from? Why does "American Idol" still draw the ratings it does? But I do know we have to understand what "science" means: Knowledge. Not "ultimate knowledge," just "knowledge." Perhaps we may learn the mechanisms, but it's up to individual people to derive the meaning. If someone believes God, Zeus, or Mr. Spock started life, that's fine. I just don't want a person's beliefs on evolution to be considered a yardstick for fitness to hold office. There are plenty of people who don't believe in a God who I don't want anywhere near political power, and likewise, plenty of godly people I wouldn't trust as a county weed control board member, let alone as president. Questions of evolution or not are meant to be traps for a candidate..."See? Bachmann doesn't believe in evolution, therefore she's a fundamentalist nut job!" It helps to be aware of science, know what one is talking about (or at least have a grasp of it), and be respectful of both those who are believers and those who are not. I can't say if I believe in ID or not, since I don't know if there's a God or isn't. I just look at the evidence and try to make sense of it. I'll leave the question of there being a God or not to those who know more than I do.
W| 6.24.11 @ 10:31AM
Matthew, you raise good points, except to say the the "WHY" is not relevant. When explaining any course of conduct the reason for that is always relevant to understand why something happened, and to judge how credible is the explanation. The WHY leads directly to the question of the origin of life, whether there is a God that set everrything in motion. If you do ask or do not care about WHY then that leads to the conclusion that there is no purpose in life, that man's existence is a random event.
W| 6.24.11 @ 10:32AM
that should be "if you do NOT ask...
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 11:01AM
I think it's up to the individual to find a purpose in life. Perhaps our purpose is one we can't fathom...or maybe, our purpose is to use our intelligence to take care of this world and make it a better place for our kids and grandkids. What do I know? I'm just a rancher!
W| 6.24.11 @ 11:31AM
A smart rancher
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 3:58PM
Matt,
Give it up. And I don't mean because you're wrong.
I mean, this is an impossible task - producing fact after fact for a group of unevolved types who prefer their ideology.
For my part, well done.
W| 6.24.11 @ 5:19PM
Matt is a lot smarter than you, Lefty Troll. He understands a question, and knows how to answer. To you a question that you cannot even begin to answer is a taunt, Your name says all we need to know. Go back to the Huff Po or Daily Kos where you may be the evolved one.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:24PM
You are talking about abiogenesis, the START to life, that really is a separate issue.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 3:56PM
W,
Calling someone a "strict evolutionist" is a non sequitur. That's like sayin you can be a little pregnant or something is fairly unique.
So the rest of your taunts, like your philosophy, is laughable.
And, yes, I believe God has a sense of humor. After all, you believe he created people.
W| 6.24.11 @ 4:11PM
You are new here, unless you are one of the periodic trolls afraid to use a prior name. Who said taunts, only you, not the persons we were having a serious discussion with, man up, give us your prior name(s),
So you believe in God and He has a sense of humor? What is the connection between God, God having a sense of humor, and my beliefs?
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:32PM
That God loves your jokes, er, beliefs.
All of this discussion of "strict" and "micro" and "macro" are smokescreen for faith-based and/or ideologically-based rejections of science and fact.
And that's funny, too. Just in a non-humorous way.
W| 6.25.11 @ 12:06PM
The Right..., welcome back David, the SEIU rent a mob member
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 7:57AM
Adapt, or go extinct. Simple huh?
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:33PM
Yes, exactly, pushed to its absurd limits. It's the mechanism and the processes that go into it that are fantastically complicated. Just like the GOP needs to adapt or go extinct.
martin j smith| 6.24.11 @ 7:59AM
Here is what I would say about the issue of "Evolution". The fact that you asked me this question tells me we as a society have not only NOT EVOLVED BUT WE HAVE DEVOLVED into the most primitive of political orders. You, who are asking me this STUPID question are an example of Homo un-habolis. You ask me a question that even a cave man can figure out that you have a motive an an agenda. So here is my answer: Read about it and think for yourself. I am not in the business of giving reporters free ride.
bill alllen| 6.24.11 @ 8:18AM
What is evolution? What are its mechanisms? How does it fit with biochemistry? They dont know.
What most schools still teach is called "the modern evolutionary thesis". the MET Its features are random mutation, natural selection, a "tree of life". The MET has been refuted, and there is as yet no clear threory to replace it. Koonin, Americal's leading molecular geneticist said: The MET " has cumbled beyond repair".
John Dibble| 6.24.11 @ 10:27AM
Quote mining doesn't make you correct. Koonin still believes in evolution - he's merely saying that what actually happens is more complex than the model you are talking about. Hell, the man's own web page talks about the things in evolution he studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Koonin/
Gary| 6.24.11 @ 8:21AM
Conservative candidates must learn how to avoid being trapped by such questions from the enemedia. You can't have a prepared answer for every issue.
One technique I wish candidates would use is to throw a question right back. For example, "And how is your question relevant to the problems we're facing?" or "Are you trying to trip me up?" In other words, CALL THEM ON IT!
A. C. Santore| 6.24.11 @ 9:23AM
Great post!
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:00PM
The question can be very relevant if a candidate for governor takes a stand on what should or shouldn't be taught in a state's schools.
Darcy | 6.24.11 @ 8:34AM
There are two science-trap questions that liberal debate moderators use to discredit conservatives in debates, "Do you believe in evolution?" and "Do you believe in global warming?"
What's interesting about these questions is that, according to current polling, the man on the street would say "no" to both--and yet they are an effective means of making conservatives look foolish.
More, in both cases the science is actually unsettled. The tide now seems to be turning against both of these sacred Big Science cows.
So how is it that the liberal media are able to use them so effectively against conservatives? Can anybody explain it?
Gary| 6.24.11 @ 8:43AM
I can explain it. Conservatives shrink in fear of the liberal press, so they feel they must answer the question as it was asked. You know, like they were back in grade school.
I repeat, they should throw the question back in their face with something like, "As soon as all the scandal is dealt with and the science is finally settled, we'll all be able to answer that question." Something like that.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:35PM
Yes, I would say that fear motivates most Conservatives. Fear of the unknown, fear of the future, fear of any fact that might crack their ideological armor, fear of anyone not EXACTLY like him or her.
And fear translates into the hate and anger I see in these posts.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 12:43PM
Believe it or not, climate change and evolution are settled science. Large segments of the public may not accept them but, I fail to see how that is relevant. Scientific truth is not a democratic process. Besides, there is no serious debate about these issues within the scientific community - the individuals who know the material best.
W| 6.24.11 @ 4:21PM
Climate change is a settled science only if you believe Algore, or if you confuse science with political science.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:37PM
"Radical environmentalism foreseen (Romans 1:25). Two thousand years ago, God’s Word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather than the Creator. Today, nature is revered as “Mother” and naturalism is enshrined."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Mutch Moore| 6.24.11 @ 10:10PM
Touche' ! You tellem dubbya.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.24.11 @ 8:36AM
Can someone please explain to me how "intelligent design" is not just a repackaged version of "creationism" design to convince/confuse Americans who didn't buy into creationism the first time?
Intelligent Design| 6.24.11 @ 8:56AM
I suggest reading the book titled Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer. He looks at the origin of life from a scientific point of view (DNA, etc.) and concludes that there must be a "design" due to its "irreducible complexity" .... that life evolving on earth completely by accident is extremely improbable. The designer could be "God", or it could be another civilization from a different galaxy. Closed minds will have trouble comprehending this book, if they attempt it.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 10:48AM
All postulated examples (eyes, clotting, etc) of irreducible complexity have been refuted.
LAL| 6.24.11 @ 11:50AM
you are absolutely wrong about this.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 12:44PM
you are absolutely wrong about that
Intelligent Design| 6.24.11 @ 1:47PM
Page 276: "Given the probabilistic resources of the whole universe, it is extremely unlikely that even one functional protein or DNA molecule -- to say nothing of the suite of such molecules necessary to establish natural selection -- would arise by chance. Yet the hypothesis of prebiotic natural selection presupposes that a series of such improbable events occurred before natural selection played any role at all."
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:54AM
Back in (IIRC) 2009, researchers at the University of Manchester in the UK showed that RNA (admittedly, not a protein, but a nucleic acid) will form spontaneously when common, naturally occurring chemicals are repeatedly wetted and dried. In the same year, researchers at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, CA, showed that some RNA sequences can replicate themselves without the aid of any other large molecules.
In the meantime, it is important to note two things: chemical reactions are not purely random, and the odds of getting any particular protein with its exact sequence of amino acids is not the same as the odds of getting some protein that does something (cf. the odds of getting a full house in poker if you're allowed to discard and draw new cards, vs. the odds of drawing a three of hearts, three of clubs, three of diamonds, queen of diamonds, and queen of spades on the first draw).
Meyer may well be giving the right answer, but I suspect he's answering the wrong question.
David T| 6.24.11 @ 8:58AM
Go to the Discovery Institute, where you will discover a wealth of information on intelligent design: http://www.discovery.org/
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 4:03PM
Yes!
W| 6.24.11 @ 9:31AM
Ross, the theory of intelligent desing which is compatible with evolution is that God created life with the potential or dna to evolve as it did. How else do you explain how life started and why it evolved as it did? I find it hard to believe man evolved from some branch of apes because we ran around the savannah. What do you think?
W| 6.24.11 @ 9:33AM
Ross, there is an excellent book titled "Language of God," written by Francis______, can't remeber his last name now. He was part or head of the project on the human genome.
W| 6.24.11 @ 2:50PM
Frances S Collins. head of the Human Genome Project, a geniticist. this is the best i read on this issue of evolution/creation.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 3:14PM
Francis Collins is most certainly not a proponent of intelligent design. You would know this had you bothered to read his book.
W| 6.24.11 @ 4:16PM
did not say he is a proponent of ID, said that God creating life which evolved. There are only three sentences in my post so it should be easy for you to read. If you cannot understand three sentences I doubt you read the book, or understood the book? What do you think the title "Language of God" refers to?
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 9:39AM
Ross,
I'll help you out here. You have closed your mind, (heart), to the existence of a loving Creator.
You obviously accept death and then merely turning into dog-food...
(the definition of an athiest)
..... rather than simply acknowledging God in your life and into eternity.
The darkness in your soul can be erased with joy once you submit your God-given free will and merely "do justly, love kindness, and walk humbly with your Creator."
(Micah)
Ross Kaminsky | 6.24.11 @ 12:16PM
Ken,
I appreciate the strengths of your beliefs. I am not one of those atheists who goes around trying to talk believers out of being such, or who belittles their faith.
I also realize that people argue that atheism is a faith in itself. To the extent that you want to call it that (and there is a strong logical argument that your faith and mine are not fundamentally the same because of issues of evidence) my faith is as strong as yours.
So I would appreciate your not telling me that I have "darkness in my soul" because I don't share your views.
Furthermore, I can and do "do justly" without needing a belief in god. I would bet that I live a more moral life than most believers, present company excepted.
Ross
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:30PM
"Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply".
Visit:
Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality (ICR)
Is Creation One of the Traditional Values? (ICR)
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism (ICR)
Would China Benefit from Christianity? (ICR)
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 5:42PM
Ross,
thanks for dropping by.
I don't have "faith" in the common definition.
Rather, I have personal experience.
I have never met you in person, but I have experience knowing that you exist.
I've read your unique take on things.
I have also heard the "Holy Spirit's" take on things.
...First person singular!
I earnestly pray that you stop turning your back on our Creator and facing eternal darkness.
Sir, your soul is darkness. You think you are dog-food.
I'm not arguing WITH you! I'm arguing FOR you!
The entire Old Testament is a narrative of a people coming to know God...heh, one step forward...two steps back.
Then Jesus occurred. (Jewish by the way).
Eleven ordinary men, (then add Paul), turned the world upside down.
Hmmmmm... remarkable, no?
Look here, Ross...I don't have any other role in the "courtroom of life" except as a WITNESS.
(I know what I have seen.)
I have to quit now because I don't know how to change pages. I will be right back with a link.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 5:50PM
Here is the link, Ross.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LGTXi.....re=related
God bless
W| 6.24.11 @ 8:00PM
Well said, Tex
Hank Rearden| 6.24.11 @ 9:48AM
Creationism is an assertion, really a question of faith, that could be characterized as "top-down." Creationism asserts the cause independent of the processes of creation because they are by definition "miracles." Intelligent design is a "bottom-up" inquiry that examines a phenomenon and asks "could this observed structure have been developed by random mutation and natural selection?" If this is improbable, then intelligent design hypothesizes that there was intelligence behind the assembly of information that guided the design of the phenomenon.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 10:41AM
Intelligent design should not be taught as science for the simple reason is that it contains no testable hypothesis. It's not science. You can believe it if you want, but it's got no place in a science class.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 12:20PM
Nor does the Big Bang... we have no means to reproduce, replicate, measure, and quantify such an event. But it's taught in science. So is the concept of a shared ancestor between monkey and man. Yet, we have no means to observe this, replicate it, or verify it.
There's also no way to do these things to "dark matter", "alternate universes", etc. and these things are all at least considered as a possibility, even if remote, among science. But somehow ID isn't? At that point, science becomes agenda based rather than curiousity based. It then stops being science.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 12:56PM
The big bang is a theory built on testable models based on measured evidence. As for evolution, there's an enormous body of evidence that supports it. There's no concept of a shared ancestor between monkey and man. There's factual proof of a shared ancestor between ape and man. If you want to believe the universe was originally created by God, that's your belief. I sure can't prove that you're wrong. If you want to believe that there's no genetic link between man and ape, you've got your head in the sand and you're wrong.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 1:30PM
The Big Bang is an assumption of what happened based on observed results. If you see ripples in the water, you can posit what happened. A fish must have jumped. But wait! It could have been a rock that was tossed in. Or a turtle popped it's head up. All of those can be explinations of the observed and model-able events that we see after the fact. To leap to one at the exclusion of others without proof that the others are not possible, even though they would explain EVERYTHING you see is not science.
What about ID says that animals can't change? Nothing. The only thing it argues is a possible orgin of life. And evolutionists often disgregard it even though it leads them to the very same place they need to start from for evolution. ID doesn't state necissarily that man came fully formed... just that DNA didn't appear out of magical star dust.
As for there beign a genetic link between man and ape, I'm not denying the similarities. Just their shared ancestry. After all, we're genetically a lot like pigs too.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 2:42PM
We have shared ancestors with pigs as well. You just have to go a lot further back.
ID argues that a possible origin of life should be taught as a scientific possibility. But it's impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, so the very theory is unscientific. If you don't have a testable hypothesis, you can't have science. To take your ripple example-it might have been a fish, or a turtle, or a rock, or something else. But we can look for more evidence to help us try to figure out what caused the ripple. I could show you that turtles don't live in that particular lake, or show you a security camera film that revealed someone throwing a rock into the pond. We might not be able to find an answer, but at the same time, we might be able to. There's absolutely no way to prove that some sort of divine entity is the origin of the universe.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:19PM
But unless you have a means to disprove it, you can't say it's not possible. It may be untestable, and therefore something that science may not have "jurisdiction" over, so to speak. However, at one point in time, science had no means to prove or disprove the theory of the atom. It wasn't until much later that we were able to substantiate that idea. Just because we can't prove or disprove something today does not exclude it from being a possibility. After all, science still excepts the idea of looking for "dark matter." I mean, they have their model, it doesn't add up, and out of thin air someone says, "Well.. WHAT IF... there was something we can't see... doesn't exist in the material world as we know it, but can still have the same effect of matter so that we get the right amount of gravity we need to fix our universe model?" And, voila... we have the accepted theory in science of the unseen, unmeasured, unrepeatable, unobservable dark matter. And no one makes fun of that guy... why?
What's the difference between dark matter holding the universe together and God holding it together? You say we can't measure or observe God... and you'd be right. But you can't do those things with dark matter either. Unless it does exist... but then again... God could exist too!
And this is the problem with "science." Any reasonable Christian, creationist, or IDer... or non-evolutionist for that matter... would be fine with the science of evolution so long as the proponents of it where intellectually honest. They don't have foolproof... well... proof. They don't have oberservations of speciation among the animals. They can't repeat their idea of the genisis of life. There's a lot they can't do. That's not to say they are wrong about it all... far from it. Darwin was completely correct to say this bird and that bird are related, although they have grown apart, physically. No one truely doubts that. But the evolutionist will say, "Despite me not having 100% proof... You must accept everything I say as 100% uncontrivertable or you or stupid and do not deserve to teach anyone how to tie their shoes!" A person of faith, if honest, will say, "I don't have proof... don't claim to have proof... but what I observe leads me to a different conclusion and here's why:"
After all... you just admitted we may not be able to prove what caused the ripple in the water. If that's the case... you can't say it wasn't God anymore than I can say it was. And that's the problem most people have in this argument. They don't see they both have the same footing for their ultimate claim of what happened.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 7:04PM
Yelo, you seem to understand why ID is not science. So I don't understand why you think it should be taught. ID is not science, and should never be taught in a science class. Evolution-genetic change in organisms over time-is a proveable fact. The historical change of related organisms through evolution into species that can no longer interbreed is also a proveable fact, and it has been observed numerous times in modern history. If believing in ID is how you square your religious beliefs with science, that's fine by me. If you want to teach it to your kids, that's fine by me too. But kids in school, in science class, are there to both learn facts about how the world works, and also to understand the scientific process-and ID has nothing to do with that.
The genesis of life is a different subject than evolution, and nobody knows with certainty how it occurred. It is, for now, something of a miracle.
As far as dark matter, well, I don't really know. I have a friend who is a particle physicist, and next time I see him I'll ask him to try to explain it to me. And if I understand anything he says (which is pretty rare) I'll try to pass it on to you.
I'm done for the night. Have yourself a good weekend.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:17PM
And the reason we're a lot alike genetically is because God not only created Man from out of the dust of the Earth, but He also created the animals from it as well.
"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.
Visit:
The elements of the periodic table sorted by their presence in human body. (Lenntech)
The Bible is a Textbook of Science (ICR)"
Link for more nuggets of pure gold relating to God's wonderful Truth:
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Enjoy!
Steven J. Thompson| 6.26.11 @ 1:49AM
How utterly astonishing: our bodies are made of the same elements that are in the dirt in which the plants we eat (or that are eaten by the animals we eat) grow. They are not, however, present in the same proportions.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:08PM
Well it is astonishing, isn't it? Especially in the light of that Darwin says we "evolved" from beasts and that means he's calling God a liar.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 4:13PM
Well said, Yelo.
Science means knowledge.
The knowledge that God created the Universe and Mankind is all around us. But those who choose to reject God are allowed their rebellion, and in fact God sends a strong delusion to make them believe what is false. There is no winning when fighting with Him:
"Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:11 & 12.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom 1:18-20.
Hank Rearden| 6.26.11 @ 4:45PM
DRed - ID grew out of a testable hypothesis - that the observed phenomenon, for instance the bacterial flagellum, could not be accounted for by the random accumulation of "numerous small changes" because it is irreducibly complex. A testable hypothesis, which can be contradicted by showing how the flagellum was assembled in a Darwinian fashion with, of course, the constraint of time.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.24.11 @ 12:23PM
Nice screen name, Hank,
In my view, creationism and ID are different attempts to market the same idea.
The statement that "we can't figure out how this could have happened through natural processes" does not logically mean there must be a designer or creator.
The prime mover argument is not convincing to me either, i.e. it couldn't have come from nothing so what was the original source of matter, energy, etc?
I suppose I am both an atheist and a Logical Positivist to some degree...
Hank Rearden| 6.25.11 @ 12:56AM
Ross - TNX :-)
A previous poster in this thread asserts that speciation in animals has been observed. I do not think that is true. Speciation has never been observed. Evolution is claimed to be science while ID is not. But what testable hypothesis does evolution offer? Common descent is not enough. The point of evolution is the MECHANISM of common descent, which is essentially random mutation and natural selection. But this is a story. Evolution has never found its Isaac Newton. What, for instance, did Darwin mean by "numerous small changes?" I.e., what is "numerous;" what is "small;" and what is a "change?" No definition. What is ruled OUT by evolution? It cannot be science if it explains everything, because then it explains nothing. What is the basic unit of evolution? How many units of evolution are needed to develop a new species from an old one? How much time is needed for a unit of evolution to occur? Evolution has no answers to these questions. Evolutionists assert that "evolution happens." They think it unnecessary to explain something that a child notices - that when you change something from one function to another, it goes through a period where it is neither one thing nor the other. But this cannot happen in evolution. Each step must not only be viable, but an improvement, a selectable improvement, on the previous organism from a reproduction standpoint. But this is not observed in the fossil record! Organisms appear as fossils fully formed and then do not change during their representation in the fossil record. If evolution were correct, the fossil record should consist of virtually nolthing but intermediates given Darwin's theory that change is numerous small steps. The fossil record should also include all the mutations that failed, as most do.
John Dibble| 6.25.11 @ 11:30AM
"Evolution is claimed to be science while ID is not. But what testable hypothesis does evolution offer?"
You can find info on the evidence here - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
"Evolution has never found its Isaac Newton."
Well, technically that would be Darwin. Newton was the first to really come up with a decent model for gravity, but what he came up with was incomplete. Einstein really did a much better job explaining gravity. If you want evolution's Einstein, I can't say that there is only one - many people have made significant advances in evolutionary theory.
"What, for instance, did Darwin mean by "numerous small changes?" I.e., what is "numerous;" what is "small;" and what is a "change?" No definition."
That you don't know the definitions to these commonly understood words is pretty sad. Shouldn't it be rather obvious what he meant by that string of words?
"What is ruled OUT by evolution?"
Finding fossilized rabbits among Cambrian fossils. There are numerous ways to falsify evolutionary theory.
"What is the basic unit of evolution?"
I suppose the best unit would be the gene, seeing as that's what is used to build the lifeform, but there are other variables to consider.
"How many units of evolution are needed to develop a new species from an old one?"
You have to understand that "species" from an evolutionary perspective is merely a line we draw for categorization purposes. We generally consider species to be consisting of individuals that are capable of producing viable offspring with one another. But this isn't clear cut. Take Ring Species for example. (Google it)
A good analogy might be language. It is known that the Romance languages originated from Latin, yet none of them are Latin. Over generations the language of local populations gradually changed, and while every generation would have been capable of communicating with the immediately preceding or succeeding generations if you go forward or backward far enough the language would have changed enough that one generation would not understand another. And yet there would be no clear line where Latin became Italian or Spanish, and yet numerous small changes result what we consider to be different languages.
"How much time is needed for a unit of evolution to occur?"
As I stated, the quantifiable unit would be the gene. However, since evolution relies on variables such as environmental conditions there isn't a set amount of time for speciation to occur.
"that when you change something from one function to another, it goes through a period where it is neither one thing nor the other. But this cannot happen in evolution."
Each step must be useful, but just because steps B, C, and D don't have either of the same uses as steps A and E does not mean those intermediate steps have no use at all. For instance, feathers can help birds fly, but feathers do other things and there are birds that don't don't fly but still have feathers.
"If evolution were correct, the fossil record should consist of virtually nolthing but intermediates given Darwin's theory that change is numerous small steps."
The fossil record has numerous transitional fossils for a large number of different groups of animals and we find more all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....al_fossils
"The fossil record should also include all the mutations that failed, as most do."
It's impossible for the fossil record to include all mutations, good or bad, for two reasons.
The first is that not all dead animals get fossilized - fossilization is rare. Most dead animals get eaten or decompose before getting the chance to fossilize. Given the rarity of fossilization it is highly improbable that a bad mutation would fossilize because that gene wouldn't spread to enough animals to make it likely enough that one would fossilize - natural selection would kill off the negative mutations long before it could happen. Not seeing lots of bad mutations in the fossil record is actually what we'd expect if evolution were true!
The second is that not all mutations can fossilize. A mutation might be a change to soft tissues or to something at a cellular level. Soft tissues and single cells fossilize at even lower rates than bones do.
Hank Rearden| 6.26.11 @ 5:10PM
John Dibble...well then why don't you reduce a bit of the sadness in this world and answer the questions which you find so pathetically simple: in terms of the Theory of Evolution, where new species are created by "numerous small changes" in old ones (1) how is"numerous" defined; (2) how is "small" defined; how is "changes" defined and over what time does a unit of evolution occur?
John II| 6.25.11 @ 5:11PM
"I suppose I am both an atheist and a Logical Positivist to some degree..."
Well, de gustibus non disputandum est, and all that, but you if you're really, really interested, Ross, you may want to dip into the Tractatus of Wittgenstein (1921) to get some clearer sense of the pose of logical positivism (unless you prefer to continue supposin') and then the Philosophical Investigations (published posthumously in 1953) by the same Wittgenstein, which began in the early 1930s and eventually obliterated his previous pose. If you're interested.
And now back to the 1948 film version of "Hamlet," with the great Laurence Olivier musing somewhat aimlessly in the title role. The also-great horror film masters Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee do, respectively, a plausible Osric and an imposing spear-carrier, and Jean Simmons was born (and personally selected by Olivier) to play the role of Ophelia. One gets what one can in this fallen world, which we see through a glass darkly. Sigh.
BackToBasics| 6.25.11 @ 8:58PM
from RossKaminsky's post - "The statement that "we can't figure out how this could have happened through natural processes" does not logically mean there must be a designer or creator."
But it does not necessarily argue that what looks like evolution argues against God either. Some look at smilarities of design in DNA, vertebrate structures, chemical processes, even behavioral similarites across species and time, etc. and see a godless evoltionary process occurring. I think it could just as easily be looked at from a different perspective.
So, in looking at these similarities I've mentioned, for argument's sake, why should God / creator reinvent the wheel each time he created a new "division/kingdom/class..." of plant or animal?
I've used the analogy once before here on AS that the simplicity of the basic "bit-level / on-off" design in digital computers, Iphones, storage mediums etc., etc. does not disprove of a high intelligence behind it. The same question could be asked, why should we "reinvent the wheel" at this level of creation?
So what if science has "peeled-away" some of the mystery of life and shown that there are cross-similarites in living things? At it's VERY LOWEST biochemical level, life "may" be very simple indeed, just like digital systems are. So what looks like evolution may be just simplicity of design repeated and reassembled many times. Why do so many who believe in Evolution seem to automatically preclude the existence of God or even a God / creator? I do not see the logical jump in this. I could see a logical jump if one called himself an agnostic. But, there are other ways of looking at life's existence and I think atheists miss this and consequently draw the wrong conclusions about God and often about creationist believers as well.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 12:46PM
For information on this you can read Barbara Forrest's essay:
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/
And the Kitzmiller v Dover Federal Court Case that dealt specifically with this issue:
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/
Intelligent Design theory is indeed repacked creationism.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 12:50PM
oops, second link is not correct:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/k.....er_342.pdf
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:37PM
It's 'Creationism' in Drag, still no tests to EVER prove it, so it is junk.
W| 6.24.11 @ 5:21PM
You seem to be obsessed with "drag."
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 5:29PM
A Boy needs to have a hobby.
W| 6.25.11 @ 8:40AM
Try baseball or stamp collecting
BackToBasics| 6.25.11 @ 7:36PM
from your post - still no tests to EVER prove it, so it is junk"
So, it's the same as evolution then, since evolution cannot be proved. Using your logic, evolution is junk.
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 4:29PM
Bingo!
BackToBasics| 6.25.11 @ 7:58PM
from Ross Kamisnsky's post - "Can someone please explain to me how "intelligent design" is not just a repackaged version of "creationism" design to convince/confuse Americans who didn't buy into creationism the first time?"
...Buy into creationism. Sounds almost like a tacit admission that all evolution does is provide for a belief system for those who cannot stomach the thought that there might be a creator who is either 100% responsible for our existence as it is or else created the rudiments of life with a partial evolution taking place thereafter.
Some here mix God into creation as if the creation is God and visa versa. But actually, for those who believe in a creator, like myself, God is actually "bigger" than creation. If we ever could discover the mystery of life, etc. and even create it ourselves, we would still be "smaller" than God. Creating life itself or if we could possibly find out ALL of the mysteries of the universe would not DISPROVE the existence of God. But I admit that believing in God and accepting him as the creator is something that I had to accept on faith. But the evolutionist ultimately does the SAME, accept evolutionary beliefs on faith. Neither can be definitively proved.
Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span (SPAN of his hand), and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
Isaiah 40:12
JohnC| 6.24.11 @ 8:45AM
Darwinism is a pseudo science full of holes and uses various non-scientific assumptions to justify its doctrine, and it goes hand in hand with atheism. But those who believe in Intelligent Design should explain that time in Genesis need not be taken literally -- there is a obviously a deeper spiritual meaning to names, numbers and time in the Bible that biblical scholars need to pursue.
But the larger point is that early man evolved spiritually to the image and likeness of God, whereas it is quite obvious that apes have no God-given ability to achieve this -- they have no free will to choose good over evil to form a conscience and never will.
But politically the answer to this controversy is for the timid GOP field to advocate vouchers so parents can choose a school that conforms to their moral beliefs, instead of be forced to send their precious children to government atheistic schools that undermine this.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 10:55AM
Science is a process for understanding the material and observable universe. No observations have revealed any observable or testable aspects of a spirit world, therefore spirituality can not be presented as some sort of scientific concept.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 12:22PM
There's not been an observable big bang. Nor has there been an observable maintained mutation among man to lead to eventual speciation over the last several thousand years. There hasn't been observable "God particles" but scientists keep chasing them. Since there's nothing to suggest these things over anythign else, they don't belong in science either according to you.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 12:58PM
We may not be able to directly observe them but, there is evidence for them and that evidence is observable and measureable. Science can only evaluate things that can be tested, therefore supernatural explanations are outside the field of science.
For example, we may not be able to witness a murder but, we can gather clues and piece together what happened based on the evidence left behind by the killer. To do this we can make reasonable assumptions based on past experiences (previous scientific tests) and our knowledge of the nature of the universe. When there aren't enough clues to point to a specific suspect we don't throw our hands up in the air and proclaim that fairies did it and start a manhunt for the nearest fairies hideout. We evaluate the clues again and again and again. Then we do it again.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 1:03PM
Theory is the foundation of science, that is why its interesting.There have been observations of the big bang: the Hubble expansion of the observed universe, cosmic background radiation, primordial element abundance, radiometric dating of population II stars, etc.Observable mutations in homiddae line are shown in the fossil record: particularly note the changes in skull, jaw and spine."God particles" have not been observed but are predicted by the current theories of quantum mechanics and therefore experiments are being conducted to observe them. Although the higgs boson has not been experimentally verified it is the best current theory. Either it will be observed by one of the many experiments designed to observe ir or a new theory will supersede the standard model. There are no experiments or verifiable observations of spirits. This is fine for those who choose to accept them but it necessarily means spirits and such lie outside the purview of science and are boring.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 1:41PM
ID does not posit a "spirit" just that intelligence must have come before life. It is specific to life on earth. As such, the original "intelligence" does not have to be a god.
The explinaton of ID is a logical assumption of what would cause what we observe today. If you see scratches on the sand in no real pattern, you would think maybe a crab scuttled by. But if you saw scratches that spelled out "I love my mommy," you would, logically and reasonably, assume that you're going to find a little kid as the source. DNA is that message in the sand. ID is the theory that it is more believable that DNA was created with purpose rather than being the random outcome of the galactic crapshoot of startdust.
What happens after that... maybe evolution. Maybe not. It's the current model of the day for science, and that's fine. But to think we are so smart that we can't be wrong on it and to try and squelch any ideas other than evolution is very poor science. If all science was like that, we'd never leave the Capirnican universe... hell... we'd still be in Aristotilian ideas of matter and the four base elements.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 3:17PM
"DNA was created with purpose rather than being the random outcome of the galactic crapshoot of startdust."
What evdience do you have for this beyond "i can't imagine how this would have happened," ?
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:40PM
How or why is it specific to life on earth? Going with the notion that God created everything (I'm not going to re-type Genesis here), then this "intelligence" must be found everywhere.
It seems you have to believe this or your entire argument crumbles.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:33PM
If you go with the idea of Genisis.... then yes, you would end up with God being the genisis of information.
If you don't... then who knows. Hell... even Dawkins said that DNA may have gotten to earth from aliens. I'm not about to make a statement about where they came from or started (much less if they are real).
As for the "evidence" that this must have happened... if you look at things of order, you would correctly conclude they were done with purpose. There was something a priori that dictated the outcome. Sure... random chance will explain some things... but as you look at probability... with only one big bang (we'll assume that's how it went down... and with no evidence to suggest another, we can't say there were mulligans in creation) the odds of it producing the universe, with all the order in it, are zero. OK... not zero but the closest number to zero without actually being zero that the world will ever get to. You have to have the right heat, amount of matter, dispursion from the explosion, recomposition to form the right gravity sinks (such as suns and planets to hold things in place), the right chemicals in the right ratios in the right square inch of earth rather than some other planet, then you have to have your energy hit the right spot at the right time (ok... let's assume you roll lucky 7's every time up to this point just to make it fair for you) you have to get lucky not to fry your chemicals before they can form into protiens. THEN... these have to last long enough to bond. THEN... these bonds have to occure in the right order to produce DNA. THEN... this DNA has to impart intelligence (even if it's the most base kind as seen in the inherent and natural functions of sub-cellular particles like RNA) to the rest of the matter that didn't burn up when struck by lightning. THEN... this single cell (if you got lucky you might have gotten a few thousand... but unlikely) has to live longer than a nano-second. Somehow... it decides to replicate. There's no natural reason for this... it just "does it." I mean, it's alive as is and is by all accounts flourishing (after all, it's not dead, has no need for food, and is surrounded by water... it got lucky and has beach side residence) and nothing in nature (there's no predators... he's the only guy alive) is pushing it to replicate. But it does anyhow. Then... eventualy... these sincle cells decide to group up and form a blob. Although there is no external or internal force to cause this... it just "happens" like magic. This carries on for a while and then, the result of this blob building activity decided to log onto TAS today and say I'm stupid for not believing it.
That's why I doubt you.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 5:47PM
41841438443154245264541654016541648687
That strong of numbers is totally random and incredibly improbable. Yet, there it is.
You fail at science.
Nick| 6.25.11 @ 12:37AM
Diviz,
"Theory is the foundation of science [...]."
Bzzzzzz! Wrong!
Replication is the foundation of science. Perhaps you've heard of the "Scientific Method"?
If you can't repeat it over and over again, you don't have a scientific discovery. All you have is speculation and opinion. It may be an educated guess, but it is still just a guess.
This is why there is no difference between Darwinian evolutionists and Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoaxers. They have beliefs but no facts.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:21PM
"Nor has there been an observable maintained mutation among man to lead to eventual speciation over the last several thousand years."
That is because God has created life according to its kinds.
"10.
The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change."
Visit:
Things You May Not Know About Evolution (ICR)
Creation - Evolution (ICR)
Evolution and the Bible (ICR)
The Fossil Record: Intermediate Links (ChristianAnswers.net)
Archaeopteryx A Feathered Reptile? (ChristianAnswers.net)
The Ape-Man: Missing Link (ChristianAnswers.net)
Biological Evolution Darwin's Finches (ChristianAnswers.net)"
Link: http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 5:29PM
I heard this described as the "echo chamber" school of proving something - if you quote only those who you agree with and they do the same, pretty soon you've got a huge body of "proof."
I'd be a lot more open to your position if your "proof" didn't stem from a very narrow field.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:48PM
Say,
Why don't you just try reading some, and having an open mind while doing so. What've you got to lose?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:49PM
Meant to say, reading some of the website I provided.. it could prove interesting to you.
LSinAZ| 6.24.11 @ 9:02AM
It is a pity that the religious among us demand an answer to these types of questions.
The First Amendment prohibition against congress passing any law respecting any religion is clear, which makes a lawmakers opinion on a religious matter moot.
Chris Christies' answer of "its none of your business" is the best answer I have yet to see.
John Navratil| 6.24.11 @ 10:38AM
LSinAZ,
Logically, it is the best. Politically it's taping a "Kick Me" sign on his back.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 10:58AM
The constitution prohibits any law regarding an establishment of religion. However, voters are entitled to base their decision on any criteria
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:23PM
"The constitution prohibits any law regarding an establishment of religion."
Right. Any establishment of Religion BY government.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 9:03AM
It is not at all hard for evolution to explain the differences between dogs, foxes, coyotes and wolves since the evidence stares you in the face every day. It is extraordinarily difficult for evolution to explain the differences between cats and dogs since the entirely theoretical predecessor critter doesn't exist today and left no traces of its ever having existed.
Evolution is worthless in attempting to explain the development of soft tissues - those things that do not fossilize. One of the funniest statements ever made is the attempt to explain the evolution of the eye by starting with "assume a light sensitive spot." That's like attempting to explain the development of the modern laptop by saying "assume a micro chip."
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 11:08AM
Evolution has proven quite capable of explaining the relationship between dogs and cats. As members of the carnivora superfamily they share a common ancestor known miacid, which appeared in the fossil record about 42 million years ago. The descendants of which evolved into divergant ecological nitches: canids appeared about 30 million years ago adopting a cursoral pack hunting style whereas felines appeared about 20 million years ago and specialized in ambush hunting.
Genetic analysis corroborates the fossil record.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 3:17PM
I;ve always been curious about one thing: how can you tell from the fossil record that this beastie reproduced - ever, even once - and likewise, how can you tell from the fossil record that beastie two is the descendant of beastie one - unless you enter into your examination of the fossil record with a preconceived conclusion in mind?
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 3:52PM
That a particular fosillized animal ever succesfully reproduced would of course not be provable. However it is easy to prove that creatures of the same species, ones almost genetically identical to the creature did reproduce. Specifically the parents of the particularly organism definitely did reproduce.
The fossil record is like finding a trove of photographs of someones trip through new york city (this is an analogy). By organizing the photographs (geographically, chronologically, by subject, etc) a greatdeal of information can be inferred and theories developed. Any particular person in a photo may not reproduce but there would be numerous pictures of women in various states of pregnancy and people of various ages to infer that the person is a member of species that reproduces.
Similar theories could be posited on building construction or the transportation system.
Just because information is not complete and perfect does not imply that the information is useless.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 8:08PM
You miss the point. The fossil record clearly shows evloution in action if and only if you begin your search of the fossil record expecting to find evidence of evolution. If, on the other hand, you look at the fossil record to see what, if anything it will tell you on its own, evolution does not spring immediately to the mind. Instead what you see is the recurring sudden appearance of fully formed and differentiated species which do not change in a substantial way over time.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 8:08PM
You miss the point. The fossil record clearly shows evloution in action if and only if you begin your search of the fossil record expecting to find evidence of evolution. If, on the other hand, you look at the fossil record to see what, if anything it will tell you on its own, evolution does not spring immediately to the mind. Instead what you see is the recurring sudden appearance of fully formed and differentiated species which do not change in a substantial way over time.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 1:00PM
All you need is time.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 3:19PM
Which is your *new* god. Works real good until you run the numbers and quickly discover that there ain't been nowhere near enough seconds that have elapsed so far. Show me a qualified mathematician that believes this garbage.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 3:59PM
Michael Behe admitted so under oath. Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems. Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billlion years."
If you would like to meet a mathmatician how believes in evolution I would suggest going over to the nearest university and stopping by the mathmatics department. Finding one should only take a couple minutes.
DaveD| 6.24.11 @ 8:16PM
I seriously doubt I can find a qualified mathematician with a background in probability that accepts this nonscience. Certainly not after they've spent even a few minutes looking at the combinations and permutations involved. The probabilities involved are smaller than infinitesimal. Adding in the great god Tempus does not change the fact that the odds are so slim they might as well be zero.
C Smith| 6.24.11 @ 9:32AM
Commemorating the edifice of Evolution: left front: A S Underwood, Arthur Keith, W P Pycraft, and Sir Ray Lankester. Left back: F O Barlow, G Elliot Smith, Charles Dawson, Arthur Smith Woodward. From portrait by John Cooke, 1915.
A jaw and a skull were the only remnants of Piltdown Man. For over 40 years, hundreds of “scientists” regarded this as classic proof of human evolution. And that situation may have continued except for a dentist (an amateur paleontologist) who determined that the Piltdown evidence was the combination of a human skull and the filed and stained jaw of an ape. Numerous books have been written investigating the identity of the hoaxer. More recently, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery (1990) was an attempt by evolutionist Frank Spencer to regain credibility for the scientific community by admitting guilt and assigning blame. However, this belated confession is no consolation for those who based their eternal destinity on “Science.”
http://darwinsalbatross.blogsp.....n-man.html
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 11:16AM
From the outset piltdown man was met with plenty of skepticism, generally considered to be an enigmatic aberation from what evolutionary theory predicted. Comparison to the fossil record, a standard paleological technique, showed that the artifact was a composite of recent ape fossils that had been chemically treated.
Using the scientific method to root out errant data and outright fraud is the point.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 1:02PM
Why do creationists bring up the same tired canards over and over again. It's like they have no familiarity with the arguments against their position.
Matthew Quigley| 6.24.11 @ 1:53PM
Because Creationism is pseudoscience. In science, methods move forward and new knowledge is gained to either support or refute old hypotheses and assumptions. Pseudoscience relies on anecdote and being non-falsifiable. The Creationists can't back up what they assert, so they have to attack observable science and personally attack scientists.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:33PM
"Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
"O Timothy, guard the Deposit, having
turned away from the profane empty
babblings and opposing theories of the
falsely named knowledge,
21 which some professing have missed the
mark concerning the faith. Grace be with
you. Amen." 1 Tim. 6:20 & 21.
tadcf| 6.24.11 @ 9:42AM
But wait until the religicos hear the ultimate the bottom-line answer to how Creationism (Intelligent Design) compares to Science: You can't make any scientific progress toward the betterment of mankind using creationism. How would you like to live in a world without scientific development--but only intelligent design? It would be like returning to a period prior to the Dark Ages--a period in which many Middle-eastern Islamist. Would you like that?
LMajito| 6.24.11 @ 9:55AM
who created and fostered the early scholarship and scientific thought??? did harvard started his university to produce ethics and morally challenged liberal progressives?
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 10:53AM
ID does not preclude science. To say so is either ignorant or dishonest.
For example... the car. It didn't come about because of science. It came about becasue some intelligent being pieced together the things of this world, that he knew about through science, to create something more... the car. Science can not make a car... only make known/understood the things needed for the car.
The same with life. Science can not create the intelligence seen in DNA (it is not a random pattern, and thus, is a form of "intelligence" itself). It can only explain it. ID, however, posits a theory as to where it came from/how it came to be.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 1:05PM
There are some slight differences between a car and a living thing. Most importantly, living things reproduce with variation ... BINGO! Evolution.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 1:46PM
I didn't say evlution as entirely bogus. And neither does ID. ID simply states that the first step of "evolution" (if that is your accepted mode of change from amoeba to man) wasn't amino acids randomly getting it one with eachother to produce life. Instead, it was something else. After that... ID is no longer applicable.
And if you want a better example than the car... try the cpu. We build a cpu... then it does the work to produce itself with tweaks... a better cpu. Granted, it doesn't "build" the new cpu... but it provides the intelligence behind it, so to speak.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 3:24PM
A CPU does not reproduce itself despite your incoherent attempt to make the analogy.
You seem to think there is some kind of barrier that prevents evolution from explaining all of life's diversity. If, suppose for arguments sake, we had no explanation for how the human eye could have evolved. No fossil record, no DNA, nothing. This would not make magic and supernatural designers anymore plausible. You can't fill the gaps in our knowledge with magic - that is not how science works.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:40PM
Saying that intelligence preceedes order isn't an act of magic. Just a conclusion from obervation of all the things of order we see in our lives. I see a book, I can conclude that it was created by intelligence. I see a honey comb, I can conclude it was created by intelligence. You extrapolate this to the human body, specifically the brain and DNA, and can reasonably conclude that it was designed. That is all ID is. Nothing more, nothing less.
Granted, ID does then open the door to things that should NOT be in the science class. On that we'd agree.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 5:53PM
You keep using examples of things that do not reproduce themselves. What is wrong with you?
You've left me no choice but to assume that you're completely dishonest and willfully ignorant. Good day.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 9:52AM
The candidtate ought to say, in reply, "Tell me something, first. Why is it that those who believe in evolution demand that their beliefe be taught without question and without a counter-point while those who believe in something else, regarldess of what that is, have no problem with evolution being taught side by side?"
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 11:17AM
The candidate ought to say "yes."
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 12:26PM
In a purely technical sense... yes. But the question is a loaded question because the implied definitions and assumptions made on these questions. As such, a simple yes would be to allow the questioneer to put the candidate in a very simplified, although incorrect, box that the masses would use to determine some sort of quality from.
LMajito| 6.24.11 @ 9:52AM
all of this crap about evolution comes down to faith...and as such it takes as much faith to believe that man came from an amoeba that an all knowing God put it all together...
now, let's exchange more interesting thoughts that even the more 'inspired' genisues can't answer...where do the materials that were present in the 'big bang' came from? maybe some monkeys devolved into 4th dimensional particles in an alternate universe and a sudden burst of energy caused their instant transformation into our 3 dimensional present universe causing an explosion and thus bang...you know like when the class clown dropped water into a glass flask containing H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) and boom daddio explosion in the chemistry lab...
michael| 6.24.11 @ 10:01AM
Anyone who cannot acknowledge at least the biological process of evolution is either too ignorant ,too doctrinaire, or too dishonest to be President.
LMajito| 6.24.11 @ 10:12AM
and by the honesty and ethics/morals of most of the current batch of humans in the wh/senate/congress one can deduct that the ones that acknowledge the biological process of evolution are also too ignorant, too partisan or too dishonest to be president
Jack London| 6.24.11 @ 10:05AM
Evolution vs voodoo. Roll up and take your pick, folks.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 12:04PM
You realize the voodoo in the evolution theory right?
JimW9| 6.24.11 @ 10:06AM
"Dogmatic neo-Darwinians" ?
Will you please address the science of evolution with at least a pretense at intellectual honesty?
Evolution is the systematic, scientific study of nature through time. Any "theory" or claim is subject to the most intense scrutiny and challenge by evidentiary support. Evolution is all-encompasing, not limited to any one species, not even limited to life but to the "all" of the universe - from atoms to galaxies.
Do you not realize that the atoms comprising your body were once stardust? If you want to shoehorn your religious beliefs into this broad study of nature, be my guest but please do not define the study of nature we call evolution as "Dogmatic neo-Darwinians".
If you studied Darwin at all you would realize that he abhorred dogma. But that's not really your point, is it?
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 10:58AM
If he abhored dogman, would he not, in turn, abhore those who cling to him so dogmatically as to not investigate the possibility that he, while still not totally proven, could be wrong? After all, It was going against the current scientific "proven" of the time that lead Galileo to show we are not heliocentric. And I would wager that, at some point, we will find a new "Galileo" who finally shows that man doesn't cause global warming (at least not anywhere close to the degree that we are told to be scared about) or than life was not a chance outcome of some galactic crap shoot of stars.
DRed| 6.24.11 @ 1:16PM
I abhor dogman.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 1:46PM
That's ok... he doesn't need us. He's his own best friend.
:)
martin j smith| 6.24.11 @ 10:10AM
Fellow posters--you know this is a tyap question. The best way to " answer" is to call the reporter out on their motive and tell them to go to the zoo and visit a relative that has more sense than they do.
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 10:17AM
Years ago I believed in evolution, especially in college. But as I transitioned into full adulthood, my faith in evolution was undermined. The first problem arose with the statistical probability of an event. Think about the complexity of sight and the number of genes that go into the building of an eye. How many successful mutations did there have to be in order to the eye to be able to allow images to go to the brain. And then consider this: all the successful mutations for the eye had to work in synch with all the successful mutations in the nerves and brain in all animals. The probability of that happening to arrive at the present date is beyond astronomical, even galactical (is there such a word). Second, I discovered that atheists were looking for the naturalistic mechanism to explain life without a creator. Darwin's theory was seized upon. But original Darwinism really could not account for the jump from one species to another or from one genera to another. As a side bar, Micro-evolution is well exemplified by the great variety in dogs, the chihuahua to the Great Dane. It would be difficult to mate them, but by selective breeding their descendants could mate. They are both dogs. Natural selection, as opposed to selective breeding, does not produce a new species, but it could account for variation, and differing enviroments with genetic variation could account for wide variation, BUT the two combined don't cause macro-evolution.
Someone above mentioned the evolution of the horse. Consider the following: The rib numbers first decrease, then increase suddenly, and then decrease again. Hyracotherium had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, Pliohippus had 19, the horse has 18. Somehow, mutation/mutations in the gene caused a decrease from 18 to 15 ribs, then more mutation back up to 19 ribs. Further mutation caused one rib to disappear. What is the probability of all these mutations being beneficial at just the right time and right enviroment allowing the "horse" to thrive and reproduce only to have the rib structure change and again be beneficial to thriving and reproducing. These so-called evolutionary trees (horses) when examined closely, the logic of the evolutionary theory applied to them, and mathematical probability applied, the conclusion is that macro-evolution is false. It is the Genesis of Atheism. It is part of the worldview of a universe without God. Without God, how would morality and meaning/purpose arise from lifeless atoms? Whence does destiny arise in a random universe?
So, I no longer believe in evolution; it is part of atheistic scientism. The worldview, of which it is a part, is amoral, purposeless, and random. And believe me, no atheist, no believer in evolution lives his life without some morals, some purpose, and some hope of an ultimate destiny.
Melissa | 6.24.11 @ 11:04AM
Thread winner!
Micro-evolution (change within species) can't prove macro-evolution (molecules to man). No matter, where did the first molecule come from? Belief in macro-evolution takes far more blind faith than just believing in the obvious--we are the product of intelligent design.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 12:03PM
If we find a watch in the desert, it makes sense to assume there was a watch maker. Not only do we find a watch, but with the discovery of DNA, we find the schematics for the watch. It alls points to an active role of a creator.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 1:12PM
William Paley? Seriously? This argument was refuted 150 years ago.
Living things reproduce with variation - they evolve. A watch does not. Game. Set. Match.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 3:41PM
It has not been refuted at all. It is a simple assumption. Your Game.Set.Match is truly juvenile.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 1:13PM
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Allowing for micro evolution but not macro evolution is akin to saying that you can walk to the end of the block but not across town.
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 1:56PM
That is correct. You can walk only to the end of the block. To walk across town one needs thousands of mutations working on hundreds of genes all of them being successful in conjunction with each other over thousands of generations over millions of years and over changing climatica and geographic conditions. That in my book is supercalifragilisticexpealidociously statistically improbable. Not only that but in the fossil record the thousands/millions of intermediary forms that take you from the end of the block to the other side of town DO NOT exist. I want to see all the intermediary forms of the platypus, if you please.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 3:35PM
So evolution can't walk across town because you think it is statistically improbable?
You can't expect to find a fossil for every living species. There will always be gaps because we will never find the bones of every living thing. Tube worms, for instance, cannot fossilize. You wouldn't suggest that the tube worms living today just magically appeared into existence this moment, would you?
Fossilization is an incredibly rare process so we're thankful for every specimen we have. Thankfully, there are many other lines of evidence that clearly establish the reality of evolution.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 3:44PM
You state "magically appeared". This exposes your bias. Nobody is proposing anything magically appeared.
Nick| 6.25.11 @ 1:17AM
Derp,
Bugs can't fossilize? I'm pretty sure that I've seen pictures of them. Plus, didn't Darwin state that the intermediate species would be found? And, if they weren't discovered, then his mere theory was wrong?
For example, where are the intermediate species for the giraffe in the fossil record? (No artist's renderings, please.)
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 12:00PM
Excellent post. I have problems with the theory myself, and I am not Christian. In fact Devolution makes more sense to me that Evolution.
I remember my high school biology text book. It stated that the human fetus goes through a series of forms that corresponded to human evolution. It would be a reptile and a tadpole. All this despite that being disproven 100 years earlier. It also said the fetus had a tail and gill slits. Neither was true, and I understand that nonsense still appears in text books. It seemed to fit more a need to convince the students of evolution, which to me demonstrates a lack of confidence in the theory.
benny havens| 6.24.11 @ 10:20AM
What Republican candidates need to do is to refuse to answer these silly stupid questions created by the media. Sarah Palin did it in the debate with blabbermouth Joe and it drove the media crazy.
Gary| 6.24.11 @ 10:54AM
Repeat from above post:
Conservatives shrink in fear of the liberal press, so they feel they must answer the question as it was asked. You know, like they were back in grade school.
For example, for a question on global warming, they should throw the question back in their face with something like, "As soon as all the scandal is dealt with and the science is finally settled, we'll all be able to answer that question." Something like that.
Apparently, for the stupid party, this is rocket science.
Bruce Thompson | 6.24.11 @ 10:20AM
The proper way to address this question is to ask for a clarification. "By believing in Darwin's theory of natural selection (as do the Intelligent Designers) must I necessarily also believe in the rest of Darwin's theories and by extension Social Darwinism?"
If so, then the answer is no I do not believe in Darwinism any more than I believe in Lavoisier's Theory of Caloric, even though I do believe he "discovered" oxygen. And I do not chose to debate the issue with anyone who unquestioningly accepts the common belief that "heat rises" when the Himalayan peaks are covered by glaciers!
Brian B| 6.24.11 @ 10:42AM
Seems to me the proper answer for a presidential candidate is, "It's none of the Federal government's business what is taught to school kids.
My job as president will be to defend the country and the constitution and enforce federal law. What parents want their kids taught is a state and local issue. Period."
notvanilla| 6.24.11 @ 10:59AM
How about scientific discussion about the origins of religion then?
WL| 6.24.11 @ 10:59AM
Look...I know this question gets everyone all riled up for commenting and argueing...having fun...etc...
However, I really think that it's affect on elections is VASTLY OVERBLOWN...
Anyone who holds it against a candidate if they don't believe in evolution or more specifically "evolution" as a replacement for God.....
is going to vote for a democrat anyway...
Trust me...that crowd is all the same...and no matter what happens, who they like or don't like...how much money they have....what color they are....what state they are from....
God Haters are ALWAYS DEMOCRATS and ALWAYS WILL BE
PERIOD
WL| 6.24.11 @ 11:02AM
One clarification....
I don't mean that all agnostics are Democrats...
But the "God-Haters" Sure are...
Dave Williams| 6.24.11 @ 11:43AM
Can't let this one stand...I am a proud, unreconstructed and unreconstructable Reagan Republican, AND a proud, out, and committed atheist, and yes, if God existed, I would hate him/her/it. Look at all the good science has done (vaccines, flight, improved crops, and yes, cars), and all the misery religion has brought into the world (massacres, the Inquisition, social ostracism, persecution and murder of those with the courage NOT to believe fairy tales, 9/11, etc., ad infinitum) and any honest person would have to conclude: advantage, science. BTW, there is no contradiction in my beliefs. Republicans, as I understand us, want freedom from government, and atheists want to believe in human dignity and freedom, without having to kowtow to an entity for whom there is not a SHRED of evidence, let alone proof. (Wait for slam on my ethics.) Well, the reason I try not to do bad things is that I know what makes a bad person, and I don't want to be one...which, I humbly submit, makes me a better person than someone who behaves properly simply through fear of being tortured in the afterlife (which doesn't exist, either).
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.24.11 @ 12:11PM
Dave,
then may we make you into dog-food when you die?
Fool!
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 5:17PM
What does Dave's belief have to do with making him a dog food candidate?
Although, given the content and tone of many of these posts, we should be grateful you're willing to wait for him to die before doing same.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 11:23AM
They are frequently libertarians
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:54PM
And you know this how?
I consider myself to be a devout Christian and, at this rate, donot consider any of the Republicans running for President (yes, including Palin) to be worthy of my vote.
Sarbojit| 6.24.11 @ 11:01AM
This either-or-debate is insane. Creation and Evolution are the two sides of the same coin. Evolution speaks to the birthing of species, its diversification, dispersal and survival. Creation to the origin of life on a lifeless planet.
Darwin never spoke of the origin of life. His seminal work was titled "The Descent of Species". He never spoke of the ape-origin of humans. That was a Bishop who wanted to dismiss Darwin via ridicule - much like today's MSM treatment of Palin. Though Darwin might well have spoken so, except he was a deeply religious man and could not in all conscience accept the logical conclusion of his theory. Today, no one disputes the anthopoid origin of Homo Sapiens.
Even global warming has the adjective 'antropomorphic'.
Humans decended from apes. Evolution adds new genes to the template. It is said said humans are 97% identical to chimpanzees. This new 3% is the human addition to the species. (It is not always all that admirable - this new 3% created Einstein and Hitler - both of similar Germanic-Austrian descent, both from more or less the same geographical area and more or less from the same time period.
The Evolutionists have no intelligent answer to the question of the origin of life. Is there a scientific, biological answer as to how a lump of clay became DNA? ( I'm sure you the know the definitive description of DNA - not just a double-helix of molecules which determine the color of your hair or eyes - but a self-reproducing set of molecules). Did a stray neutrino splash into a muddy pond and perform a miracle?
Both sides lose when they exclude the other and both win when they include the other. Its only then when this coin will have any currency.
Bachmann's Intelligent Design - much as I admire her - is like shooting at the moon. Think of all the species that reched a dead-end, much more than those that have a successful career, likes insects and reptiles and mammals.
Bachmann should respond that she believes in both - but not in the sense that they occur simulataneously but only sequentionally. First, there is creation then biology gets to work to create species.
Evolution must be taught. What also needs to be taught is that Creation is not a religious construct. It has a solid scientific base.
I am also looking forward to the day to answer an evolutionary puzzle - how and why is a giraffe a cousin to a sheep?
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 11:28AM
Not two sides of the same coin, but entirely different coins that should be kept in sperate pockets.
If someone wants to believe in ID/creationism that's fine. If someone wants to make decisions for me as my elected representitive, my preference is to minimize their magical thinking.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:53PM
1.Big Problem
2. Magic!
3. ?????
4.Problem Solved!
Mark| 6.24.11 @ 11:06AM
I would leave off your adjective "purposeless" when referring to Darwinian Theory (Evolution)because it sounds rather biased, if in fact, the candidate is trying to appeal to those on both sides of the issue.
Kevin Dunn| 6.24.11 @ 11:26AM
Intelligent Design can never be proved or disproved. It is a notion, but since it cannot be scientifically tested, it cannot b called a theory. This does not mean it is a nonsense,or contradiction in terms like a square circle, or dishonest lawyer, but a wise politician would do well to avoid the whole issue on the ground that it is a matter of private belief.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 11:51AM
True, just as Evolution is not proved or disproved. Both are not really theories, but models that overlay observation, trying to explain life. Problem with Evolution is that it ignore consciousness, therefore it is a rather incomplete model. Rather than adjust the model evolutionist tend to ignore that which does not conform to the model.
W| 6.24.11 @ 11:43AM
Since we are discussing evolution, why do some of the Republicans we send to congress evolve, or is it de-volve, into squishy moderates, like McCain, Scott Brown,,etc,, but Democrats never evolve into conservatives? Is political evolution different?
LAL| 6.24.11 @ 11:47AM
The best way for a candidate to answer these type of questions is with this question: "Do you believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence? "If you do then you do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution. If you accept Darwin's theory then you cannot logically believe our "rights" are endowed upon us by a Creator.
Steve A| 6.24.11 @ 12:03PM
You simply agree with the evolution theory with an example: You take a cage full of orangutans, throw in a subscription to the NY Times, pipe in some classical music, step in a time machine & return in 1 million years & you have the DNC.
John Navratil| 6.24.11 @ 12:25PM
Steve A,
Better switch the classical music to Lady GaGa.
Wayne | 6.24.11 @ 11:48AM
I recommend people see Ben Stein's "Expelled". It shows that lack of academic freedom when it comes to the THEORY of evolution. Scientists will get fired for proposing even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There is a parallel to how scientist get treated who are skeptical of AGW. It is more political than scientific.
GENE HAUBER| 6.24.11 @ 12:17PM
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN OLE CHARLEY MET GOD.
JohnC| 6.24.11 @ 12:25PM
Worshipping nature and its cousin blind evolution is appealing to those unfortunate souls who have turned away from a personal God and His moral precepts; the reason being that in doing this they identify closely with our in-born animal nature.
Conversely, those who put away intellectual pride and obey God’s commands with a sincere heart gradually distant themselves from their carnal nature and identify with a new regenerated spirit; thus they (intuitively) see clearly with new eyes that man is not a beast but rather a spiritual being. Paul calls this the renewal of our mind or the new reborn self.
Scot| 6.24.11 @ 12:26PM
There is a fundamental flaw with the article, it advocates avoiding the truth for the sake of acceptance. The fact that the truth offends some, does not change the facts of truth.
What is the truth? Evolution is the hypothesis of our origins contained within the religion of humanism. Creationism is the hypothesis of our origins contained within the religion of Biblical Christianity. Neither belief system of our origins is scientific. Simply take the basic steps of the scientific method and you will see that neither can pass the stage of hypothesis.
The advocating of "intelligent design" is simply an attempt to gain "acceptance" over standing by the "offense" of the truth.
fundamentalist| 6.24.11 @ 12:40PM
Richards & Klinghoffer's suggestion to just teach the science is excellent! I'm a rabid, young-earth creationist, but I know the difference between science and religion. The public school is no place to teach religion!
The science against the theory of evolution is very strong and a few evolutionary scientists have problems with the science of evolution. Just teach both sides of the science and let the students draw their own conclusions.
The problem today is that textbooks act as if the theory of evolution is a fact and not a theory. If it were a fact, then there would be no opposing evidence, and there is!
Facts have no opposition; only theories face opposing evidence. Teaching the opposition science will expand student's knowledge of science and improve their skills at analyzing evidence.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 1:38PM
Teaching science requires teaching theories, because theory provides the intelectual structure to organize disparate facts. Consider how useless it would be to only the speed of a falling object at an particular moment. Billions of data points but no knowledge. Conversely teaching the theory of gravity permits not only the understanding of all that data but also the prediction of future observable data.
Likewise for the theory of relativity, quantum chromodynamics, thermodynamics, evolution, plate tectonics, etc.
Inteligent design/creationism doesn't provide a structure to explain observable facts and are therefore nice stories but not theories and don't belong in science.
fundamentalist| 6.24.11 @ 2:34PM
Where competing theories in any field of science exist, they are taught. Evolution is the only field of science in which no competing theories are allowed.
In fact, it would be a good idea to teach nothing but the theory of evolution as long as the scientific evidence that contradicted the theory were allowed. Then students would be free to invent their own theory.
But the main thing that needs to be taught is how little evidence exists for macro evolution. Almost all of the evidence for macro evolution is micro evolution drafted into the service of macro.
Micro evolution is nothing but selective breeding. No one doubts micro evolution. The doubt is that micro evolution could produce macro evolution. The evidence for macro evolution is almost non-existent.
All we creationists ask is that evolutionists end their dishonesty and admit that they are deceitfully using selective breeding to prove that apes became human.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:13PM
"All we creationists ask ..." Really? If that is true, why couldn't a supporter of evolution ask in return that creationists end their distrust of genuine scientific inquiry and admit that they are deceitfully using selective reading to prove nothing whatsoever?
Is that why children in Georgia and Kansas are forced to spend any time on this fantasy?
Micro evolution, macro evolution is the same kind of argument as "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" It obscures the real question and wastes time.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 4:22PM
Where there are competing scientific theories competing theories are taught, argued, researched, developed and argued again. However, intelligent design is not a competing theory (anymore than Lamarckism or turtle supported earth) until there is some modicum of evidence to support it. As for the evidence against evolution, creationists have not provided any that has not been refuted. All we scientific types request is for intelligent design/creationist to not call their ideas scientific.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 2:48PM
I don't think he's saying you can't teach the theory. Just saying you can't teach it as fact... since there is evidence to the contrary. It is a theory that holds up fairly well... for some of the obvious things (like evolution on the micro level) but it fails when you expand it out over a long enough time line... not that it fails and is wrong, but that it fails and can not be taken as right until further proof is provided. Example... the fossil record of intermediary steps from point A to point B, or current observations of speciation (since all creatures have been here for millions of years, there's no reason we wouldn't see speciation occure among the animals almost daily (ok... not DAILY... but within observable time frames over geneartions of modern man there should be observable speciation SOMEWHERE given how many animals are on the planet in differing areas).
Evolutionists would have a lot more credit if they simply said, "Yes, the model isn't perfect. Right now we don't have proof for all of it and as such, are willing to entertain new ideas or tests." But intead, they say "You're stupid and belive in invisilbe space men you ignoranus!"
Quentin L F Patch | 6.24.11 @ 1:21PM
Evolution, say rat thing to bat thing, requires billions of billions stepwise transitionals never seen. Real science is about observations, examples and plausible mechanisms.
Evillusionism works by say-so, a new say-so science all may play. It remains as Darwin started it, a novel fiction genre, a form of creative writing for those who will not be ruled by the Creator. (Search Bible, Jesus. )
martin j smith| 6.24.11 @ 1:22PM
I think the speed trap is this; WHO IS TO BLAME FOR OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. That will be the speed trap. SOCIALISTS ARE BAITING THE HOOK.
As for the issue of Evolution the question to be asked at least by us is this ; WHY ?
The best answer is this: You are asking me this question because you think you are going to trap me right ? Well, when you have a question about the issues that matter to the vast majority of people in this nation care about and are in crisis--why not ask about these things. When you do I will be glad to answer--like the policies of Obama that are killing our economy.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 1:29PM
The answer should by , " Hmm, that certainly was a strange, cheap shot question. I do not know, I am neither a scientist, a theologian, nor God. What do you think? By the way, just how does this relate to my qualifications and efforts to be elected for this office?"
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:09PM
Because if you believe in 'Fairy Tales' you are delusional, and shouldn't have Nuclear Launch Codes?
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 5:34PM
Why does this nonsense keep getting repeated it as if it has any credibility?
It has EVERYTHING to do with being elected to office. Whatever you believe, and you have the ability to influence what is taught in the public schools, then, yes, the public has a right to know. Unless - and I hesitate to get a ticket on the Paranoid Express - you wish a candidate to keep a secret agenda and then foist it on an unknowing public after the election.
Hmmmm - kinda like Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:14PM
Well, according to your liberal illogic and your delusional worldview, you would have a litmus test on every single politically correct position from global warming to Lady Gaga...which in fact you do, come to think of it. What is your stand on abortion..what is your stand on homosexuals, your stand on religion, your stand on climate change...and on and on. Do I wish a candidate keep a secret agenda? Oh, you mean like the current jackass in the whitehouse and his coverup of his political associations, leanings, and past? The public does not give a rats ass about anyones stand on how they think life began or whether there was a big bang or whether or not string theory explains the unified theory of everything. Commie of the net...hey..so..I guess atheist communist are now only qualified to be president. Got news for the both of you. WE HAVE AND WILL NEVER GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT YOU PROGRESSIVE COMMIES THINK ABOUT WHO IS QUALIFIED OR NOT QUALIFIED OR FOR THAT MATTER ON ANY OTHER SUBJECT..INCLUDING YOUR FAIRY TALE ECONOMIC THEORIES AND FAIRY TALE LIBERALISM.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:22PM
It has nothing to do with anything..and who appointed you God and decider of what is a fairy tale or delusional? You are Liberals. Delusional citizens of Fairy Tale Utopias have no standing on lecturing the rest of us on what is relevant. Furthermore, the federal government or a president has no role in determining what is taught in schools. Another false premise. Almost missed it.
W| 6.25.11 @ 12:03PM
The Right, you prior name was David, correct, the SEIU rent a mob member.
Pat| 6.24.11 @ 1:46PM
In order to further embarrass the Republicans, Democrats should initiate one of those shovel ready stimulus swindles during the upcoming campaign which deals with evolution theory and, without a doubt, the most exciting program would be the Prove Evolution Stimulus Project. One, maybe two billion dollars for any scientist who can prove evolution is more than just some half-baked theory by identifying those among us who are currently evolving. Finding an American citizen going through the X-Man process as we speak would be an added benefit – although identifying anyone, anywhere in the world would settle the question once and for all.
Evolutionary biologists swear on a stack of bibles – oops, make that swear on a stack of Scientific American magazines that evolution is a continually ongoing mechanical process, undirected, unsupervised and the only explanation for biological change within any animal species or plant.
Now we have over 6 billion subjects of evolution on this planet within the one species we study constantly and in the most minute detail – namely our own. And, we’re told evolution isn’t just another theory, it’s a fact, so finding those human beings currently evolving would settle the question once and for all, not to mention embarrassing the Republicans in the process. Surely, if we can spend billions to help the UAW and it’s union officials, we can definitely spare a mere 1 or 2 billion dollars to save the jobs of some deserving evolutionary biologists and their lab assistants.
And imagine the excitement if one of the X-Men should turn out to be an American citizen? What if President Obama could invite Joe Genesplit of Darwin, Indiana to the White House for a beer and a photo op? President Obama: “Mr. Genesplit, I understand the National Science Foundations identified you as someone currently undergoing evolution”. Mr. Genesplit: “Correct, sir. But please just call me Gene”. Obama: “Thanks, Gene. Let’s have another Michelob and talk about how my administration’s latest scientific project, of which I am immensely proud, led to this startling discovery. Tell us, how did the NSF identify you as the next link in the evolutionary
chain?”.
Gene: “Well, Sir, I was minding my own business mowing the front lawn when this SUV pulled up and 3 guys in white lab coats hopped out. The head guy, Dr. Guv Grant, informed me my doctor had sent in my medical results to the NSF and scientists funded by the Prove Evolution Stimulus Project had identified me as someone definitely going through an evolutionary change. You see, Sir, I’ve always had these webs between my toes, since I was a little kid, they’re kinda embarrassing, but I never knew those little flaps meant I was evolving. Sure, I could swim a bit faster than my buddies, but I got tired of all the wise cracks and recently asked my doctor to remove them – that must be how those lab guys at NSF found out about me.
And then Dr. Grant promised me a $150,000 consulting fee if I would let them study my webs and determine if I’m evolving. I said sure, you bet, because my wife wants to re-do our kitchen and the extra money would come in handy. Although, after talking to Dr. Grant in that big office of his, I now realize it was my patriotic duty to come forward and be identified”.
Obama: “So Gene - how’s your beer by the way – that 1 billion dollar grant to the NSF made it possible for American scientists to determine scientifically and with complete objectivity that evolution is indeed a fact, that the enemies of this administration are ignorant boobs and should stick with their guns and bibles rather than opposing scientific progress?”. Gene (sipping his Michelob): “Right you are, Mr. President and, by the way, when do I get the rest of that $150,000?”.
JimmyT| 6.24.11 @ 2:13PM
I have read many of the post here. The problem I have is that everyone is sighting facts to prove their beliefs. The problem with sighting facts is that most of the "facts" you are sighting are actually OPINIONS. When remains are found, the people who found, and studied them, then come to a conclusion based on their training AND beliefs. In my limited research, Lucy is considered the most complete skeleton ever found. It consist of 20% of the bones normally found in a human body. The other 80% is conjecture. When I here people talk about carbon dating, I'm always reminded of the college students who "processed" a dog bone which was then "authenticated by experts" to be millions of years old. I don't know what the process was, but it sure as hell fooled the "experts". And excuse me, but to use wikipedia, which can be changed at anytime by anyone' as a source of "facts" is a little naive. From my vantage points, no one is working from facts, it's ALL conjecture. I guess my big question would be, "If man has "evolved" over millions of years, then why do records of human existence only go back 5 or 6 THOUSAND years"? Which, by the way coincides with the Biblical theory of creation? IMHO
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:05PM
Well we have Cave Drawings MUCH older that.
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 4:25PM
wikipedia is a well referenced source that is easily accessed and available to anyone on this sight (clearly they have a computer and access to the internet). If you are mistrustful of the information in any particular article, refer to the footnotes and go to the original sources.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:43PM
If you don't understand scientific principles than obviously you can find it easy to doubt them. Case in point, Carbon Dating, it is somewhat complex but simply all living things have a certain level of radioactive particles in them from eating food, when they die that level is locked and starts slowly to decline. This decline is VERY orderly and can tell how long something is dead. Now if you contaminate a sample with something really old sure you can get erroneous results.
Joe D.| 6.24.11 @ 2:14PM
It's a question every presidential candidate must dread, one that promises to come up repeatedly as the political season advances: "Do you believe in evolution?"
This question should not bother any Christian. The answer is that both should be taught in school since both are theories back up by science. And evolution has more holes in its theory the intelligent design. Both can not be proven by science without faith. So if you do not like that answer Mr. secular journalist than get a latter from Lowes and get over it.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:07PM
It's 'Ladder', there is No 'Intelligence' behind ID, it is Creationism in Drag.
Quentin L F Patch | 6.24.11 @ 5:01PM
Efoolusionism is a naked king marching down Main street with the crowd laughing. Darwin will be remembered forever -- with Bernie Madoff. Hoaxmasters.
fwb| 6.24.11 @ 2:17PM
ANYONE, and especially the Supreme Court, which btw does NOT have the authority to interpret the Constitution because the SC is subordinate to the superior Constitution, who has read the debates on the first ten amendments knows that Madison and the others specifically stated that the first was so worded because the Framers of the Bill of Rights had no authority to determine the power of the state to restrict religion, speech, the press, etc. Each state was left to its own constitution concerning religious freedom, etc. No one can argue against this turth because it is written in their own hand.
Now what the SC has done is to mix up the 1st with the 14th using selective incorporation, wherein the SC, using their crystal balls, decides what does and what does not constitute a fundamental right under the 14th. BUT the 14th was about privileges and immunities, which come from the government, and not Rights which come from God. All this was caused by the SC screwing things up in 1833 in Barron v Baltimore when the SC decided the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. However, ONLY the 1st amendment, which was actually the 3rd amendment offered, limits action to the feds, thus under the supremacy clause, all the other non-directed amendments are the supreme law of the land and thererfore bind the states. Interestingly, Rawle in his 1825 and 1829 legal treatises, which were used to teach law, states the the Bill of Rights binds the states. Chief Justice John Marshall was the fool who fouled things up.
An honorable SC would have said, "sorry, the Frist amendment does not bind the states because the first amendment was never written as binding on teh states, and eventhough the 14th was passed, the 14th is about privileges and immunities, NOT about Rights. Also notice that the word Right occurs only once in the First Amendment concerning the right to petition government. There is not a single use of the word right relative to religion, speech or the press.
krb| 6.24.11 @ 2:38PM
The actual title of Darwin's work was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." -A much less scientific name than what is commonly stated.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 2:55PM
Wait what is the Evidence AGAINST Evolution? Oh right there ISN'T any...
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 3:28PM
the lack of intermediary forms is the evidence against evolution, that and statistical improbability.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:44PM
There is TONS of so called 'transitional' fossils, but every time one is found it creates TWO new gaps on either side of it for you people to exploit.
YeloStalyn| 6.24.11 @ 5:46PM
Those gaps are important. Right now, the fossile record is like having a seed, a tree, and a house.
You're expecting me to believe that the seed grew into the tree (which it may have) and that the tree grew into a house (which, again, it may have). But to say that it DID grow into a house without showing those steps is what evolution does.
And the doubters use reason to say... I bet it didn't grow into a house. I bet something else happened and would explain things a lot better. I may not have proof of loggers and builders... but you don't have proof that my house was transformed, naturally, out of a tree in some sort of metomorphisis.
ORANG| 6.24.11 @ 3:11PM
I would also support teaching the scientific evidence against evolution, but there is none that I know of. The "evidence" I have seen offered "against" it take the form of arguments that rely on the _lack_ of some piece of knowledge or evidence. When those pieces of knowledge are found, the argument moves to another gap. In fact, every piece of evidence that fills a gap creates TWO NEW GAPS. It can never be _finally_ proven wrong, but there is nothing scientific about "intelligent design" -- which is just a subset of the creationist arguments that were brought up and debated in Darwin's time.
Consider a murder investigation where a motive, fingerprints at the scene and fingerprints on the weapon found in a nearby dumpster are all found. The defense [intelligent design] might say the obvious theory is wrong because among other things, we can't PROVE the suspect took the weapon from the room to the dumpster. Since we can't prove it, some other agent must have done it. When video footage is uncovered showing him walk out of the building with the weapon and put it in the dumpster, the defense responds again "we still don't know that he took it from the room to the exit." It goes on and on with no end.
The evidence for evolution is more solid than any courtroom would EVER demand, but people with religious dogma telling then how to view the world are limited in how they are ALLOWED to think about that evidence. Thus they are discouraged from looking at even a small fraction of it.
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 3:50PM
The gaps are enormous, and what supposedly fills in the gaps is suspicious.
martin j smith| 6.24.11 @ 3:24PM
Basic stuff: Challenge the premiss of MSM questions.
Challenge the questioners's motives. The motives of MSM outlets is well known.
Challenge MSM questioners as if they are agents of Obama because they are--so you are really challenging Obama thru the MSM..
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:47PM
But make Liberals answer ALL the tough questions you have for them, AMIRITE?
Lisa| 6.24.11 @ 3:24PM
I'd answer this way: Juan, what does your belief on how the earth was created have to do with how well you do your job?
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 3:39PM
The evolutionists posit that life arose from lifeless matter in a random, purposeless universe. Then explain to me, how does the personal arise out of impersonal matter? How does a purposeless, material universe give meaning to life? Do evolved atheists conduct their lives randomly? Do they walk across the street without first looking both ways? Please answer these questions for me, and then maybe I might believe in evolution.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:43PM
Because you WANT Purpose, doesn't mean it exists.I want to be able to fly without a plane, but it's not going to happen. I want to live to be 10,000yrs old again not happening.You are not a child, man up and deal with cold hard facts.
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 3:56PM
So you are telling me that there is no purpose to life, is that correct? If so, do you purposely avoid putting your hand on a hot stove? Do you purposely avoid falling off a cliff because you don't want to fly without an airplane? Do you practice purposelessness fully in your life?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:10PM
Well I don't put my hand on a hot store because that it would wreck some SkyGods plans for me. Purpose is what you make it, if you heal people by being a Doctor, you can have satisfaction on your Death bed that you helped ease alot of people's pain. Get out there and make yourself useful so when you die , you can say you did alot of good.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 3:39PM
All you need to know:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/watchmaker.htm
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 3:59PM
The answer to this is the Fall.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:05PM
Let's turn the assumptions up to 11!
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 3:42PM
A few thoughts:
First, how should the candidates answer the question, "Do you believe in Darwinism?" It would be refreshing if they simply answered the question by telling the truth. Yes, I do. I don't, I believe in Intelligent Design. I don't, I believe in creationism. To tell you the truth, I don't care. Christie's answer is another possibility. People can believe some pretty absurd things and still be competent public servants, so maybe a little intellectual privacy is appropriate.
Second, if the journalist follows up with the question, "Should Intelligent Design be taught along with Darwinism in public schools?" puts Republican candidates in a bit of a bind. To hide behind the federalism argument leaves everybody wondering where the candidate stands on the issue. This is much more important to elements of the base on the right than on the left, so its a tougher question for Republicans. That being said, it is important to some on the left who think that ID is little more than the thinking man's creationism. They don't want it as a part of the science curriculum because it is not the job of science to prove the existence of God anymore than it is the job of science to disprove the existence of God.
Pawlenty suggested that, if the appropriate authorities include ID in the curriculum, it should be put into the social studies curriculum. This is reasonable. A rich curriculum could be built around how our courts, over time, have interpreted the First Amendment when called upon to mediate conflicting religious demands in our society.
Pat| 6.24.11 @ 5:29PM
Mike: It’s surprising to me that when politicians endorse evolution as the only reasonable explanation the media doesn’t ask for facts supporting that position. It’s similar to: Do you believe intelligent life exists in other solar systems? You can say: “Yes, I do” and no reporter asks you to prove it – mainly because there is no way to prove it. Most politicians, if pressed to support that position, would cite some dribble about how vast the universe is and why shouldn’t there be life on other planets – but none are stupid enough to talk about real live aliens visiting us, Area 51 and so forth, and risk being subsequently dismissed as a nutcase. You can believe life exists elsewhere in the universe without a shred of proof and still get elected – and that says something very uncomplimentary about the electorate in this country.
With scientists we see a similar evasion, they believe in evolution as fact, not theory, but none are stupid enough to trot out someone who they claim is currently evolving. If pressed to support their position with a real life example, evolutionary biologists drift off into a dreary monolog about how evolution doesn’t affect individuals, it affects vast species populations and can only be determined long after the change has occurred. Such nonsense even led one frustrated scientist to observe: Why does evolution always occur in the remote past or will occur in the remote future, but never occurs in the present?
Are scientists too cagey to be pinned down into providing evidence of ongoing evolution? Since Charles Darwin first offered the argument that evolution is constantly ongoing to present day scientists, it’s scientifically accepted that evolution is a continuously ongoing process without pause or end. Yet, with over 6 billion human beings on this planet, no one has pointed out a single living example of human evolution. In the past sure, plenty of chimpanzee fossils have been put forth as missing links. In another 1 million years, some scientists claim we may have enormous heads and tiny arms, or maybe show other startling morphological changes. But today, right at this moment, evolution remains a mystery as to who specifically is evolving.
Some evolutionary biologists will maintain evolutionary changes are too small to be detected – but if that’s the case, then how does natural selection work if the changes are too small to be detected, how can the physical environment reinforce this undetectable evolutionary change through natural selection? Like life on other planets, the politically safe answer is to support evolution. And like the life on other planets argument, it’s safe because there is no way to prove or disprove it with a living example.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:08PM
You strike me as someone who is totally unfamiliar with the arguments against their position.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.24.11 @ 6:23PM
Are scientists too “cagey?” This one is. I always presented the students a “narrative” as an educator, I never was presumptuous to think I was able to "teach" anything to a roomfull of people that were no doubt smarter tham me. At the graduate level or in real life, as in here on the blog everyone has made up their mind already. All you can do is expose them to data, information or some disputed consensus or deduction. They use what they find "fits," and reject what does not. The "best" end up in theological seminaries or as scientific researchers. NO ONE is going to change their minds by uttering a string of words made by fellow travelers in the timeline allotted. All you can do is present evidence, virtually none of which was discovered, researched, or validated by anyone in the conversation. The only thing people become “convinced” about is your narrative, and whether or not it is biased. “Biased” is the key to education, do not mock others skepticism; you are offered two choices, you can ignore it, or you can accept it as another alternative theory, a qualified scientist will always do the latter.
Now if “evolution” was temporally compressed enough to measure it in the context of the scientific method; if we had experimental data recorded accurately under laboratory conditions for several million years then I would be willing to sign on to the peer review paper submission. As to the other side of the argument they only have one paper written on the subject and peer review, I am pretty sure ALL will agree, is not possible. The only way to win this argument assuredly is to die, and it is my sincere hope that all of you wasting our valuable time here on earth quickly resolve this for yourselves.
The people querying these politicians don’t really want answers, they want news or leverage. The politicians answering the questions are simply politicians; they do not want to contribute to knowledge or discover the truth; all they want is votes or similar leverage.
Here is my scientific analysis, there are three groups of incredible stupid people (and to get two out of three at AS you must admit is rare); (1)polititans, (2) the MSM mediators, and (3) people who argue about evolution.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:14PM
"there are three groups of incredible stupid people...
(3) people who argue about evolution."
I'm no haughty intellectual but I am a child of God by His Grace, and I will add a 4th group of people who are incredibly stupid: those who do not care.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.24.11 @ 7:44PM
Your demented sanctimonious blather is why you will suffer an eternity of unspeakable agony burning in hell and why I will exist forever in my heavenly bungalow on the beach of the blessed, next door to Jill St. John and Demi Moore who in our heavenly fathers mercy and wisdom can never seem to be able to locate their swim suits.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:08PM
Wow, how perverted can you get?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:13PM
So, you're not a sanctimonious fool for spending however long it took you to insult and demean everybody here who takes interest in discussing Evolution, but I am demented and sanctimonious for rebutting your sanctimony with the fact that I am a child of God who is saved by Grace and therefore permitted to defend God's Word?
Got, Michael, you pompous fool.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:17PM
There has to be a line drawn otherwise science class is going to look like the Art Bell show, a section on Alien Abductions, Bigfoot etc. The ONLY reason why 'Evolution' is questioned is because it runs up against Theology.Nobody questions other equally less than totally proven science. It is the same with the science behind 'global Warming' the people who want to drive BIG trucks and waste energy and have that energy cheap, want to 'feel' as thou they aren't doing any harm, nothing more. Next time someone says Climate Change is a hoax ask them what scientific paper or researcher they followed to reach that conclusion. GUARANTEED it's just based on the 'ol gut.
skip| 6.26.11 @ 10:21PM
Try petitionproject.org or petitionproject.com dumbass.
W| 6.25.11 @ 8:58AM
Michael, I beleive the argument or discussion is more about the origin of life rather than how life evolved from the origin. That explains much of the passion. Many of the books on atheism now,such as Dawkins, use evolution as an argument to deny God. You can believe that God created life with the blueprint, or dna, to evolve as it did. As for Demi and Jill, if you were a muslim you could have 80 more Demis.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:56PM
"You can believe that God created life with the blueprint, or dna, to evolve as it did."
No, you cannot. Not if you claim to be a Christian.
God's own Words proclaim how He CREATED Mankind, and all creatures according to their kind. To say otherwise is calling Him a liar.
"The Bible states that God CREATED life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
"And God said, Let the earth bring
forth the living soul according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and the living things
of the earth, according to their kind. And
it was so." Gen. 1:24.
And He says He CREATED Man from the dust of the earth, not from an animal, an amoeba, or even from water. And He CREATED Man with the ability to reproduce from his own kind. There is NO evolution. He CREATED Man, and in His own image, not in the image of an animal:
"And God said, let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the birds of the heavens,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing creeping on
the earth.
And God created the man in His own
image; in the image of God He created him.
He created them male and female." Gen. 1:26 & 27.
"And Jehovah God formed the man out
of dust from the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul." Gen. 2:7.
God says He then created the female from the male's rib:
"And Jehovah God said, It is not good,
the man being alone. I will make a helper
corresponding to him.. And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead of it.
And Jehovah God formed the rib which
He had taken from the man into a woman,
and brought her to the man." Gen. 2:18, 21 & 22.
Either you believe the Word of God or you believe a rebel against God, Charles Darwin who fabricated and exchanged the truth about God for a lie.
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 10:02PM
Pat,
False analogies and presuppositions. Frankly, I have no interest in explaining why. It won't change any opinions.
If you take this as a victory, fine. Those who know better will understand. Those who don't will persist in their belief.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 3:49PM
I suppose if people believe that some bearded galactic being in the sky simply created all life with a snap of the fingers, then the tooth fairy is also real. As well as the easter bunny, ghosts, goblins, and talking dogs.
Science trumps fairy tales everytime. Otherwise, why doesn't "god" just smite the muslims...oh and the pedophiles too...ooh sorry, they're all priests, so they get a pass.
Oh, and please don't feel sorry for me for not "believing"...it leaves a lot more time for the real world when I'm not worrying about what would jesus do, or talking to a figment of the imagination.
Just amazed that this BS could be a consideration, or requirement, for presidentional candidancy. No wonder I left the Republican party. For those who say good riddance...fine just ask yourself WWJD? Hahaha!!!
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:05PM
Apparently Jesus would let a man's house burn down we he had the means to extinguish it:
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogP.....2147499026
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 4:55PM
Guess I stand corrected. Jesus is a hardass..don't pay your tax..then your house burns. Guess "dad" is the wimp who won't smite anyone.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:36PM
The "tooth fairy" never died for anyone's sins.
And will indeed smite those who reject Him. It's called Judgment Day.
"The one believing into Him is not condemned;
but the one not believing has already
been condemned, for he has not believed
into the name of the only begotten
Son of God.: Jn. 3:18. LKJV.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:46PM
Should read: "He will indeed smite.."
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:09PM
Believe in me and love me or BURN IN HELL!!!
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:38PM
Sounds like a question the 'Godfather' would ask...I guess that is why he is the God Father;)
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 6:38PM
Oh sure..just quote some book and you're right. To counter that, I could quote Dr. Suess and everyone has to believe in green eggs...or burn in hell...OK fried green eggs.
Brainwashed fool...when was the last time you got a phone call from son-o-god. Oh that's right you won't, it's all based on "faith" not proof.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:32PM
Fool you say? No, not me!
"The fool says in his heart, "there is no God". Ps, 53:1.
NotCrazy| 6.25.11 @ 12:09AM
Wow...never thought it could be so easy...quote a book...BTW there's green ham as well.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:22AM
Yes, it is very easy, and most enjoyable as well. Much more enjoyable than buying into some warped individual's mindless imagination (Darwin) about how men are the uncles of monkeys and so forth.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:30PM
I really do not care what you believe or do not believe. What I do care about is your hatred for those that hold religous beliefs and your attempts to ridicule them, suppress them, and discriminate against them. Your disdain for the first ammendment is clear. It is NOT freedom from religion..it is freedom OF religion. Left the republican party? Good riddance. Try the nation next and skip over to China..you will be more comfortable over there.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 6:49PM
I rest my case..the nutjobs have responded, just the way I predicted...good job..give yourself a high five!!
I don't remember promoting hatred, just responding to the notion that a republican candidate has to somehow prove they believe in "creation".
As to your foolish comment about the first amendement, Gov. Christy executed it when he said it's none of anybody's business. Yet all you bible thumpers demand a candidate that requires fitting the christian mold. Might as well rename it the jesus party for the priority it gets.
Go to china...typical...disagree and you need to leave. No wonder the europeans threw YOU out...good decision.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:08PM
If you can say anyone is a nut job for believing in the Word of God as written in the Bible, then just to be "fair" and have a "balanced" argument, they could say the same about you, hmm?
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 7:19PM
No, you just called everyone who holds religious beliefs nut jobs, crazies ( apparently your not crazy), stupid, and on and on. The issue is not whether a candidate has particular belifes about this issue or whether they are playing to a constituency. IT IS about your intolerance and belief that a politician can not belief in anything else BUT evolution otherwise they are nuts and unfit. As usual, as a useful idiot and criminal minded liberal, you skirt the issue, project, and misdirect the argument. The issue is liberal reporters using it as a gotcha question and demanding an answer. Yes, it is none of your frigin business, so do not ask. As far as China, you would indeed feel more comfortable there..I was just trying to help you.
NotCrazy| 6.25.11 @ 12:35AM
With all respect, it is the religious folks who immediately view those who don't "believe" as wrong. The last two posts are the most rational I've received. No bible quotes etc.
And wow, I'm now a "criminal minded liberal"..who's the name caller now. Some of my relatives would be overjoyed to hear I'm considered a liberal. It's the best laugh I've had all day.
Back on task. You all miss my point. I feel religion has no relevance in political office...sorry, if it is, it's an immediate bias. Believe me, I'm not so much of a "useful idiot" (sounds like a slave to me) to not presume that religion is always a factor. Just wishing for the best and always disapointed.
As for the question being a liberal gotcha, are you kidding? From the the other side it's a validation of candidate legitimacy, so please don't waste time saying it's one sided.
As for my moving to China, the food is better, and I appreciate your suggestion to leave, but perhaps you all could consider moving to the holy land as well. This way you wouldn't have to deal with this dialog at all.
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:07PM
No, I got your point loud and clear..." I feel religion has no relevance in political office." You also did indeed slam those who think otherwise and those that believe in a God and happen to not believe in evolution as a fact. I am guessing you are at best a liberal small 'l' libertarian or at worst just another socialist, god hating troll. Your rhetoric and arguments smack of the same thinking and attitudes. Great, so you think religion has no place in public life. So what. That just happens to be in conflict with 200 years of the American experience, the constitution, and the beliefs of our founding fathers. It is not a legitimate question for a candidate. The question should be, as President (or whatever) will you uphold the constitution and not seek to impose your personal religious beliefs or lack of them on public policy but rather represent the will of the people and respect their personal and religious beliefs? The federal government does not impose or RESTRICT religious belief and practice in public or in private. Knock off the holy land and theocracy crap. No one is proposing it. People just want to have the freedom to question and hold there own beliefs without someone restricting them or attacking them or calling them nuts. Bachmann or anyone else for that matter has no interest in stopping evolution or any other scientific theory from being taught in classrooms. Politicians have a right to their own beliefs just as anyone else and need to act according to their conscience. When they seek to impose those beliefs disrespective of the nation and establish laws that restrict or prohibit others from practicing their beliefs then that is another matter. If schools decide on the local level to teach about all the theories from evolution to ID, then so be it. You really need to do some reading in the physics area..you might be surprised at what is being scientifically proposed...such as particles being in two places at once and particles exhibiting intelligence and free will. Kinda crazy, eh, Not Crazy?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:22PM
Foolish Beliefs SHOULD be ridiculed, No? If not you wouldn't mind a Scientologist or Muslim as President?, you think they are wrong, so do I. I would just add one more group to the list.
gary siebel| 6.24.11 @ 3:54PM
There is no doubt evolution is a fact. What is in doubt is precisely how it works. So there should be no problem in discussing all the theories, no matter how whacked out, so long as one is not left with the final impression that species do not evolve.
ConantheContrarian| 6.24.11 @ 4:00PM
there is micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:10PM
There is walking a mile but not 10 miles.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:32PM
It is not a fact..it is a theory. If I have to explain this, you should not be posting here.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 6:51PM
Oh, but creation is a fact...cause the bible said so?
Tool
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:04PM
Because God says so.
NotCrazy| 6.25.11 @ 12:48AM
Really?...because its in the bible? How simple.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:20AM
"Understand prudence, ones of simplicity;
and fools, be of an understanding heart.
Hear, for I will speak of excellent things,
and from the opening of My lips shall be
right things.
For My mouth shall speak of truth, and
a disgusting thing is wickedness to My lips.
In righteousness are all the sayings of
My mouth there is not a distorted or perverse
thing in them;
they are all straight to those discerning
and to the upright ones, to those who find
knowledge." Prov. 8:5-9. LKJV.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:29AM
Yes, it is simple, NotCrazy. But we try and make it difficult. God's Way (Jesus) is easy, and His burden is Light. Jn. 14:6, Mt. 11:30.
When I was about 20 yrs. old a Christian approached me with a little Bible. She presented to me from that book an answer to every single question that I had. I could not rebel any longer and gave my life to the God of the Bible, through His Son, Jesus Christ and He changed my heart and my life. I am forever in His debt and will defend His Truth to the day I die.
He is that faithful and true. He gives every soul the opportunity to come to know Him, or rather to be known by Him.
How's that for an amazing offer of loving kindness?
"For God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son, that everyone
believing into Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." Jn. 3:16 LKJV.
Do you have a Bible, NotCrazy? If not and you want one, I will send you one. Or I will give you a link to it. Here:
http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubeca.....fo_16.html
Go and read. The Word of God has the power to change you.
Nite, now.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:24PM
So Creation isn't a fact, yet it is all around you? Who has breathed this spirit into your being? Surely the Enemy of God has done so!
"For God’s wrath is revealed from
Heaven on all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, the ones holding
back the truth in unrighteousness,
because the thing known of God is
clearly known within them, for God revealed
it to them.
For the unseen things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things made, both
His eternal power and divinity, for them to
be without excuse.
Because knowing God, they did not
glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But
they became vain in their reasonings, and
their undiscerning heart was darkened." Rom. 1:18-21.
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:14PM
No, it is not a fact..it is a matter of faith, at this point. It is another theory. Odd thing is there is growing scientific evidence that random theory and selective mutation can not account for the super complexity and engineering of life at the microbiology level. So, at this point your guess is as good as mine.
Thomas James| 6.24.11 @ 4:07PM
Evolution is obvious and undeniable. But evolution occurs within species, not across them. The question should be, "Do you think natural selection, according to Darwinian theory, is scientifically sound?" Answer: no. Darwin's famous Galapagos finches suggested evolution within the species. It did not suggest, and nowhere has it been demonstrated, that speciation occurs through natural selection. It's a critical distinction.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 5:26AM
Darwin's famous Galapagos finches are typically divided into eleven or so different species. I think you are using some idiosyncratic definition of "species" different from any of the ones used by biologists.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.24.11 @ 4:12PM
"Do you believe in evolution?" Sounds like this is an article of FAITH for Democrats --- not science. I'm an atheist and I find that evolution is no more intellectually respectable than creationism or intelligent design. And I fear the Democrats far more than I fear the Christians.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 5:00PM
That makes the erroneous if unnecessarily inflammatory assumption that Democrats and Christians are separate groups.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:35AM
Typically but not necessarily mutually exclusive
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:39PM
OP, finally someone who can actually use his brain wherever it came from. You have nothing, my fellow American, to fear from Christians...you have a right in this constitution to make your own decision in these matters and it will be respected. Great post, thank you.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:14PM
Every year China and India turn out more Scientists and Engineers than we do. Our Education System is already the laughing-stock of the world and you Christians want to makes ever more STUPID?
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:45PM
Lame..lame..and lame again. Every year, our educational system turns out millions of more useful idiots like you that demand bigger and bigger government, entitlements, debt, spending, anti-capitalism, more government control and cultural marxism. Do you want to destroy America? Are you stupid? Apparently, the answer..yes!
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 6:55PM
Not sure your response had anything to do with the comment, but then consider the source.
BTW..."useful idiot" is a phrase that proves Kingofthenet's point.
Perhaps you should move to china..genius
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:23PM
America was the leading industrial and scientific leader of the world for nearly 150 years and surpassed anything China or any other frigin commie atheist nation in the world ever produced or discovered. Wow, it was done while it was the most religious nation in the world. It is only in the last 40 years when it became secularized, liberalized, federalized, unionized, and irreligious that it became a laughing stock. Of course, I did not think you would get this.
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:28PM
By the way, KingTrolloftheNet was implying that China kicks out these scientist because it is a secular, atheistic nation that does not tolerate religion or its practice..something we should apparently emulate. Since you like the food so much, may I again suggest you live there...then you will live in that utopia where religion has no place in public or private life.
Anders13| 6.24.11 @ 4:19PM
Evolution as a rational construct in it's scientific context is just science, right or wrong.
Evolutionism, the social pholosophy, is totally toxic to any civil society. However, it is an integral part of progressivism and is one of the factors that make progressivism so morally regressive to society.
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:11PM
Wait, social darwinism is a progressive construct?
Anders13| 6.24.11 @ 11:24PM
No. Progressivism is social darwinism repackaged as a political system.
Evolution is too flimsy a concept to be considered a field of science or a theory. Genetics is a field that has a solid empirical and rational foundation; as do biochemistry, and physics. Evolution relies on a connect the dots according to the best rational imaginable scheme. It's like describing how a mechanism works. There are too many assumptions for it to be a theory, so it's a rational construct.
The insistence that the natural selection process is random creates a conundrum. A random process producing increasing complexity violates the well established second law of thermodynamics. So, the process has to be ordered in some way, perhaps ID which evolutionist reject, or maybe nature has some sort of natural order, or maybe you believe in magic.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 6:32PM
WTF???? Speak normal...
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:30PM
Too complex for you, too many big words like construct?
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 6.24.11 @ 4:42PM
A candidate's position on evolution is absolutely within bounds and part of the public debate.
There are constant wrangles over what should and should not be taught in public schools. That is legitimate public debate and so is a candidate's position.
To evade the question, however tactfully or glibly or politely, is not a good idea nor particularly good politics. As a former journalist, I know I wouldn't let a candidate get away with that kind of milquetoast answer.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 5:32PM
If politicians would just say, "Damn the torpedos" and answer honestly, they'd be more respected.
Think Ronald Reagan.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:40AM
The necessity of "having" public schools never has been demonstrated, which pushes aside the issue of "what to teach in public schools." Goodnight, all of you goyls, I'm gonna hit the sack but you can gabble all night, don't forget to turn out the lights when you're done.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:58PM
"The necessity of "having" public schools never has been demonstrated, which pushes aside the issue of "what to teach in public schools."
How is that? They are there (unfortunately), and it still matters.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.27.11 @ 2:19AM
Monopolies virtually always result in poorer quality and higher cost to the consumer --- so naturally, lovers of government sacrificed education on the pyre of obligatory, tax-paid government instruction. Nothing is too good for our education bureaucrats and teachers, of course, many of whom retire with pensions well over $100K, plus medical, dental, vision, etc, etc.
Check out ----
"EDUCATION: Free and Compulsory"
by Murray N Rothbard
[free in pdf format]
http://mises.org/books/education_free_rothbard.pdf
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:17PM
Oh, I know what you say is true and I wasn't questioning that, just questioning why should we give up trying to right the wrongs of what they teach just because they are who they are?
I know it's like fighting Leviathan, but decent people ought never to stop fighting them.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.27.11 @ 2:20AM
Monopolies virtually always result in poorer quality and higher cost to the consumer --- so naturally, lovers of government sacrificed education on the pyre of obligatory, tax-paid government instruction. Nothing is too good for our education bureaucrats and teachers, of course, many of whom retire with pensions well over $100K, plus medical, dental, vision, etc, etc.
Check out ----
"EDUCATION: Free and Compulsory"
by Murray N Rothbard
[free in pdf format]
http://mises.org/books/education_free_rothbard.pdf
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 4:52PM
Every year we produce a 'Flu' vaccine,BEFORE the start of the flu season. This is determined by how we expect the Virus to EVOLVE, sometimes we get it right sometimes not, evolution in action. Ever notice how dogs have no interest in Citrus Fruits? Yet they don't get Scurvy? That's because Dogs like 99.9% of Mammals produce their OWN Vitamin C inside their bodies, unfortunately for us Humans, that gene for making Vitamin C was damaged during EVOLUTION so we need to get Vitamin C from external sources or die.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:43AM
The partisans of "evolution" visit the term on the mutations of viruses --- and call it "science." Don't waste your breath on calling me a Christian [or whatever] --- I'm an atheist.
Rich D| 6.24.11 @ 5:48PM
I would say to the reporter, "If you can explain the difference between micro and macro evolution and the differences in genetic drift between non-overlapping and overlapping populations in the next 60 seconds, we'll talk further. Otherwise, how's your family?"
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:00PM
Haha, excellent.
Dr. Dave| 6.24.11 @ 6:02PM
The "do you believe in evolution" question is popular with AGW alarmists, too. There is no right answer. How could you not buy into the unproven theory of AGW yet still believe in evolution? Or...No wonder you can't accept the "science" of AGW if you don't even believe in evolution.
Though there is good science to back up the theory of evolution, it still remains a theory. Further, there are holes in it. Lots of 'em. I think evolution should be taught in schools as a scientific theory. I wouldn't even mind if AGW was taught in schools as a theory. The problem is that they're both taught as immutable fact.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:46AM
Unless the arroagnt apologists for evolution theory posit evolution as specific only to human beings, there is a huge and virtually insurmountable number of so-called "missing links" to connect.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:48AM
Unless the arrogant apologists for evolution theory posit evolution as specific only to human beings, there is a huge and virtually insurmountable number of so-called "missing links" to connect.
[Ugh. Typing with my elbows, again.]
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:00PM
Yep. And they'll never BE found because they aren't there. God made everything "according to its kind". (Gen. ch. 1 & 2.).
So far He hasn't been proven wrong.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:08PM
"Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Derp| 6.24.11 @ 6:13PM
Some bronze age goat herders said Darwin is wrong! So there!
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:26PM
Darwin was a rebel toward God. In other words, a fraud. Nothing he said about so called evolution has EVER been proved.
Yet, every single Word that God has ever spoken has proved true.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:17PM
"Life is more than matter and energy (Genesis 2:7; Job 12:7-10). We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Even though its body may be perfectly intact, and air and energy are reintroduced to spark life, the body remains dead. Scripture agrees with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life. Life cannot be explained by raw materials, time, and chance alone – as evolutionists would lead us to believe."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:23PM
"Law of Biogenesis explained (Genesis 1). Scientists observe that life only comes from existing life. This law has never been violated under observation or experimentation (as evolution imagines). Therefore life, God’s life, created all life."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 5:21AM
Does God have enzymes? Does He take in food, excrete wastes, pass on His genes to offspring? "Life," in the "law of biogenesis," is not some mystical quality that may be possessed by nonphysical entities; it is a set of physical processes dependent on molecules.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:25PM
God said to Abraham:
"..even as it is written, “I have appointed
you a father of many nations”; before God,
whom he believed, the One making the
dead ones live, and calling the things not
being as if being, Gen. 17:5
Yes, He is Creator God who made all things.
"Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands?" Is. 45:11.
Do you know who the Holy One of Israel is as well? He was in the beginning with God:
"He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." 1 Jn. 1:12 &13;.
This is the Man, Christ Jesus:
"He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His Nature, upholding the universe by His Word of Power. When He had made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the Name He has obtained is more excellent than theirs." Heb. 1:3 & 4.
Yes, God and His Son created all things, Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Rev. 1:8, 21:6, & 22:13.
It is true, God has always been, and before Him there were no gods.
"You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me.
I, I am the LORD, and besides Me there is no Savior." Is. 43:10 & 11.
Why is it that Christians hope and believe in God and Jesus Christ? Because we know that..
"..because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."2 Cor. 4:18.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:56AM
Come now, Margie, it is unnecessary to be a True Believer in order to discount the theory of evolution --- creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution theory, which must stand on its own two feet in order to engage the allegiance of scientific thinkers. And this blather about "the word" of "God" is an unproved assertion which presupposes the existence of a supreme being other than my wife or my daughter, who yammers "facts" at infidels like myself. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Wake me when you're done, kiddo.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:55PM
"it is unnecessary to be a True Believer in order to discount the theory of evolution."
True. So?
"creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution theory,"
You've GOT to be kidding. Why? Because God is irrelevant to the Darwinists? Ha!
"which must stand on its own two feet in order to engage the allegiance of scientific thinkers."
It can't, it doesn't, and it never will because Darwin was a fraud, and so are his vain imaginations.
"who yammers "facts"
I'm sorry you reject the facts. Your loss.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:24PM
"The universe is expanding (Job 9:8; Isaiah 42:5; Jeremiah 51:15; Zechariah 12:1). Repeatedly God declares that He stretches out the heavens. During the early 20th century, most scientists (including Einstein) believed the universe was static. Others believed it should have collapsed due to gravity. Then in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. This discovery revolutionized the field of astronomy. Eisntein admitted his mistake, and today most astronomers agree with what the Creator told us millennia ago – the universe is expanding!"
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:29PM
For those interested, it's in the Bible right before the section of detailed plans for a 'Space Shuttle' and How to synthesize Antibiotics.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 5:19AM
Yes, the Bible repeatedly speaks of God stretching out the heavens ... like a tent. Tents do not expand infinitely in all directions (if they do, something went horribly, horribly wrong during set-up). The references to the sky being "stretched out" are of a piece with the references in Genesis and Malachi to the "windows of heaven" that God opens to let rain through: the sky is pictured as an immense canopy or tent over the flat disk of the Earth.
Side note: do you accept the Big Bang, or a universe billions of years old? The assumptions under which astronomers interpret Hubble's data to show that the universe is expanding are the same ones they use to infer that we see galaxies billions of light-years away -- and that it took light from those galaxies billions of years to reach us. If we don't know that the universe is billions of years old, we don't know it's expanding.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 2:59AM
Margie, dear, please find out who whizzed on your brain, and then kill them.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:50PM
You will have to put that request in to God, dear.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:25PM
I could get behind 'Intelligent Design' if instead of a Supernatural God, you replace it with 'Super Advanced Alien Race' at least the thought of 'Aliens' seeding the Earth isn't as much of Assault on my SANITY.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:23PM
Anything but God, right KOTN?
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 1:05PM
Because Aliens don't contradict natural laws, to tell out the truth, I would even WANT a God, I would be constantly wondering IF what was happening to me was natural or was some 'Supernatural Magic' at work.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 3:57PM
But King,
God is the Author and Creator of life. He is a secure God Who loves you and has arranged everything that He has made including you, perfectly.
Mankind ruined it way back in Genesis and because he did this there is this thing called Sin that we have inherited from Adam.
Yet Christ died for this Sin in us and if we believe in Him and ask Him humbly, will forgive each one.
I know, because He has done this for me. He is not a God of confusion, but of peace. His enemy, the Devil seeks to destroy you through your sin. It is the truth, King. You must come to realize this!
God can save you from Hell~ it is the place that all of us deserve because of our sin, but He only can save you from it.
You will only be able to "see" these truths when God Himself opens up the "eyes of your heart" and gives you understanding.
God says that we are all in spiritual darkness because of sin. Yet He sent His beloved and only begotten Son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins.
Have you ever heard it when Christians speak of being born again or born anew of God's Spirit? (Jn. 3:3).
Actually in the original Greek that the Bible was written in, the word is "regenerated" from above.
You see, King, this is what all Christians know. We have been "regenerated from above" by God. It means, according to the Bible (His own Words), that we have come out of that spiritual darkness, and "into His marvelous light."
Read this:
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." 1 Pe. 2:9.
Christians (those who have been regenerated by Him) are considered by God to be a royal priesthood, a chosen race, belonging to Him for the purposes of preaching the Gospel to the whole world. Not a priesthood as in Catholicism, but as in each and every one of us is now a priest of God's.
Now, how amazing is that? So, God says you are in darkness now, but is giving you the opportunity to come into the Light.
Only then will you be able to "see" with spiritual eyes, with His eyes, and be able to realize that every Word of God is true.
He says that the only reason men refuse to come to Him is because they choose to love the darkness, their sin, instead.
"And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
King, the ONLY way you will be able to really know that everything I said is true ~ that every Word of God as written in the Bible is true, is if you humble yourself and ask Him to to regenerate you from the inside out.
"Because if you confess the Lord Jesus
with your mouth, and believe in your heart
that God raised Him from the dead, you
will be saved.
For with the heart one believes unto
righteousness, and with the mouth one
confesses unto salvation.
For the Scripture says, “Everyone believing
on Him will not be put to shame.”
Isa. 28:16".
Rom. 10:9-11. LKJV.
"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly,
truly, I say to you, If one is not generated
from above, he is not able to see the kingdom
of God." Jn. 3:3.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 3:02AM
Margie, please stop trying to make commies sound like normal, rational people, by comparison to your remarks, today.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:48PM
But you are really saying that to God. I am posting His Words, not mine, I am just agreeing with Him.
JimH| 6.26.11 @ 8:48AM
Panspermia and similar theories just beg the question as to life's origin.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:26PM
"The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity – the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit – just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!"
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Sarbojit| 6.24.11 @ 10:47PM
Yep, knowledge and understanding progresses. Old science is apparently discredited by new science. But not always. Einstein did not prove Newton wrong.
Once, westerners believed the sun revolved around the earth. (Westerners, I say, others around the world had different ideas. E'g., Modern Europeans may once have believed the earth was flat, but not the ancient Greeks). Then. along came guys like Copernicus and Galileo and said the opposite was true - the earth revolved around the sun. Leading the Mother Church to bust her G-string in fury.
Could it be possible that both were right, in their own way? Today, what is the consensus? The sun and the earth, indeed the whole solar system, are like two metal balls tied by a cable and whirling through space like a Dervish. Which is revolving around which? From the perspective of an observer sitting in Andromeda, it would appear both are revolving around each other. Both sun and earth are bit players in the larger scheme of things.
This reminds me so much of a limerick I once heard that I am unable to restrain myself. Here it is -
There was a pansy from Khartoum
Who took a lesbian to his room
And they argued all night
As to who had the right
To do what and to which and to whom.
To me it seems that the sun and the earth, via their respective cheerleaders, are arguing the same argument.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 5:14AM
I'm curious, Margie: how do you know that the sun travels in a huge circuit? As I understand it, it will take the sun 200 million years to complete one orbit around the center of the galaxy; you don't think there have been or will be 200 million years. You don't trust extrapolation of radioactive decay rates over such vast spans of time; why trust extrapolations of the sun's motion?
And it's not just "scientists" who thought that such passages referred to the sun's orbit around the Earth: so did Martin Luther (though he cited, rather, the verse in Judges that spoke of the sun, not the Earth, standing still for about a day). There are still modern geocentrists who will quote to you passages in the Psalms about how the Earth is established so that it cannot move. There are reasons every Christian for a millennium and a half read the Bible as geocentric.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:44PM
Steven,
I looked up that verse in my interlinear Bible, which was taken from the original Greek (Textus Receptus), and it is actually worded a bit differently. It says:
"He has set up
a dwelling-place for the sun,
and he comes forth like a bridegroom
from his canopy. He rejoices like a hero to
run a race;
his going forth from the end of the heavens,
and his orbit to their ends; and nothing
is hidden from his heat." Ps. 19:4-6. LKJV
Here's a link to that Bible online:
http://www.sgpbooks.com//bible.....319Psa.pdf
"As I understand it, it will take the sun 200 million years to complete one orbit around the center of the galaxy; you don't think there have been or will be 200 million years."
If it takes that long, we do not know, but the Bible does not say it is going to happen. It just speaks about its orbit.
"You don't trust extrapolation of radioactive decay rates over such vast spans of time; why trust extrapolations of the sun's motion?
I trust science when its based in truth. I don't trust science when it has an agenda. But I do know that "scientists" only ever find out the things that God already spoke about anyway~ and this is just one example. (About the sun).
And anyway, how does anyone know "exact extrapolations", nor did the above quote from that website give an exact. It said approximately.
As to the "earth is established"~ it actually says the World is established, meaning nothing can change it, as He has arranged it that way.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:45PM
Oops, meant to say the original language of Hebrew, not Greek, that's the N.T. The old was written in Hebrew.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:33PM
Just a question to you Christians, if Humans ever meet Intelligent life from another Planet, are you going to throw away all your bibles?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:45PM
Why would we?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:51PM
Well people are SUPPOSED to be special, intelligent Aliens would show that there is NOTHING special about Humans, it would also invalidate large portions of the bible.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 6:59PM
You said "if". God can do whatever He pleases. If intelligent life appeared anywhere, He is still the Creator.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:00PM
Don't worry, Margie find some qoute that has nothing to do with anything, and that will be proof that aliens were considered all along...as long as their christian of course. If not, satan gets the credit. either way bible study will solve the problem.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 7:22PM
Au contraire! I've just spent some time posting pertinent proof that God's Word is fact. But you aren't here to discover the truth, so sorry.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:45PM
Margie, your idea of 'proof' and 'fact' is different from mine, quoting some 'old book' of unknown provenance is not ANYTHING to me.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:06PM
I didn't just quote the book. I provided evidence along with them. You are just too ignorant to care.
NotCrazy| 6.25.11 @ 1:10AM
Actually I have to give points to Margie here. Don't get me wrong, your use of the word proof is still wrong, but the links you provide do show good advice. But please don't tell me that god bothered to tell me to take an "implement" to cover my "refuse" when I leave camp to take a crap. Not evidence of creation, just some entry from a human author...like every other "holy" book.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:23AM
Hey I'm glad you appreciate what you read. Now here's a thought to digest~ you say my use of the word proof is wrong, yet the Word of God spoke and it is recorded in the Bible and it shows that later in time men came to find out His truths that He had already spoken of earlier. Now, that is what I call proof, and your scientists are in the business of finding these things out.
So I ask, just who should get the credit?
What
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:24AM
Oops, scratch that word What at the end there.
Rich D| 6.24.11 @ 7:18PM
First of all, if they were intelligent, they wouldn't come here... ;-)
Really, it wouldn't change anything. Nothing says that we are unique, and nothing says that God couldn't have multiple covenants and keep them all. I certainly do.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:46PM
You sly dog ;)
W| 6.25.11 @ 4:23PM
King, I think we will see intelligent life from another planet before we see intelligent life from teh Democrats/lefties
BackToBasics| 6.24.11 @ 6:35PM
Rather than saying, "I believe in evolution" a candidate could say, "I believe in intelligent design." He or she could maybe add a little more to it and say, "I believe that irreducible complexity as postulated in the intelligent design theory is true."
If the candiate(s) knows enough to answer a few questions, I'd say the chances are good that reporters will back off. After all, they do not want the general population of sheeple to even know that the intelligent design theory exists. From the liberal-marxist persepective, it might get too many people looking into it.
orang| 6.24.11 @ 6:38PM
I would favor teaching about the challenges to evolution in a history and philosophy of science class. My concern is that so many teachers know so little about it, it would amount to having them tell students whatever crazy ideas they had off the top of their heads rather than summarizing the very real history of the debate(s) [such a class would also include things like the flat earth, Newton vs Einstein gravity, the the luminiferous aether, the meaning and differences between of scientific theories/models/laws/hypotheses, etc]. We would probably have to start with a semester-long course requirement for high school science teachers.
On the other hand, we could just keep teaching the basic structure of evolutionary thinking in biology classes, and only students who want to learn more biology would have to learn more about evolution. If we are as generous as POSSIBLE to the "Intelligent Design" community, there is still no USE for challenges to evolution for biologists since there is no credible challenge to it IN biology -- and understanding it IS useful. The challenges come from fields of theology and philosophy that are still obscure and not relevant in the modern economy [as they have been for 150 years]. Being generous, we might suppose that ID could be some day be relevant, but right now, we DO have a use for biologists with a solid grasp of modern biology.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:41PM
You mean I can't try and find a cure for AIDS by saying God did it!
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:55PM
You need to find a cure for your smarmy liberalism.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:05PM
So challenging the point of the article makes you a liberal? Guess that makes you a knuckle dragging right winger...unless of course god calls me and tells me I'm wrong.
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:40PM
No, but when you are a liberal troll out here on a regular basis and it is apparent from your continual attack on republicans, christain, and conservative ideas, it is reasonable to assume that you are just another progressive liberal god hating troll. Notice, I did not say atheist troll. You can be an atheist and still respect others faiths and not be defensive or have to attack others about their beliefs. You are not challenging the point of the article...you are name calling, misdirecting the argument, and ridiculing.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:54PM
You do not have to go to a philosophy class to find challenges to evolutionary theory. There is growing body of scientific research and evidence, although suppressed by the elite liberal academic community, that has challenged it quite successfully. Both areas...mathematics and micro biology with the aid of computers and electronic microscopes have blown much of the macro evolutionary theory to shreds. This is being kept quiet and has caused a great deal of concern in the scientific community. They are finding organisms of such great complexity and engineering at the microbiology level that can not be explained by the theory of evolution.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:58PM
Even a Flawed theory is BETTER than 'God did it', we can make scientific progress with the current theory' God did it leads nowhere.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 7:02PM
I am not advocating that God did it or did not do it. Speaking of flawed theories, at this point, it is just as good an explanation as anything else that has been cooked up...like the idea that something sprung from nothing..quite magical..don't ya think? Fairy tales? Rabbits out of hats?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:07PM
Nobody is saying that 'something' came from nothing, if we are talking about life, well we KNOW what our bodies are made of...Mostly water and some other chemicals throw in.
Rich D| 6.24.11 @ 7:21PM
And they came from...?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:51PM
Same place your 'God' came from
Rich D| 6.24.11 @ 8:57PM
Seems like a punt to me - you either believe in spontaneous creation ex nihilo, an infinite succession of causes, an uncaused first cause, or else you deny the universality of cause and effect. Which is it, sir?
victor| 6.24.11 @ 9:49PM
kingofthenetwads:
"Nobody is saying that 'something' came from nothing,"
from google:
'something' came from nothing,
About 1,170,000,000 results (0.16 seconds)
only 2 billion results on something that NOBODY is talking about,eh?
here's atypical response:
Ok, now lets examine the “Big Bang Theory” and what it entails. According to the Big Bang Theory the universe began about 14 billion years ago . This theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past . It’s true that in times past scientists once thought that the universe was infinite but through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. So with the event of the Big Bang came everything including time, space, and matter but *prior to that moment there was nothing*; *during and after that moment there was something*: our universe .
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:08PM
I'm confused...are you saying the earth did not just pop out of thin air? Careful, sounds like science.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:36AM
Indeed. Science simply means knowledge. Christians know that God created the universe, and all that is within it.
"For so says Jehovah, the One creating
the heavens; He is God, forming the earth
and making it; He makes it stand, not creating
it empty, but forming it to be lived
in. I am Jehovah, and there is not one besides." Is. 46:18.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 3:09AM
Or one can say that "I know nothing of the origin of species" --- assuming that there was a time when they "did not" exist. If they "always existed," then they would have had "no" origin --- and this debate would have been just a lot of blah-blah-blah.
Mike| 6.24.11 @ 9:05PM
Simon, you don't go to a philosophy class for an answer to a scientific questions. For epistemology, yes , for science, no.
Discuss.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 3:14AM
Mike, philosophy has a direct impact on scientific inquiry --- for it raises the issues of objective reality and the commitment to finding and integrating it into a theory intended to explain phenomena.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 2:34PM
Then why did you say it is irrelevant to the discussion in another post?
simon templar| 6.27.11 @ 12:44PM
Yes. I agree. That's what I said. You do not go to a philosophy class..you can find a growing body of scientific study and challenge to evolutionary theory in the sciences.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 6:49PM
Well when your leading 'Contender' for the White House believes that there were Golden Plates and glasses made of 'seer stone' buried in Upstate New York and wears 'Magical' underwear, well let's just say it REALLY can't hurt him any to answer the question whatever way he wants.
simon templar| 6.24.11 @ 6:58PM
It is not nice to make fun of Representative Weiner after his sad resignation. Shame on you.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:10PM
Good one...your best post.
Reuel| 6.24.11 @ 7:41PM
"Do you believe in evolution?"
Since the word used is always "believe", then evolution is NOT science. No, Never.
It is a belief system that
"nothing + long time = life & universe today"
By the way,
The idol of evolution Dawin is dead. When "scientists" find his bones, they can call it a monkey or a rock that came from big bang.
Another idol of evolution Stephen Hawkins has "evolved" into a ex-human+speech computer + wheelchair.
A bicycle evolved into a Harley then into a Chevy - zero intelligent designer(s) - they all have a common ancestor - wheels.
Those who believe in evolution are not scientists they are just rocks that became alive - zero intelligence.
Science text books that include evolution should be classified as "fiction" or "religion". Wait, maybe just ink randomly spashed on paper through billions of years - no intelligent author.
Think I am joking, Wake UP!!
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:47PM
Yet you don't question the Origins of your God, interesting!
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:46AM
Listen up, King: Actually we did ask. Those of us who did, received. You have to WANT to know.
"And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." Lk. 11:9 & 10.
Wise men still seek Him.
Osamas Pajamas| 6.26.11 @ 3:19AM
If believers argue that "God" has always existed, then on what grounds do they deny that the universe [all things that exist] has always existed?
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 5:48AM
Apparently for these people 'Supernatural' things are the norm.they don't question Superman's just regular folk.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:21PM
Because, OP~ God created the Universe. He existed before He created it.
I know the following is more than what you asked for, but it is so wonderful that I want you to see this:
"For the Word of Jehovah is right, and
all His works are in truth.
He loves righteousness and judgment;
the mercy of Jehovah fills the earth.
Through the Word of Jehovah the heavens
were made; and all their host by the
breath of His mouth.
The waters of the sea were gathered like
a heap, giving the depths into storehouses.
Let all the earth fear Jehovah; let all
those living in the world stand in awe of
Him.
For He spoke, and it came into being;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
Jehovah voids the counsel of the nations,
He frustrates the thoughts of the
peoples.
Jehovah’s counsel stands forever, the
thoughts of His heart to generation and generation.
Blessed is the nation whose God is
Jehovah, the people He has elected for an
inheritance to Him.
Jehovah looks down from Heaven; He
sees all the sons of mankind.
From His dwelling place He looks on
all the ones living in the earth.
He forms the hearts; His understanding
is to all their works." Ps. 33:4-15. LKJV.
I don't know about you, but I cry reading that, and I tremble when I hear thunder and see lightening, for I know that my God is an awesome God.. He could wipe us all out with a blink we are so sinful. Yet He LOVES us, and does not wish that any should go to Hell. But just think about it for a nano sec.
Just think.. if YOU were God, and you actually DID create all that you'd say you created, including all of Mankind~ and then all of Mankind chose to thumb its nose at you, what would you do?
A man I knew once asked the question~ if you were Jesus and you saw you coming~ what would you say to you?
Just consider .. all.. of.. this!
Reuel| 6.24.11 @ 7:41PM
"Do you believe in evolution?"
Since the word used is always "believe", then evolution is NOT science. No, Never.
It is a belief system that
"nothing + long time = life & universe today"
By the way,
The idol of evolution Dawin is dead. When "scientists" find his bones, they can call it a monkey or a rock that came from big bang.
Another idol of evolution Stephen Hawkins has "evolved" into a ex-human+speech computer + wheelchair.
A bicycle evolved into a Harley then into a Chevy - zero intelligent designer(s) - they all have a common ancestor - wheels.
Those who believe in evolution are not scientists they are just rocks that became alive - zero intelligence.
Science text books that include evolution should be classified as "fiction" or "religion". Wait, maybe just ink randomly spashed on paper through billions of years - no intelligent author.
Think I am joking, Wake UP!!
diviz| 6.24.11 @ 9:16PM
do you believe in the theory of gravity, quantum chrmodynamics, or plate tectonics?
Reuel| 6.24.11 @ 7:41PM
"Do you believe in evolution?"
Since the word used is always "believe", then evolution is NOT science. No, Never.
It is a belief system that
"nothing + long time = life & universe today"
By the way,
The idol of evolution Dawin is dead. When "scientists" find his bones, they can call it a monkey or a rock that came from big bang.
Another idol of evolution Stephen Hawkins has "evolved" into a ex-human+speech computer + wheelchair.
A bicycle evolved into a Harley then into a Chevy - zero intelligent designer(s) - they all have a common ancestor - wheels.
Those who believe in evolution are not scientists they are just rocks that became alive - zero intelligence.
Science text books that include evolution should be classified as "fiction" or "religion". Wait, maybe just ink randomly spashed on paper through billions of years - no intelligent author.
Think I am joking, Wake UP!!
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:50PM
Bearded guy in a toga snaps his fingers and pooof...everything is here.
Think I am joking, Wake UP!!
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 7:56PM
They like to question 'How something could come from nothing' never asking it about their God.
Mark Montgomery| 6.24.11 @ 7:48PM
Let's see: Michele Bachmann believes in creationism, "intelligent design", that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that evolution and global warming are lies and that hundreds of responsible scientists agree with her including "many Nobel Prize winners".
First of all not one Nobel prize winner has yet voiced belief in creationism or in the idea that global warming is a lie. Michele Bachmann is emblematic of the anti-science flat-earth society mentality that permeates the Republican party and that would return us to the dark ages. I sincerely hope that Michele Bachmann wins the Republican nomination for president in 2012 because that would guarantee Barack Obama another four years. She will be roundly discredited once she's reaches the national stage. She's a blithering idiot. Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 7:56PM
Based on your prediction...we all lose. Four more years of Obummer and we'll all be living in caves.
That's the point of all my posts. This issue of god snapping its fingers vs. evolution is immaterial to the true issues facing this nation.
Keep religion where it belongs..in your own minds. Focus on reality and fix the economy. Otherwise nobody is going to have any pocket change cough up at church.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:01PM
Wrong. The entire reason the nation has gone to the dogs (atheists) is because we allowed Evolution to be taught in the schools, and generations of children have been taught this immoral lie. They threw out the Word of God form the schools and allowed the false teachings of a corrupt rebel against God who says that man evolved from beasts.
That is utterly against the Word of God and it has cause a lot of damage to this country.
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 8:13PM
So you like Radical Islam MORE than Godless Atheists?
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 8:15PM
Maybe you should ask Michael Hauschild that question, his intellect about matches yours.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:12AM
But that IS a good question, now that I think about it, King~ who has killed more people - Islam or the atheists?
Hitler or Islam?
Stalin or Islam?
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:12PM
Yup Hitler and Stalin were atheists so that is why they murdered all those people. That is one possibility, here is ANOTHER thing they had in common MUSTACHES, that is the REAL reason why they killed, or they both ate potatoes.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:22PM
Nah, they killed people because it made them feel powerful. Sorta like as if they were God. That's what atheism does to people, it makes them believe that they can take the place of God in their lives.
You are your own god, and you reject Him as God.
But then you will have to pay the price for acting as your own God when at the end of your life you have to appear before Him and He asks you why you thumbed your nose at Him.
He didn't send His Son to die for the sins of the world so that they would reject Him, but that they could have eternal life.
But on one condition only: you must believe in Him.
Say, King, have you ever heard this before? This is called the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
"For God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son, that everyone
believing into Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the
world that He might judge the world, but
that the world might be saved through Him.
The one believing into Him is not condemned;
but the one not believing has already
been condemned, for he has not believed
into the name of the only begotten
Son of God." Jn. 3:16-18.
NotCrazy| 6.25.11 @ 12:34PM
Let's not forget, christianity has a pretty high score as well. I seem to recall the spanish christians killing every jew they could get their hands on. All in the name of god.
Maybe this is a good place to paste that "without sin, cast first stone quote"
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:55PM
The biggest murderer of ALL time was God, nothing beats wiping the entire planet clean of life save one small boat.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 3:00PM
God is Righteousness and He is Truth and He is Holy and He is no murderer.
He is Creator of all things and His Judgments are just and true.
If you really wish to be found by Him calling Him a murderer, you will regret it on that Day.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:31PM
Hi NotCrazy,
Well, sadly this is true that Religious people murdered others that did not believe like they did. But these murderers were not Christian. There is a difference between Religion and Christianity.
Christians believe all the Words of God that are written in the bible. They reject anything that teaches other than what is written in it, including any teachings or teachers that teach things that do not match up with His own Words.
Some Religions do not match up with His Words and they think they have the "right" to persecute and even kill those who refuse to listen to what they say.
The Catholic Papacy put to death Bible believing Christians for centuries because they refused to concede to their false teachings.
Islam kills people because they refuse to submit to their Religion.
And other Religions have done the same thing. This is all because they make themselves God and do not submit to His Word.
But true Christians are even willing to die for the Word of God and allow themselves to be persecuted, but they will continue in His Word.
Murderers of whatever Religion may be members of a Religion, but they are not Christian if they commit murder.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:05AM
NotCrazy,
You're ability to recall is seriously flawed.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 12:25AM
Oops! That should be: Your ability...
RickK| 6.24.11 @ 8:39PM
Margie, every day people rely on our understanding of DNA to answer some of life's hardest questions - questions that could not have been answered in the days of the Bible's authors. "Is this stranger my birth mother?" "Does this man belong on death row?" "Are these remains from Ground Zero all that is left of my father?" We get reliable, dependable, definitive answers because DNA tells a clear story, one that cannot be interpreted a million different ways.
DNA also tells the story of evolution - natural, physical, magic-free evolution. It tells a glorious story of how all life on Earth is not only interdependent, but interrelated.
Your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong. The story told by DNA is not. If you refuse to accept the authority of DNA in telling the story of evolution, then you must abandon it for all those other questions. You'll have to start letting a lot of people out of jail.
You're entitled to your own beliefs right up until the point that they conflict with demonstrable truth.
Margie| 6.24.11 @ 10:39PM
No interpretation necessary since God's Word is Truth and He speaks for Himself. True science proclaims His amazing Creation which is all around us and cannot be denied.
DNA does not tell the story of Evolution. Evolution is a farce. What the story of DNA tells is the Glory of God the Creator of and His infinite Wisdom in creating it, and all things. Have you ever considered that as a possibility?
Wise men still seek Him.
Evidence: "Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements."
"The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe – namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change."
"Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma."
"Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together."
"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth."
"The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis."
"The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence."
Bob Grant| 6.24.11 @ 11:26PM
Nice quotes.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:07AM
Thanks, I thoroughly enjoy them myself, and I hoped somebody would like them.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:09AM
I forgot to give the link to the quotes, above, this time, as I did all the other times.
The quotes are from a really cool website that I discovered yesterday:
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 1:08PM
"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth."
You mean out bodies AREN'T made of substances not on the Earth? Wow...Mind Blown!
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:14PM
Well I'm happy to see that you believe God!
But he point was that Darwinists "believe" that we "evolved" from beasts.
God says nope. He CREATED us from the dust of the ground and formed us and breathed into our nostrils the breath of life. (Gen. 2:7).
So the question remains: Who knows better~ God or Darwin?
RickK| 6.26.11 @ 11:53PM
Margie said: "DNA does not tell the story of Evolution" and used as her justfication verses devised by desert tribespeople from 2500 years ago.
This sort of nonsense demonstrates the disdain many Americans have for facts, evidence and education. "Belief" and "faith", however strongly held, are not "knowledge". Belief doesn't lead to the truth, facts do. That's why evidence is presented in courtrooms rather than relying on prayer and divine revelation.
DNA does indeed tell the story of evolution, Margie, and no amount of denial or scripture will change that fact. Your DNA has markers left from ancient retroviral infections - very unique markers in very specific places in your DNA. And some of those markers are found in exactly the same place in chimpanzee and gorilla DNA. This can only be true if you share ancestry with those gorillas and chimps. And that is only one of several ways in which DNA demonstrates evolution.
No amount of denial will change that simple fact. And unlike the Bible, every word of which was written by human hands, DNA is as nature created it.
So if you really believe God made all things in nature, then Margie, you are willingly taking the words of men over God's direct evidence. Why do you do that? Why do you reject what your God put in front of you and inside you?
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:11PM
The reason I said DNA doesn't prove Darwin the rebel against God's imaginations is because it has not, and that's a scientific fact.
In fact, Darwin's poppycock is only being constantly dis-proven! How many centuries will it take for you people to wake up?
The Question of Y:
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....question-y
DNA’s sweet secret: its Sculptor!
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....eet-secret
RickK| 6.27.11 @ 1:37PM
Sorry, Margie, but your links in no way challenge common ancestry between humans and other apes (and other life on Earth, for that matter). And, to make matters worse, your links misinterpret lightweight articles in popular science magazines into completely false conclusions.
Don't you suffer any cognitive dissonance or moral discomfort when you (1) claim to follow the teachings of the Bible, including presumably the 10 commandments; and (2) intentionally deny facts in evidence, intentionally support positions that are based on proven lies, and intentionally misuse data?
Why do you think that even deeply religious people like Francis Collins, when they understand the true evidence, cannot deny the truth of evolution and common descent? And what is the basis for his acceptance of evolution? The story told in DNA. And he focuses on completely different (but confirming) evidence than what I discussed above.
Oh, by the way - if you want a link to a description of how endogenous retrovirus markers provide indisputable evidence of common ancestry, here you go:
http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
Now, it's a little longer than an "answersingenesis" article, and it has actual references to peer-reviewed papers. It is evidence-based, not belief-based. But it is readable for anyone who really cares about the truth of this subject.
Of course, if you really don't care about the truth and are only interested in reading things that already agree with your current beliefs, then don't bother reading it.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 2:03PM
Sorry, but even with your rantings, the fact is that evolution has never been proven.
What has been proven is that both animals and Mankind both have DNA. and that isn't the least bit surprising, since God the Creator has created both from the dust of the earth! Amazing, isn't it?!
The fact that humans have similar DNA proves nothing as far as Darwin the rebel against God's vain imaginings.
So far "science" has not proven that the DNA is the same as ours, and in fact it cannot prove it, and will not, no matter how hard they try.
Genesis chapters one and two state that God the Creator has created created Man and beast not only PURPOSELY separately, but that the animals were created. "according to its kind."
Now, each individual is either calling God the Creator a liar, or true.
You either believe Darwin the rebel against the Word of God~ or you believe God.
So far, only Darwin has been the proven liar.
RickK| 6.28.11 @ 12:50PM
Ok, so I did you the courtesy of reading your links, but you didn't read mine. If you had, you wouldn't assume it says humans and other apes have "similar" DNA. That's not what the article says - it presents irrefutable evidence that humans and other apes inherited DNA markers from common ancestors. But you didn't read it, so instead you argue against what you assume the article says.
You confirmed my hypothesis in my earlier post. You're only interested in reading things that you already agree with. You're not actually interested in seeking the truth.
I've always thought that one measure of integrity is a willingness to test my beliefs to see if they actually fit the evidence, and to see if they withstand argument from critics. I think it is important for what I say to be accurate, and the only way to be sure that it is accurate is to test it.
Apparently you don't measure integrity that way, you are not willing to read and understand contrary opinions or contrary evidence, and you don't apparently care whether your statements are accurate or not.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 9:29PM
Wow...that's the entire reason??? So you're saying we can solve the entire universe's problems by not teaching evolution. I say we go for it!!!
Oh wait a minute, we're back to the finger-snap = earth pooof thing again. Never mind.
Mark Montgomery| 6.24.11 @ 8:14PM
Barack Obama is the most successful president we've had since FDR. He saved the economy with his stimulus plan and provided health insurance for 40 million folks who were not covered, he killed Osama Bin Laden and is overseeing the dismantling of our war machine in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Barack Obama took over from the miserable failure George Bush the economy was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. Now we are adding at least 200,000 jobs per month. You have no argument and zero facts. Mark Montgomery NYC, NY boboberg@nyc.rr.com
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 9:26PM
I have no reponse to this...I''m laughing to hard. I assume you must have a government job, because you have no ground in reality.
According to you, everything is going to be great. GWB got me laid off, but BHO is going to solve everything. My house is going to sell for more than I bought it and I'm going to earn more than I did under GWB. Wow I can't wait...so when do the good times roll?
Idiot
Bob Grant| 6.24.11 @ 11:06PM
Obammy: "Looks like those shovel-ready jobs were not as shovel ready as we expected"
J.C.Eaton| 6.26.11 @ 6:14PM
You are absolutely hopeless. Congratulations for the most ludicrous post of this or any month. Yes, this is an ad hominem reply......as indicated: you are hopeless and nothing, absolutely nothing can help you. How do you get fire insurance?
Kingofthenet| 6.24.11 @ 8:01PM
My favorite line of hers, is when she asked Ben Burnanke, where in the Constitution he got his power from, He was like from this body you idiot.
victor| 6.24.11 @ 9:40PM
kingoftheroad:
"where in the Constitution he got his power from, He was like from this body"
And where in Article 1 section 8, did Congress get their authority to give Bernank and power to do anything?
victor| 6.24.11 @ 9:40PM
any power
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 6:47PM
Where in the Constitution do you get the idea that EVERYTHING Congress can do needs to be spelled out?
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 11:58PM
Kook of the Net,
Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power [...]."
Pretty clear cut, huh? Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution?
Vern Crisler | 6.24.11 @ 8:42PM
And the mother and father of these Nobel prize winners are a witch and a hobgoblin.. The best answer Michelle could give is simply to say she's not a biologist or physicist and that she believes in the Declaration of Independence -- we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. She should not fall into the trap of debating ID or Darwinist issues with dull-witted and ignorant reporters.
POST America| 6.24.11 @ 10:06PM
---Teaching the Freemasonic, Darwin fronted
doctrine of evolution (derived from the belief
system of caste affirming hinduism) --poses no
problem, so long as we can also begin teaching
the actual history of this country and the world
(ie Globalism = EUGENICS).
Jeff| 6.24.11 @ 10:19PM
Darwinists have their religion and I have mine-Christianity. Mine is better than theirs and I will not shrink from telling them so.
NotCrazy| 6.24.11 @ 11:03PM
Thank Jeff..that was really persuasive...gotta get me some of that christianity now...cause it's better.
Brainwashed a little...are we? Must me easy living without reason. No worries..god will provide...hahaha
Bob Grant| 6.24.11 @ 11:08PM
I wonder where reason originates?
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:18AM
With God. He called Man to reason, (which means He must have created Man with the ability to reason), way back in Isaiah 1:18:
"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."
Amazing, isn't it?
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:26PM
There is virtually NO difference in Mammalian brains, sure the human brain has certain thought centers larger than other animals but they are still present in these other animals.They think just fine for survival. If a human were the size of a house cat, one wouldn't be a 'mini' me, it would be a non functioning retart. One just needs to see brain injury victims a little damage to the wrong areas and poof, who and what you are gone forever. Our intelligence is on a knifes edge, very little to spare, an average 100 IQ person is one small stroke away from being a 65 IQ retart. The difference from building a Space Shuttle and not being able to do 5th grade math, is a statistic rounding error.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:47PM
Animals can't reason, they just operate on the instinct God gave them.
When God created an, His Word says that He created him in His image and likeness. (Gen. 1:27). And therefore with the ability to reason with Him. It's Mankind that God called to reason with Him, and whom He wants a relationship with, not the animals.
"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.". Is. 1:18.
And there's the rub for the Darwinists.
RickK| 6.28.11 @ 12:55PM
"Animals can't reason"
That's absolutely untrue.
Wow - you just don't care, do you?
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:48PM
should be, "when God created Man", above.
Bob Grant| 6.25.11 @ 4:45PM
Methinks you simplify the human brain, and by extension, the mind just a tad.
The "non-functioning retart" or brain injury victim you describe continue to have the ability to think and act with free will but not expressed in a way you might be able to notice.
Perceiver| 6.24.11 @ 11:12PM
Here is what St. Augustine of Hippo had to say on natural knowledge and biblical interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....rpretation
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 12:15AM
"Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason."
Wow, that's all I need to know about that guy and his Religion. I wonder.. which parts of God's own Words pleased him to be rid of because so called science said otherwise. Too bad Darwin wasn't around then, I bet he would have enjoyed his thinking.
This is the problem with men who try and make themselves the authority over and above the Word of God. Pompous asses.
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:10PM
Margie, Augustine was a good guy. Don't listen to these guys who try to co-opt him into supporting their evolutionary arguments. In the very same source cited by Perceiver, Augustine rejects the view that the world is much older than 6000 years. While he believed in creation in one day rather than in six, this is primarily a result of the fact that Augustine did not know Hebrew, which requires a six day creation on any non-tendentious reading of Genesis.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 4:17PM
Really? It just goes to show that I had better read up before believing what's posted.
So that quote is untrue? Well then I will have to ask him to forgive me when I see him in Heaven won't I?
RickK| 6.28.11 @ 1:01PM
Vern - Augustine changed his interpretation of scripture to fit the facts as he understood them. If he understood the facts of geology, plate tectonics, astronomy and evolution, he would not interpret Genesis literally. He's quite clear that God speaks through scripture AND through nature. The difference is, nature wasn't written by human hands. Read the meaning of Augustine, not just the words. That's good advice for reading the Bible too.
Margie, you don't know anything about Augustine of Hippo?
Your worldview is clearly based solidly on the Bible, but you don't know anything about one of its greatest scholars? That's like saying "I love cars more than anything, I live my life around cars, but I don't know who Henry Ford was."
When you know so little about the most important subject in your life, of what value is your opinion?
C Smith| 6.25.11 @ 12:43AM
Scripture clearly, simply, and unquestionably states that God created the world in six days:
"Six days [Yom] shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day...." (Exodus 20:9-11).
Yom, the Hebrew word for day is always used in Scripture to denote a literal 24-hour day. Pope Benedict appeared to affirm this biblical prerequisite during an Easter Vigil mass, in St. Peter's Basilica:
"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense...."
However, his words just don't ring true: Catholic schools include evolution in their science curriculums; Catholic churches teach evolution as a natural God perpetuating process; the Vatican consistently affirms that the "science" of human evolution and faith are not inconsistent.
An earlier pope also allowed "research and discussions...[to] take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution" (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical, Humani Generi, 1950). Attempting to bridge controversy, this pope re-introduced the heretical body-spirit dichotomy of first century Gnostics, i.e., the body matters not, spirit is all. However, the Lord's linage is a linage of the flesh and consequently:
".... every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1John 4:3).
David | 6.25.11 @ 2:21AM
Jonathan Sarfati's newest book is "The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution" (2010)
Cornell University professor Dr. John Sanford, pioneer of plant genetic
engineering and inventor of the gene gun has commented: "In my opinion
Sarfati's book beats Dawkins' book ["The Greatest Show on Earth"] point by
point, on all issues."
If Sarfati's book has been totally ignored by the mainstream media, why is
that unusual? Interviews with evolutionists appear regularly in
newspapers, and
on televison and radio (eg. NPR's "Talk of the Nation: Science Friday";
CBC's "Quirks & Quarks"). How often have you read or heard an interview
with a creationary scientist, such as D. Russell Humphreys, Kurt Wise,
Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, Werner Gitt, or John Baumgardner?
If you never have, is this because creationary scientists don't conduct
scientific research, or is it because of other reasons? On the PBS
documentary In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy, Phillip Johnson
commented: "Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the
officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is
supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as
the priesthood…So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great
cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it
that authority. That’s why they’re so vicious towards critics."
The following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical
and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with
regard to
evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State should find the policy acceptable:
"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved
theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state]
science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and
teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order
to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion
would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against
evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and
the diversity of life on our planet."
Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to
teach evolution as dogma.
For further reference:
Teaching Evolution - Is There a Better Way?
by Ian Taylor
http://www.creationmoments.com.....better-way
The Myth of Junk DNA (2011)
by Jonathan Wells
http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:37AM
Ian Taylor~ Yes!!
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:39PM
I enjoy watching Christopher Hitchens Debates, USUALLY all it takes is one 'Hitchslap' and the opponents spiritual armor comes unglued. Except for ONE debate, he was debating some Rabbi, who's name escapes me. Now if you every seen one of Christopher's debates, he has a basic 'stump' speech that pretty much lay's his case out, apparently this Rabbi had seen it and created a VERY good response.The Rabbi also played the crowd well. Not that ANYTHING he said was any more true than any of the OTHER religious lackeys, but like the OJ Simpson defense he did raise a good smoke screen. Being Eloquent and slick can win a battle, but the war is won on facts.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:01PM
"Being Eloquent and slick can win a battle, but the war is won on facts."
You can say that again.
"For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1:19-26.
David | 6.25.11 @ 2:39AM
Regarding vertical evolution (information-building evolution), is there
an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be
seen to increase the information in the genome?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....5/abstract
http://creation.com/was-dawkin.....uted-again
John Sanford writes in "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome":
"Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other
things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and
Medline. He found 453,732 'mutation' hits, but among these only 186
mentioned the word 'beneficial' (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186
references were reviewed, almost all the presumed 'beneficial mutations'
were only beneficial in a very narrow sense--but each mutation
consistently involved loss of function changes--hence loss of information.
While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information
creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon
uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do
not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation
yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the
genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome." (pp.
26-27)
David | 6.25.11 @ 2:43AM
Ian T. Taylor writes: "Levi-Setti pointed out that the second lens in
the doublet of the trilobite eye was necessary in order that the lens
system could work under water where the trilobites lived. Thus, these
creatures living at the earliest stages of life used an optimal lens
design that would require very sophisticated optical engineering
procedures to develop today. If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the
human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would
he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?" ("In the Minds
of Men", Fifth Edition, 2003)
http://www.creationism.org/boo.....IMMf06.htm
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 6.25.11 @ 3:13AM
Excellent short commentary!
Yes. It is a leftist "trap question." It is most always asked with the political correctness expectation that one must answer in the affirmative, else one is wholly misguided. The implication is, of course, to marginalize and stereotype a Creationist thinking candidate to be unscientific, even though the whole theory of evolution is anti-scientific and only pseudo science, at best......
dadfly| 6.25.11 @ 4:20AM
a better answer: no. i believe God created man. since only God was there when it was done, only God knows exactly how it was done.
David S | 6.25.11 @ 4:54AM
If this issue was purely confined to Academics, then it would not be anything to get agitated about; much like the debacle over “Big Bang” in the 1950s. But there are serious ramifications presented by this issue, one that goes beyond the News Atheist’s hatred of unscholarly articles and rogue-bestsellers. Take for example Richard Dawkins. It is clear to me that Richard Dawkins hates with all the fibre of his being, Religion. His refusal to debate with actual proponents of ID such as Stephen Meyer, and instead insists that he only deals with at minimum Bishops, shows that he seriously wishes ill to established Religion. Richard Dawkins in all sober assessment of his debating performance struggles to answer various questions posed to him on the subject of Genetics and DNA; yet he is very confident in dealing with YECs and Muslims!
So whilst the ID community gallantly defends the impartiality of Science and rails against the hegemony of the established consensus, all this debating are merely the delivery system, the payload is Anti-Religion. It’s important to clear away the “fuzziness” of what the likes of Dawkins is really angry about. Their utter contempt for ID is not on academic grounds, but that it provides succour to established Religion. The fact that most of the arguments against Neo-Darwinism presented by ID are found within their very own literature, shows that the “New-Atheist” too have their doubts. I dare say, they would eventually come around to ID, were it not for the Religious implications. They fear a reestablishment of the dominance of State-Religion as exemplified in Medieval Europe.
So how serious is serious? As serious as the eventual full empowerment of the U.N. The World Federalist Association seems to be advocating such a move. Check out – Walter Cronkite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inu9vKXsrFA If this was to happen, a fully empowered U.N, what could established Religion expect. The U.N is a fully Atheist organization; it recognizes no God or authority above itself. Hence, whilst nominal Christians and their Politicians feign neutrality and sit on the fence on the issue of Neo-Darwinism, they are distracted by the Anti-Religion payload that the debate carries. Cronkite actually says “I’M GLAD TO SIT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF SATAN”, right before introducing Hillary Clinton, in this presentation! “many a truth is oft told in jest” Walter.
Eric Smith| 6.25.11 @ 7:48AM
I think anyone asked whether they believe in evolution should answer precisely and honestly. (I know that sort of answer is rare from a politician.) Suppose, the question were asked, "Do you believe in evolution?", and a candidate were to answer, "Nope, I believe in the Bible.". Would that be the end of his career? I don't think so. I believe it would be refreshingly honest, and would garner votes from many like minded.
Maybe a better question to ask a candidate would be, "Do you believe the Bible?"
Merlin| 6.25.11 @ 9:01AM
A politician with a little bit of guts and knowledge could reply something like this to the question "Do you believe in evolution?"
"I do not believe in evolution. I am a young earth creationist and I believe there was a flood a few thousand years ago, and I can give you good scientific evidence for that flood. This is the debate we should be having, and so let's go for it; a extended, televised debate among evolutionist, athiests, IDer's and YEC's. And let's just stick to the scientific evidence, observed evidence."
The evidence for Noah's Flood is massive and ubiquitious.
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:51PM
Really of ALL crazy stories in the Bible, you want to hank your hat on THAT one? That some Bronze age dude built the largest wooden boat in the history of man, with no propulsion, no steering and practically no ventilation Filled with THOUSANDS of Animals and sailed it into a storm which would make the one from a 'Perfect Storm' look like a spring shower. you just don't know life science, you don't know ANY science. Here is a few for you, how many inches of rain per hour would be required to top Everest in 40 days? Did you know that if there was 9km of water in the atmosphere, it would be EXACTLY like being underwater 9km, and what temp would be required to keep that water from condensing out? There is a reason who Christian Apologists who want to 'recreate' the Ark ALWAYS do so on land, because as a boat it would be a death trap.
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:14PM
What makes you think Noah was living in the Bronze Age?
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.11 @ 9:13AM
One of my profs at Baylor had a delightful insight:
"The Old Testament is the story of a people coming to know God."
It is still fascinating to explore how God did stuff....and does stuff today.
Heh,
if we only had the words to capture the concepts.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.25.11 @ 10:30AM
For all of the fundamentalist brethren here, good news, evolution for a significant portion of the New York population is now assured to cease. Provided of course they follow the Christian tenants of monogamous marriage (wait, are Mormons Christian). Oh, well, look on the bright side Margie, at least they won’t be living in sin.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:41PM
So, Michael actually believes that just because Homosexuals can now be "legal" that it is no longer sin in God's eyes?
C Smith| 6.25.11 @ 12:05PM
Darwinism's ultimate challenge is not microevolution or macroevolution, but "sexual" evolution i.e., the simultaneous convergence of a single cell into male and female. There is an explanation, but not from Darwin:
"And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
John Dibble| 6.25.11 @ 12:57PM
Even if the evolution is not completely understood it does not invalidate all the evidence for evolution we have already gathered. Also, it's not like we're entirely clueless about the subject - you can find the information on Wikipedia for crying out loud!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....production
As to your "explanation", that's great, but what exactly is the evidence for it? Without evidence for the claim, why should any of us believe it?
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 1:44PM
The evidence is all around you.
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, His Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:19 & 20.
John Dibble| 6.25.11 @ 1:52PM
Quoting the Bible does not provide evidence for the Bible's claims, and just because the Bible says the evidence is there and plain to see does not make it so. Circular reasoning is an amateur mistake in debate, Margie - you'll have to do better if you want to convince anyone who actually understands the nature of evidence.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:43PM
I'm sorry Mr. Intellectual, but I do not "have to do better" for I am not God and He does just fine.
Quoting the Bible along with facts in evidence doesn't get any better.
You just choose to reject it, and you will have to do better yourself.
"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:6 & 7.
John Dibble| 6.25.11 @ 7:05PM
"Quoting the Bible along with facts in evidence doesn't get any better."
The problem with that is that you're just quoting the Bible, but not providing any real evidence. Also, you can replace "Bible" with many other holy texts and you get nothing different.
"You just choose to reject it, and you will have to do better yourself."
I choose to reject it because people like you are utterly incapable of providing a shred of credible evidence for their claims. You can fling quotes around as if it makes them true, but it doesn't.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 8:50PM
I guess you must have missed all of my other posts.
People like me can't convince people like you.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 9:02PM
"Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word."
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
"O Timothy, guard the Deposit, having
turned away from the profane empty
babblings and opposing theories of the
falsely named knowledge,
which some professing have missed the
mark concerning the faith. Grace be with
you. Amen." 1 Tim. 6:20 & 21.
John Dibble| 6.27.11 @ 9:59PM
Here's what our side has to say about every single one of the claims in the above website:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E.....eknowledge
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:03AM
Mr. Dibble,
You missed it entirely. The proof, that is. You asked for proof regarding the verse from the Bible that C Smith quoted. "Male & female He created them." Gen. 1:27.
Yet you say there is no proof, "not one shred of credible evidence".
Wow, this was written thousands of years before Charlie-your-a-monkey's-uncle-Darwin wrote anything. So, you either believe the evidence that stares at you in the mirror every morning, or you believe you are an ape of a man.
John Dibble| 6.26.11 @ 9:43AM
Are you seriously arguing that the fact that the Bible mentions men and women somehow contradicts Darwin? Even Bronze Age nomads can tell that people have different genitals. That's hardly impressive. Anyone could credit it to their deity, which pretty much every religion has.
As far as that site you linked, it's pathetic. They are attempting to twist scripture to modern scientific understanding (evolution excepted, of course) - and often fail considering how many things they get blatantly wrong. What little can be considered real knowledge are things that the authors could have easily figured out on their own without divine intervention.
And if they were really trying to convey specific knowledge, they failed drastically. It took thousands of years after the thing was written for the many of those things to be discovered. Is God incapable of conveying knowledge efficiently? Well, I don't know what else we could expect from a being that isn't even capable of dealing with iron chariots.
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" - Judges 1:19
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 1:05PM
"Are you seriously arguing that the fact that the Bible mentions men and women somehow contradicts Darwin?"
Yeah, I'd say so. After all, God is God and Darwin is a mere creation of God, and a pitiful one at that. He basically calls his Creator a liar trying to claim that we evolved from animals, apes in particular, when His Creator (the one he chose to snub) clearly states that He Created male and female in His image, and NOT in the image of a beast.
He created the animals separately, as it is written. And He created everything separately and each according to its kind.
There is no proof otherwise, and there is all the proof that God's Words are true.
When God says, "each according to its kind", (Genesis ch. 1 & 2.)~
either He's a liar or He's telling the truth. Darwin chose to try and contradict God.
"As for God, His way is perfect; the
Word of Jehovah is tested; He is a shield
to all those who seek refuge in Him." 2 Sam. 22:31. LKJV.
as to Judges 1:19~ it doesn't say God was not able to, it says Judah did not. The version of the Bible you have is worded differently. The wording from the original hebrew says not that he COULDN'T, but that he DIDN'T. He chose not to. He chose his battle wisely.
"And Jehovah was with Judah, and he
dispossessed the hills, but did not dispossess
the ones living in the valley, for they
had chariots of iron."
John Dibble| 6.27.11 @ 10:31AM
Again, just because the Bible says something does not magically make it true - what part of that do you not understand? You can quote it all you like, but without evidence OUTSIDE of the Bible it's just a book that says stuff. Thus far you've provided nothing of significance in that regard.
As far as Judges, if God was on that guy's side then why would he need to pick his battles wisely? God is omnipotent and if he was truly on his side then he need not worry about any iron chariots.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 12:37PM
As to your second paragraph, perhaps you will get to ask God on Judgment Day why He allowed Judah to choose his battle. there.
As to your first, what part of everything written in the Bible proves true do you not understand?
Can you name me one thing where God is proved a liar~ as you seem to testify?
But I can show you many where Darwin has been proved a liar.
John Dibble| 6.27.11 @ 3:27PM
"As to your first, what part of everything written in the Bible proves true do you not understand?"
Reasserting that what's in the Bible is true does not make it so. You just repeat over and over again that it's true because it's the word of God, but how do you know that? Apparently because it says it's the word of God. That is circular reasoning, and I'm not falling for it. I have asked you to provide evidence external to the Bible that validates the Bible's claims, but you have failed to produce anything remotely credible. What part of that do you not understand?
"Can you name me one thing where God is proved a liar~ as you seem to testify?"
1. I said the claims of the Bible are not founded in evidence - this is different than saying it is a lie. The authors may full well have believed some or all of what they wrote. A lie is a willing act, and since I don't have intimate personal knowledge of those who wrote it I can't say whether or not they were liars.
2. The truth value of the Bible has no bearing on whether or not it's authors believed it.
Now, as to an example of one thing that is claimed in the Bible that is not demonstrated by evidence - Noah's flood. Geological evidence does not indicate a flood of the magnitude described in the Bible.
"But I can show you many where Darwin has been proved a liar."
You keep harping on Darwin. You do realize that Darwin only got the ball rolling on evolutionary theory, right? You do realize that significant advances have been made in evolutionary theory since his death, right? You do realize that those advances have been so great that the vast majority of scientists accept evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ic_support
I don't really care if you can show Darwin lied about something - the physical evidence still all points to evolution. Refute the evidence, not Darwin.
Steven J. Thompson| 6.25.11 @ 2:02PM
There are single-celled organisms that can reproduce sexually: they don't have separate sexes, but they can exchange genes and produce daughter cells that have genes and chromosomes from both parents. These cells can also reproduce asexually, without gene exchange (hence the answer to the question, "what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with?" its own asexually-produced descendants).
Sponges share this trait: they reproduce sexually, but have neither male nor female, sperm nor eggs. A higher step in complexity is the production (by each sexually-reproducing organism) of germ cells of different "mating types," eventually leading to specialized cells (sperm) that are stripped down to virtually nothing but a package of chromosomes and a different type of specialized cell (eggs) that are packed with mitochondria and other organelles. Again, all these stages exist in various living species.
Several species of animals are hermaphrodites: they produce both sperm and eggs. Earthworms and snails are examples (so are many flowering plants). Plants illustrate the next step (which presumably happened independently many times): a hermaphroditic species produces some individuals who have only one type of sex organ (they can still mate with their hermaphroditic conspecifics); eventually, single-sexed individuals entirely replace hermaphroditic individuals in the evolving population.
In our own ancestry, this happened a long, long time ago: our ancestors have had separate males and females dating back to since at least the time they were fish.
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:16PM
Laughing....
Owen Kinnan| 6.25.11 @ 1:45PM
Sorry, but I'm really not following the "trap" here. The leftist media is going to misquote conservative candidates no matter how they answer this or any other question. So, I don't see that this is any more of a trap that many other questions the leftist media poses to conservative candidates.
skip| 6.25.11 @ 2:25PM
Metaphysics:
a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
Ontology:
a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being
Cosmology:
a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
Epistemology:
the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
* * *
Faith:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
* * *
On the nature of being, science fails to explain what happens when human sperm fertilizes human egg, which to date can only be considered a supernatural event; no life has ever been created through science.
On the nature of the universe, science fails to explain what happens in nature to allow the existence of black holes, which to date can only be considered a supernatural object; no explanation for the existence of black holes has been provided by either the theory of relativity or the theory of quantum physics.
On the nature of knowledge, science eventually breaks down in the explanation of life and the explanation of the environment, reducing science to essentially faith.
Using intelligence and honesty (epistemology) as criteria, science has never contradicted the Bible in the explanation of life (ontology) and the environment (cosmology), in any truly meaningful way.
Considering belief in science requires faith, as belief in the Bible requires faith, is it more intelligent and honest for an individual to place faith in science, in the Bible, or both?
Or, to put it another way, is it more intelligent and honest for an individual to err on faith in science, in the Bible, or both?
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1)
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:39PM
"Faith:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
No, there is plenty of proof for God in the things that are seen.
"For the unseen things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things made, both
His Eternal Power and Divinity, for them to
be without excuse." Rom. 1:20.
If one has faith in God, they believe His Holy Word as it is written. And true science proclaims His evidence.
skip| 6.26.11 @ 11:17PM
"Then Jesus told them, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."" (John 20:29)
skip| 6.26.11 @ 11:21PM
"And now these three remain: faith, love, and hope." (I Corinthians 13:13)
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 12:33PM
"My soul keeps Thy testimonies; I love them exceedingly." Ps. 119:167.
skip| 6.28.11 @ 1:12PM
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command" (Hebrews 11:3)
skip| 6.28.11 @ 1:13PM
"And without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)
David | 6.25.11 @ 2:43PM
Alister McGrath's lecture will be broadcast live online....
http://summer.regent-college.edu/live.php
Why God Won't Go Away: Reflections on the "New Atheism"
--public lecture by Alister McGrath
Monday, June 27
8:00 to 9:30 pm (Pacific Time Zone)
Regent College, 5800 University Blvd. (on campus of UBC, Vancouver)
Professor Alister E. McGrath
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/
His books include:
The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern
World. (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.
With Joanna Collicutt McGrath. (London: SPCK, 2007).
Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology,
Wiley-Blackwell (2011)
Why God won’t go away: Engaging the New Atheism (London: SPCK, 2011).
David | 6.25.11 @ 2:47PM
Phillip Johnson writes: "If somebody asks, 'Do you believe in evolution?' the right reply is not 'Yes' or 'No.' It is: 'Precisely what do you mean
by evolution?' My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable--like 'There has been change in the course of life's history.' Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be
substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!" ("Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", 1997)
For example, the beak changes Jonathan Weiner writes about in The Beak of the Finch can be more accurately described as "minor variation in action" (rather than "evolution in action")
http://creation.com/book-revie.....-the-finch
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....eaks-again
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 2:52PM
My baloney meter. Haha, good one. God has given us all one of those, hasn't He? We just need to keep it sharpened, and how?
With the Word of God.
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:18PM
But what if the reporter follows up with a more precise definition, assuming a reporting knows how to give a more precise definition? I still think politicians should simply say they are not scientists but that they believe in the Declaration of Independence, and its invocation of the Creator. No atheist or Darwinist can truly be a Revolutionist.
Davis S | 6.25.11 @ 3:48PM
I think YECs really do not lift the claustrophobic atmosphere of this debate. They regurgitate the same debunked arguments that have long been shot in flames by Darwinist. YECs are suspicious of Science, and wish to shoehorn the data into the Biblical framework. This is not new, and this shoehorning approach was used by the Catholic Church against Galileo. The Geocentric model of the Solar System, whilst not ascribable to the Church, was nevertheless held as fact by them since Church teachings was dependant on the model. And YEC’s interpretation of scientific data depends also on Biblical constraints and statements which are often taken out of context. This approach has never produced anything useful for either Faith or Science. It’s like using the Yellow Pages as a manual for your mobile phone – it simply will not work! You can’t use the Bible to interpret the scientific data, whilst using your own interpretation of the Bible.
Intelligent Design on the other hand, simply uses the science in information analysis to interpret the scientific data. That only intelligence is capable of anticipating the future, addressing the immediate needs of the organism and learning from the past. All that requires accurate, articulate management of information: the very antithesis of chance.
Darwinian Evolution proposes that all this complexity is an illusion; that life simply stumbles blindly forward “hoping for the best,” gives no consideration to the immediate needs of an organism (every adaptation must be slow and gradual) and has no recollection of the past beyond the fossils it leaves behind. Fossils which are also for the large part missing key events; evolution has amnesia.
Best leave the Science to do its work unmolested by politics and religion. But is that really possible knowing knowledge is power, and people on all sides want power?
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 4:11PM
"But is that really possible knowing knowledge is power, and people on all sides want power?"
Christians do not want power, we know that the Power belongs to God. We are here to preach His Word and give Him the glory, though we are constantly accused of "arrogance" and delusion" because we "dare" to speak truth to lies, one of which is the man Charles Darwin and his fraudulent perverting of of what God has proclaimed~ that He created everything according to its kind.
The enemy of God wants power of all minds in order to take them to Hell where he knows he is soon going~ and he has used Darwinism to help in this cause.
The minds of young school children have been taught this garbage for decades now, ever since the godless have taken over our schools and thrown out of them the Bible from which they used to be taught about the Word of God.
It is just sad that so-called Christians promote it as well. Either God CREATED or as the rebel against God thought up~ things "evolved".
One is lying.
Davis S | 6.25.11 @ 5:57PM
How do you explain Genesis 2:4 when it says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." - American Standard Version (ASV)
The whole preceding “days” are counted as a “day.” That would logically clue the reader that Genesis is not talking of 24-hour periods. Why do YECs insist in their imposing a 24-hour interpretation on the Genesis account?
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 12:45PM
Well, if God counts it as six days, He meant 6 days. Whatever He meant by 6 days we can only look into His Word and study to see if we can find it out.
In Genesis He says:
"These are the generations of the heavens
and of the earth when they were created
in the day that Jehovah God was making
earth and heavens." Gen 2:4. LKJV.
And in 2 Peter 3:8 it says:
"But let not this one thing escape your
notice, beloved ones, that one day with the
Lord is “as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day.” Psa. 90:4"
So even if we went accordingly, that each day in Genesis is a thousand years it'd mean that the earth is a lot younger than what "scientists" say it is.
Is this actually correct to do, to figure it this way by these 2 verses alone? I don't know, can only read what it says and assume it is God's truth.
Davis S | 6.26.11 @ 7:21PM
So do you believe nuclear power is dangerous? Why is it dangerous? It’s because they emit particles that can damage our cells and DNA. But another problem with some radio active substances is that the time for them to half the emission strength take such a long time. For example, the half life of Uranium-238 is 4500,000,000 years. The planet Earth has Uranium ore within its mantle. Therefore, the planet must be at least as old as the radio active ore inside it. For YECs to say the earth is young and its age is in the region of 1000s of years, is clearly unscientific.
The key word in “that one day with the Lord is “as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” is “AS.” The Bible does not say “IS.”
Id like to ask you a question, how old do you think God is?
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 10:59PM
No one knows the life span of Unranium, they just think they do. and besides, so what if that IS its life span. It doesn't mean God didn't create it.
As to the word "as", you're right. So it could mean either, depending. Depending on what? I don't know. In Genesis He says about the Creation, "these are the generations" during the six days He took to create the Heavens and the earth. So what's a generation? A day? a thousand years?
We can only study His Words to see where He speaks about generations in other places. Like when He speaks of the generations of Adam, and others. We can get a pretty good idea from that.
You can do word studies using a concordance, it is one of the most amazing things to do. If you want to get fed spiritually, just get yourself a Bible and a concordance and do a word study. You will become immersed into the mind of God. After all, the Bible IS His own thoughts, His own Words for us to have. It's a gift, a wonderful gift. And it's available to all of us.
How old is God?
He has always been. That's what the Bible says.
David S | 6.27.11 @ 3:13AM
If God has always been, why would he rush the creation of the Earth? Has he got a plane to catch? Why create the Earth in 1 week then take at least 2000 years for Christ’s return? That seems to display a strange character; He rushes life on earth, then starts to slow his pace when it comes to man’s redemption? Is he impatient? Is he like a child who rushes a great idea, then has to rethink his actions?
If you’re using the “no one really knows” argument, then you should realize YECs are superfluous to the debate and can provide no direction to those searching for the truth. Just like the Mormon’s refusal to believe the DNA evidence that the North American Indians are not related to Jews, YECs are selective and are really not in a position to ever win the argument against the Darwinist. Really, that’s a fact they seriously need to consider. YECs can’t ever win, when the use the “no one really knows” fall back.
I know my Bible very well. You are assuming no one else knows their Bibles apart from YECs. Darwinist say the same thing, that anyone who does not believe in Evolution, haven’t read enough about it.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 12:26PM
What does it matter to you how "quickly" or not as to the time God took to create all things?
Is it because you want it to be that the earth is millions and millions of years old because you want to be able to hold on to Darwinism? Does it somehow help to justify your unbelief?
And have you forgotten the existence of Eternity? Time as we know it, goes on forever, it never ends, just as God always IS.
The mighty scientists cannot prove their guesses to the age of the earth. But God has given us a good enough timeline to show it isn't millions of years old.
Just one more recent "discovery" of so called science is here, when they discovered that once again, the Bible (God's own Words) already said it:
http://www.icr.org/article/6215/
Davis S | 6.27.11 @ 7:45PM
So how would you explain when God said to Adam he will die in the DAY he takes from the forbidden fruit? He lived on for 930 years! That should teach you that a “DAY” is not specifically a 24-hour period.
Man has only been on the Earth a few thousand years; Adam was created in 4026 BC; but the earth has been here longer than that. It’s not just a few thousand years; it’s in billions of years. YECs insistence on the 24-hour interpretation of the Hebrew word Yohm, shows lack of Biblical understanding.
Of course you’re entitled to your beliefs; but I can’t respect sheer Religious dogmatism. People who believe the Earth is older than a few thousand of years, do so because Geology shows that is a fact; its nothing to do with believing in Evolution. I don’t believe for one second Darwinian Evolution. But I’m no YEC either; so that would place me firmly as a believer in ID, setting aside my own Religion. I do believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God, but as for this twisted insistence on words – it’s verging on mental illness if not past its threshold already.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 12:47PM
Also~ and so is a generation a thousand years, then?
Interesting and amazing that God has given us His own Words in order to seek after.
Vern Crisler | 6.25.11 @ 4:22PM
And Darwinists simply regurgitate all the same debunked "arguments" for the theory of evolution. ID is useful for undermining Darwinian or atheist pretensions, but it merely tears down their house of cards. It doesn't build anything new.
Rich D| 6.25.11 @ 4:01PM
Rich D| 6.24.11 @ 8:57PM
Never got an answer for this from the soi-disant "king". I wonder why...
Seems like a punt to me - you either believe in spontaneous creation ex nihilo, an infinite succession of causes, an uncaused first cause, or else you deny the universality of cause and effect. Which is it, sir?
Rich D| 6.25.11 @ 4:08PM
Kingofthenet| 6.25.11 @ 12:26PM says: "There is virtually NO difference in Mammalian brains, sure the human brain has certain thought centers larger than other animals but they are still present in these other animals."
I think that you need to do some reading on this, especially as it concerns speech, before you venture again into mental quicksand. Try Philip Lieberman and others.
William| 6.25.11 @ 4:34PM
In most matters I am conservative and distinguish myself from the woolly headed, usually self- righteous and condescending liberals. But ID is a subject on which supposed "conservatives" are so off base that liberals have an easy time ridiculing them and suggesting their position on this issue calls into question the "reasonableness" of other conservative positions. As such, it bothers me.
Evolution is not about God and it is not about Faith. I support the practice of religion and believe it enriches the lives of those who practice it and -- at least usually -- the whole world. Faith is such a strong and deep feeling that, for those who have it, it may have the reality of fact. And, indeed, it may be a better indicator of ultimate "truth" than other real, objective, "facts." I don't claim to know the answer to this. But I do know these questions are not -- and should not be -- included within the scope of scientific study.
In the world we live in, we make a distinction between science, on the one hand, and philosophy or religion, on the other. True science should be taught independently of any questions of God or faith. The issue is whether those who teach religion in an academic setting use it as a basis to argue against God or faith. If they do, they are violating their academic code and they should either stop or their course should be transferred to the philosophy department.
Assuming schools only teach the real world "facts" about evolution, including various theories about how evolution works over time, based upon the currently known facts, they are simply teaching science. Whether conclusions to be drawn from this science are, or are not, compatible with the existence of a God are irrelevant. And this issue should not be interjected into the course instruction on behalf on arguments on this subject, one way or another.
To put the issue another way: Some believe that one of the strongest arguments in support of the existence of God is found in cosmology. Contemplation of the universe as a whole, without regard to factual details as to its precisely how it works, is truly awesome. It's mere existence raising fundamental metaphysical questions about our place in the universe and why we are here. Further, you cannot study the facts involved in cosmology without dealing with the issue of causes, which inevitably leads to the question of first causes. Cosmologists spend a lot of time trying to come up with "scientific" explanations for these causes, and for the very existence of the universe, but in doing so they do not address metaphysical issues of causation, including religious ones.
The question can be put whether,But even though cosmological science is taught without consideration of metaphysical issues that might be argued from it, should those who believe the science of cosmology does NOT support the existence of God nevertheless be able to insist that those teaching cosmology MUST also teach the arguments (theories)these people advance against God? To me, these people would be making the same contention as those who say the theory of ID should be taught in courses on evolution.
I think it also follows that if a course on cosmology had to teach "theories' as to why it need not lead to a belief in God, then those who view cosmological facts as demonstrating the existence of God would be entitled to insist that their "theories" were also taught. At this point you know longer have a science course on cosmology, but a course where the ultimate focus is on metaphysical issues.
William| 6.25.11 @ 4:40PM
Correction: In the third paragraph, 4th line -- "teach religion" should be "teach evolution."
Davis S | 6.25.11 @ 6:26PM
"And, indeed, it may be a better indicator of ultimate "truth" than other real, objective, "facts.""
It’s not true at all that each side have no vested interest in the outcome of the debate. There are jobs, reputations and academic freedom involved here. So no one can possibly be objective. Only God can be fully be objective in this issue, and only ID is giving him a reasonable position. The New Atheists judges him cruel if he does exist, therefore he can’t exist because he’d be self-contradictory ethically; the YEC’s paint him stoking the fires of Hell and using his word to bludgeon Atheists into submission.
You will find that all the objective guys are in the ID camp.
BackToBasics| 6.27.11 @ 1:43AM
But take a religious-based morality out of science and you will get more and mroe bad science. The bad science and fudged data used to perpetuate the global warming hoax is one glaring example. Continue down a godless path and science becomes just a human-based faith. It becomes whatever you want it to be.
diviz| 6.25.11 @ 5:11PM
The debate really doesn't matter. ID subscribers never use ID for the purpose of research, it is useless. No ID journals detailing an exciting lab result stemming from ID and no predictions on genetics or other biology based on ID.
Ocassionally some ID spokesman declares that they have developed a mathmatical tool for distinguishing intelligent data from chaos but the tools never work, if they did they would be of enormous value in computer science particularly cryptography.
Evolution on the other hand works. It has worked, is working, and will continue to work. Not only in all areas of biology but also as inspiration for progress in computer science, chemistry, etc.
Science, it works.
John II| 6.25.11 @ 5:20PM
"The debate really doesn't matter."
Perhaps--but that's not a scientific statement, whether or not science "works" (truth be known, it often fails--and that IS a scientific statement). And if the debate really doesn't matter, why are you horning in on the debate?
Myself, the only reason I'm horning in is that I like to cause trouble.
And now back to "The Creature Walks Among Us" (1956), the motion picture industry's last statement on evolution.
DRed| 6.25.11 @ 5:34PM
By 'science' I take diviz to mean the scientific method. Science often fails. It's supposed to. That's the process. ID can't fail or succeed, because it's untestable. If you want to believe the flying spaghetti monster brought forth life by passing his noodly appendage over the face of the waters, that's all well and good, but it has no place in a lab or in a science classroom, because it's not a testable theory.
John II| 6.25.11 @ 5:48PM
DReddy! Long time no rant.
Anyhow, I seem to recall Popper making a similar point, to the effect that evolution is not a falsifiable theory and therefore is not science. In any event, I find your tone most unscientific.
And now back to "Inherit the Wind" (the superior 1962 version), in which Spencer Tracy goes toe-to-toe with Fredric March and makes a monkey out of him, so to speak. Tracy plays the perfect analogue to the smug Clarence Darrow. March was the better actor, though, and his rendition of the great American gasbag William Jennings Bryan is far and away more touching.
When I first saw that movie, I was a mere college freshman but somewhat precociously alert to fraud. I haven't believed in evolution since.
Nick| 6.25.11 @ 11:51PM
Diviz,
There are plenty of successful biologists who believe in God and reject Darwinian evolution.
MPD| 6.26.11 @ 2:57AM
But there are even more god-believing scientists rejecting ID. And successful does not = credible. Funny you never see any non-believing scientists advocating for ID. But that's prob because those scientists are likely liberal, communists, marxists, stateist, environmentalist pagans.
diviz| 6.26.11 @ 11:00PM
There are some scientists who reject evolution. But they do not use ID or creationism ideas to conduct research. No predictions based on ID/creationism, no experiments to perform. Behe tried to do some computer simulations but all that proved was it doesn't take very long to evolve a particular biochemical pathway.
If it were science it would be interesting, useable, and useful. But ID/creationsim are not science and are useless.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 11:52PM
Diviz,
You are arguing with a straw man, as I never made any such claims, did I? I only made a simple declarative statement.
BackToBasics| 6.27.11 @ 1:19AM
And what does evolution gives us that's of any real use? Does belief in it cure any diseases? Is it something that can be manufactured in a factory. Does it feed the poor?
Equating people as only intelligent animals and as products only of evolution debases the culture even further than it would already be if there were no evolutionary THEORY. The carnage of the 20th century when evolution was brought to full force is enough to see the fruit of godless cultures brought about through communism, nazism and fascism.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 12:07PM
Nice. So very well spoken, thank you.
Gazinya| 6.25.11 @ 6:21PM
There are more than two 'sciences' concerning 'origins of life' but only two are considered consensus. Darwin and the Seven Day debates. Darwin is statistically impossible and the 7 Day Creation is spiritually vapid. What God could do is not the question for me (he could have created everything, with imbedded memories, right after I wrote this) but what God would do. Does God need to create a fraud to test us on these questions? I don't think so. Have we, as seekers of Godly Wisdom, actually sat down and thought about these questions.
How did Adam gain his knowledge? Did God school him? How long did God walk with Adam before He wanted to give man a 'help mate'? A couple of hours or a couple of years? Considering that Adam was the most perfect human, physically and spiritually, could even he get so caught up in ego on day three to 'give it up'?
How does a plant come to need a wasp to help it progenerate? Where did the grasses come from and which did come first, 'the chicken or the egg'? These are considered 'stupid' questions but what is the best 'stupid' answer? Think about it!
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 8:47PM
"But let not this one thing escape your
notice, beloved ones, that one day with the
Lord is “as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day.” Psa. 90:4." 2 Pe. 3:8. LKJV.
Not to throw in a monkey wrench or anything. :^).
The only thing we can do is read His Word and study it and see what He says.. and just not make things up.
If He says a thousand years is as one day with Him, does that mean that each day of His Creation took a thousand years the way we think of a thousand years? It would seem so, otherwise why would His Word tell us this? It is all such an amazing marvel!
How Great Thou Art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Pelligrino| 6.26.11 @ 8:21PM
Thank you, Margie, for the scriptures you have placed in this thread. I hope that God's Word will indeed find its way in some who read here.
The hymn you share, "How Great Thou Art" is a fantastic piece of music and lyrics. Everyone can understand -- first time through.
Please, if you are reading here and have never heard this beautiful song (or haven't for a long time), take a moment and click on the YouTube link above.
It will do you good.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 11:47PM
Thanks, Pellegrino, that's really kind of you to say! I love presenting the Bible to others. I know they could boot me for doing it if they wanted to, so thanks AmSpec for allowing the freedom to do so.
I hope God has planted the seed of His Word into the hearts of all who have read them. That's my hope, too.
BackToBasics| 6.27.11 @ 2:06AM
Good observations and questions. There are also behaviours that mix in with having offspring on all levels of life that seem to be unanswerable in an evolutionary scheme. You touched on this if I read you correctly.
A couple things about God and Adam can be instructive as to how long it took Adam and Eve to Fall. Genesis 3:8 speakis of God walking in the "cool of the day." I've read that this means in the morning. I've a;so read that the original texts indicate that this was a habitual practice of the Lord in meeting Adam. I'm not an expert, just relaying what I've read. So, it does not mean that it was the "next" day and probably infers a little longer time than that.
Also, Eve told Satan that God said not to eat of the fruit nor to touch it Gen 3:3. God never said not to touch it. Was this something Adam told her? If so, does this indicate some passage of time before the Fall took place? This one statement may also indicate that Adam and Eve were not perfect in their thinking since she didn't seem to have her facts straight. They were just innocent, not perfect. That's a lot of interesting discussion right there about the nature of innocence or lack of it and death verses imperfect thinking and death.
So, with Gen 3:8 in mind, the Fall into sin probably did not happen until at least the next morning. But further, given their unfallen natures in the beginning, it probably took some time for Satan's temptations to work their poison in Eve. Even with our fallen natures today we can resist temptation for quite some time even.
It would not surprise me if it was several weeks to a month before the Fall took place. But I doubt it took a long time since they did not have any children before the Fall. With the maximum health that they had, it had to be less than 9 months for sure.
M. Simon | 6.25.11 @ 6:36PM
Believe in Evolution? I was unaware that it was a recognized faith. And besides that there seems to be some evidence for it.
M. Simon | 6.25.11 @ 6:42PM
How did Adam gain his knowledge?
The Head Office seems to have avoided any mention of Relativity to Adam. Perhaps they did not want to confuse him over the Cosmological Constant.
Heck. They did not even impart to him F=ma.
M. Simon | 6.25.11 @ 7:02PM
If one has faith in God, they believe His Holy Word as it is written. And true science proclaims His evidence.
What does false science proclaim? You know that stuff about atomic half lives in the billions of years? From which the idea of the earth being billions of years old is derived.
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 8:26PM
False science proclaims Darwinism. Heh, one rebel against God's made up thoughts still unproved to this day and continually being proved false.
Science simply means knowledge, and Darwin thinks you're a monkey's uncle.
Using the reason God gave me~ this does not compute.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened." Rom. 1:18-21.
William| 6.25.11 @ 9:48PM
Amen?
John II| 6.25.11 @ 10:46PM
No--the "Amen" comes a few verses later. Marge left out the best part. What St. Paul calls the "wrath of God" are the inevitable consequences of turning away from God, to wit:
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."
Or, as John Wayne might have put it in his deathbed conversion to Holy Mother Church: "Damn straight!"
And now back to "True Grit" (the superior 1969 version).
Margie| 6.25.11 @ 11:33PM
Amen to that!
CalMark| 6.25.11 @ 11:23PM
This is a silly issue. It acts as a proxy for a far more important question that liberals don't want to address: belief in God and souls.
At some point, God granted earthly beings a soul, which became "Man." Whether He chose to give this gift to a highly-advanced ape or created a new creature out of nothing doesn't matter. The point is that we ARE different from apes--it's incumbent on the "science only" crowd to prove we are not.
Unless they produce an incontrovertible "missing link," pure evolutionists are the ones who should be on the defensive. Maybe that's why the anti-Christian attacks are so energetic and venomous: if you don't have the facts, pound the table.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 10:55AM
What is the 'Soul' made of?
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 12:30PM
The soul is your person. The real you that lives on even after you die physically, and goes on to eternity, in Heaven or Hell.
Here is an example of the word soul:
"And it happened, when her soul was
going forth (for she died) even she called
his name Son of Sorrow [Ben-oni]. But
his father called him Son of the Right [Benjamin]." Gen. 35:18.
God says sin causes death:
"The soul that sins, it shall die. A son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father,
and a father shall not bear the iniquity of
the son. The righteousness of the righteous
one shall be upon him, and the wickedness
of the wicked one shall be on him." Ez. 18:20. LKJV.
But all who believe in Christ, the One who died for the Sin of the world will pass from death to eternal life, and do not come into Judgment:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, The one who
hears My Word, and believing the One
having sent Me, has everlasting life, and
does not come into judgment, but has passed
out of death into life.
Truly, truly, I say to you that an hour
is coming, and now is, when the dead ones
will hear the voice of the Son of God, and
the ones hearing will live." Jn. 5:24 & 25. LKJV.
And He says that those who preach His gospel and convert souls to Christ will help to cover their own sins plus save them from Hell:
"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." Jas. 5:20
Even God Himself has a soul:
"And I shall destroy your high places
and cut down your altars, and shall put your
dead bodies on the carcasses of your idols.
And My soul shall loathe you." Lev. 26:30. LKJV.
See? Now:
"And if it seems evil in your eyes to
serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today
whom you will serve, whether the gods
whom your fathers served Beyond the
River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose
land you are living. But as for me and my
house, we will serve Jehovah." Jos. 24:15. LKJV.
"For we all must appear before the judgment
seat of Christ, so that each one may
receive the things done through the body,
according to what he did, whether good or
bad." 2 Cor. 5:10. LKJV.
"Man is not a ruler over the spirit, to
restrain the spirit; and not he has power in
the day of death. And there is no discharge
in that war, and wickedness shall not deliver
its possessors." Ecc. 8:8. LKJV.
"For I do not have delight in the death
of him who dies, a statement of the Lord
Jehovah: even turn and live." Ecc. 18:32. LKJV.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.26.11 @ 4:06PM
Netking,
I think I can answer that question for you. The soul is made of the stuff that made you engage in this discussion in the first place.
You are hoping one of us can crack the "glass ceiling" and allow your mind to rest and rejoice.
Sorry,
Only The Holy Spirit can do that...if you only ask.
steve2558| 6.26.11 @ 3:59PM
I find it disturbing that conserative candidates don't give it back to the Elite media who play gotcha . The proper reply to questions about creation is this . You are trying to imply that those who have Christian beliefs deny the science of Darwinism and are stupid and by association that I must be also . But All those who believe in so called global warming Must also be creationists believeing that the earth was created about 6000 yrs ago. How else can you explain taking a 14 yr snapshot of global history and exclaiming Climate Change. When The science suggests the earth is nearly 6 billion yrs old. The idea that you can make any kind of rational judgement based on 14 yrs of wheather is junk science at best and A clossal joke at worst.Whats really ludricious is the only answer possible is for government to take total control of every facet of our lives. It would seem to me that any serious minded person whould gag at such a ridicoulus conclusion
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 6:42PM
What 14 yrs study, we have temp records that go back way over 100 yrs, we have ice core data that goes back 10's of thousands. You deniers are basically like hypochondriacs. A NORMAL person when told by a doctor they are fine 'might' get a second opinion, but when 10 independent doctors say your fine that should be proof positive, but for a hypochondriac it's proof of a conspiracy.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 7:31PM
Kook of the Net,
Anthropogenic (I'm sure you'll have to look that up) Global Warming is a HOAX!
Anyone who buys into it obviously doesn't know much about science and thermodynamics.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:55PM
What is the basis for your belief? Because your GUT say's so? I really doesn't matter the main cause. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that pumping HUGE quantities of CO2 into an already over heating Earth isn't going to help anything.Why do you hate energy efficiency so much? If you light your house SOLELY by CFL's you INSTANTLY save around several hundred a year in electric costs, still have plenty of light, less cost what's not to like? Same with EVERY other efficient appliance. That's just YOUR local home benefit, but you also have less smog, cleaner water, etc.
From listening to Rush Limbaugh his basic premise that Conservatives seem to have latched onto is that Humans are too 'puny' to have large effects on the Earth, tell that to the 'Passenger Pigeon" .
skip| 6.26.11 @ 11:05PM
Try refuting the thirty one thousand four hundred eighty seven at petitionproject.org or petitionproject.com. You are consistent though. You are a dumbass on science. You are a dumbass on religion. You are a dumbass on politics. Other than that your input here is an outstanding demonstration of intelligence and honesty.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 11:21PM
Kook of the Net,
You must have really researched this subject a lot. I think NOT!
Would you explain the term enthalpy for me, please?
How about telling me what is the difference between Latent Heat and Sensible Heat?
Huge amounts of CO2? Ha-ha!
You obviously don't know the meaning of the word huge, and, are unaware of exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Why don't you try studying a subject before you comment on it?
believer| 6.26.11 @ 4:29PM
W.R.Thompson wrote in the forward of the centennial edition of Darwins origin of species,"As we know,there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution, but even the actual process.This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion". Theres more so if you want to google the books forward check it out. biggest scam in history and we as " Civilized" people are willing to swallow it because we refuse to believe in God.
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 5:24PM
To all the atheists out there, just a reminder:
Today the Feast of Corpus Christi is being celebrated in many churches around the world.
So remember, the Body (Corpus) of Christ loves you, even if you reject Him.
It must really bug the atheists who live in Corpus Christi, Texas, that their tax dollars are used to promote our Risen Lord, Jesus Christ!
Ha-ha!
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 6:44PM
It should bother you too, but I guess you will also celebrate when taxes dollars go to the Muslims?
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 7:24PM
Kook of the Net,
No, it doesn't bother me, because it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. Or, any provision of the Constitution, for that matter. But, since you are a bleeding heart liberal, what would you know about the Constitution?
Could you be more specific about which tax dollars you are referring? I'm sure there are many Moslems who receive food-stamps and A.D.C already. Thanks to the democrat party. I'll bet there are many Moslem immigrants who get welfare too, thanks to 'The Swimmer' Kennedy.
This doesn't change the fact that Our Lord still loves you, Kook. Why don't you thank Him for all the blessings He's bestowed on you?
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:46PM
Nick, i am referring to your joy about some religious group getting Govt. Money, i take it to mean you are happy YOUR group gets the money, i just wonder how you are going to feel when other groups get money to promote a message you don't agree with?
Nick| 6.26.11 @ 11:49PM
Kook of the Net,
What are you talking about?
I never claimed that a "religious group" was getting taxpayer money? (Government doesn't have any money, only what it takes from taxpayers.)
I was implying that the city of Corpus Christi promotes the Risen Lord, Jesus Christ, by virtue of its name. Not that a "religious group" was doing this. Taxpayers support the city of Corpus Christi. Get it? Capish?
St. Augustine is named after a Christian saint. So are hundreds of other cities in America. Maybe you live in one, Kook? Are all of these cities supposed to change their names because a tiny fraction of society are kook atheists?
(Guess what? NOT gonna happen. EVER!)
Anders13| 6.26.11 @ 7:02PM
You all have great post, but may I suggest a very short answer to the question.
The govt. can tell people that they can have a religion, but not which one; it's in the constitution.
Govt. telling people that they cannot have a religion or that God does not exist is an outright violation of the first amendment.
Therefore, evolution can be taught in public schools as long as it is not used as a pretense to teach atheism.
Whether or not I believe in evolution is none of your business.
David | 6.26.11 @ 9:07PM
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
by David Buckna (June 26, 2011)
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
POST American| 6.26.11 @ 11:38PM
-----ALERT
Rick Perry is the ultimate Rhino.
Former Al Gore campaign manager in the 80's
Sponsor of sanctuary cities in Texas
Caught in the act Bilderberg attendee
Caught selling infra-structure to foreign
bidders
Sponsored FREE, tax payer funded, state
college tuition for ILLEGAL aliens
IF it comes to that. cast a blank vote
in 2012.
These people are, at their very best, biz-nihilists
---but, more accurately described as TRAITORS.
AGAIN, the Globalist NAFTA/GATT/Eugenics
and TREASON op is alive and well, and on the
move.
Margie| 6.26.11 @ 11:54PM
Nope. Won't ever catch me casting a blank vote.
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA 2012!
Nick| 6.27.11 @ 12:52AM
Hi Margie!
Hope all is well with your family.
My prayers are with Julia.
In case you missed it, I finally responded to your comment, in the other thread. Look forward to your thoughts. Let me know if you need the link.
God Bless.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 11:55AM
Nick,
Thank you so much for your prayers.. you are so kind.
Will get back to the ongoing discussion, even if it takes a little time.
God bless you.
Nick| 6.27.11 @ 6:26PM
Margie,
You are very welcome.
Sorry it took so long to respond. Here is the link:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....ent_554689
God Bless!
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 1:47PM
Please do provide the link again, thanks!
lisseursGHD | 6.26.11 @ 11:53PM
Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.
weddingdresses | 6.27.11 @ 4:53AM
Seeing Jewish names of his friends in the article is reminding me of my childhood in central Europe: the few Jewish families around us had only Jewish friends, their children went to a Jewish school & used to have Jewish children around to play with; the Jewish shopkeeper on the corner had only Jewish suppliers; the Jewish doctor we used to go to had mostly Jews sitting in his waiting room...
Tina B| 6.27.11 @ 5:04AM
Margie, thank you, thank you, thank you for the great Bible Study posted over these past few days. And Nick and many others who have argued for the Word of God so eloquently. You made my Sunday (and Saturday) reading through it all.
So much sense and wisdom, in the face of the repetitive arguments of KOTN and others who deny based on either ignorance, or ill will.
With the advent of the internet and youtube, it is pitiful that they limit their learning so radically, to what they already believe. Whatever you do Atheists, don't step out of that box. Darwin's waiting in there for you, and you may even get to meet him someday. Bring some ice, I hear it gets hot.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 12:04PM
Hi Tina B,
Thanks, but it's part of my "job description" as a Christian, and all the glory goes to God, and to His Son, Jesus Christ. I'm a lowly no-nothing as to this World~ as most here love attesting to. But this is who God delights in using.. precisely! He chooses the lowest of the low, the refuse of the World, those who have nothing to lose~ and everything to gain~ to do His will.
"God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." 1 Cor. 1:28 & 29.
And your warning to the atheists is good~ but I fear some who say they are Christian will be with them, for they deny the Creator Himself when in agreement with the liar, Darwin.
God bless you.
Kirk Davis | 6.27.11 @ 8:02AM
There are several inaccuracies in this article ("Answering the dreaded 'Evolution' question). First and foremost, the author wrote that Michelle Bachmann was, "referring to the theory that nature gives scientific evidence of purpose and design." Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it offers no testable hypotheses, and makes no predictions which could disprove it. Intelligent Design is an *idea*, or a hypothesis, but not a _theory_.
Also, the author says that the public, the media, and the candidates themselves - Tim Pawlenty is specifically mentioned - make no distinction between "creationism" and "intelligent design". As the court ruled in the Dover, DE case, there is no real distinction. As the judge and even the ID supporters in that case made clear, the idea of "intelligent design" presupposes and intelligent designer, and supporters of ID readily admit that they believe the "designer" is god (or whichever god they profess to worship). If the universe was designed, and the designer is a god, than "intelligent design" is the same, under the hood, as creationism.
There is very little - if any - real scientific evidence that calls the entire theory of evolution into question. The major parts of the theory (that background radiation and transcription errors cause mutations, that beneficial mutations are propagated while disadvantageous ones are not) have been proven beyond any doubt in the lab.
People should be free to believe what they want, but our tax-payer-funded science classes in public schools should teach SCIENCE; the teaching of religion, and religious ideas should be left to our (non-taxpaying) churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 11:50AM
"Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - it offers no testable hypotheses, and makes no predictions which could disprove it. Intelligent Design is an *idea*, or a hypothesis, but not a _theory_."
Intelligent Design is not science? The word science means knowledge, and the knowledge of God is all around us every day. Not only in the Creation itself, but in our own created bodies.
Everything in Creation that God has amazing made is a marvel and bears witness to His amazing and wonderful Wisdom and Glory and Power and Might.
What scientists "discover" only ever bears witness to all that He has created.
That is why God says the following:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; or although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools.." Rom. 1:18-22.
Therefore, Michele Bachmann's statement was right... on... target!
The teaching of the existence of God is NOT Religion, it is science, since science means knowledge, and therefore ought to be taught in the schools just as much as Darwinism (and Darwinism is nothing but one rebel against God's wacko ideas) is taught.
The proof for the Creator and His Intelligent Design is all around us, the Bible bears witness to it, and therefore it ought to be taught. If we would insist on these facts and not allow the atheists and Darwinists to walk all over the truth, the Bibles would not have been removed from the classroom, and people like the above poster wouldn't be able to get away with slandering God, and telling us what to do.
It's about time we stood up to them and stop cowering in the corner. But how many allow themselves to believe the lie of "Evolution"~ to allow themselves to call God a liar by agreeing with the rebel against God~ Darwin and his phony theories which have only continually been proven false, just as he was?
Kingofthenet| 6.27.11 @ 2:17PM
Margie, are you Catholic? I ask because MOST of the ardent Fundamentalist Christians are not. Does it BOTHER you that your religion uses a Catholic 'Hand me Down' Bible, I mean your not going to suggest your sect WROTE the bible in the 3rd Century are you? Do you know ANYTHING about the Men who 'put it together', their Motives, their Source material? Did you know there are FAR more than four Gospels, yet the final Bible only has four, why did they do that? It would be REAL nice if we had some ORIGINAL documents written by these so-called Matthew, Mark ,Luke, John but all we have are copies of copies with NO idea if what is in the copies is VERBATIM to the original Autographed copy. The 'Chain of Custody' of this 'Bible' is so twisted and convoluted. the Devil himself could have wrote large portions to 'trick' us and we would never know.
Rich D| 6.27.11 @ 3:13PM
Hey - Melek ha Tohu, you are still venturing into areas where you are quite uninformed. I don't have the desire to address these new speculations because you failed to respond to my previous posts on cause and effect and on the evolution of the human brain. It seems that you get you kicks making one unsupportable statement after another, but never defending them. What's the point?
Margie| 6.27.11 @ 2:49PM
Actually, the Bible I use is one that s taken from the Hebrew and the original Greek languages.
It isn't a Catholic Bible.
As to the complexity of it al~ there is none as far as I'm concerned. Everything in the New Testament agrees with the Old Testament, and the men who wrote the words were moved by the Holy Spirit.
So far, not one Word of God's has proven false, and more importantly, He is faithful.
LowellGuy| 6.27.11 @ 5:38PM
Just to be clear: you accept the Bible until it is proven false.
Are there any other claims which you would accept until proven false? Or, is it accurate to say that for any other claim, you would not accept it until it was proven true?
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:48PM
The Bible can never be proven false because every Word of God is proves true. Just as it continues to be proven true by those who try and disprove it.
Heh, got it?
Scientists are the mere creation of the Almighty Creator.. they are only able and permitted to "discover" all that is already written in His Word. The science of God demands it.
"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.
Taking refuge in pseudo science will not save you.. and we ALL need to be saved.
Kingofthenet| 6.28.11 @ 11:38PM
How was ANYTHING ORIGINAL Greek, when Jesus and Co. spoke Aramaic?
MarcJ| 6.27.11 @ 5:30PM
A candidate might also ask, "Which version of evolution are you referring to? Punctuated Equilibrium or Gradualism?" The dirty little secret of evolution "science" is that not even the experts agree on the process. Just look at Steven Jay Gould's work.
LowellGuy| 6.27.11 @ 5:42PM
The fact that you treat punctuated equilibrium and gradualism as completely separate forms of evolution demonstrates your ignorance of the current synthesis of the theory of evolution. Are there any other subjects about which you'd feel confident to make authoritative claims without having any education or experience in that subject?
You know, the Bible certainly can't be true because Moses couldn't possibly have fit all those animals in that boat and ridden it on the ocean of fire.
Also: http://youtu.be/IBHEsEshhLs
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:44PM
Guess you struck a nerve, Mark!
Nick| 6.27.11 @ 6:51PM
Kook of the Net,
Hey?! What's up with the non-responsiveness?
Where are the answers to my questions, above?
Can't handle simple questions on science and the Constitution, huh?
Rich D| 6.27.11 @ 7:07PM
Join the club...
Tina B| 6.27.11 @ 7:41PM
Do you all realize there have been 677 posts about God and His creation, and so much revelation here I can hardly believe it's still legal.
So many wise Christians, so many seekers, so many apparent God-haters. So much interest in the origin of life on earth and our purpose here. Many of us are sure, we seek and wonder no longer. Thanks to all those who constantly reaffirm God's Word and coming Kingdom. I love you all. And if KOTN has one wonderful result to all his delirious God-hating, Bible bashing, Christian ridiculing, rhetoric, and I hesitate to call it rhetoric, it is that the Word of God has gone out on this secular TAS website over and over, and it never returns void, and all God's children said AMEN!
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 2:43PM
Tina B.,
Sadly, some do not see me standing on the Word of God as a good thing. I have gotten a threatening e mail from Ken/Old Tex who accuses me of being a Pharisee, and he told me not to post here anymore. He told me that if I do, he will "out" me for using the LKJV Bible. (huh?).
So, I am glad that you know that what I am doing is a good thing in spite of the present day Papal Inquisitors who wish to shut me up.
I don't take well to mindless threats, and neither does the Lord.
Nick| 6.28.11 @ 7:14PM
Margie,
Are you sure that it was Ken?
Didn't you list your email address, in another thread, last week? How many losers who post here at AmSpec would have no problem with using someone else's name in an email?
Have you asked Ken about this?
Sorry, just being nosy!
God Bless!
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 7:38PM
Ken and I have been e mailing for a long time, and have spoken by phone. It isn't the e mail I post publicly.
patriot1742| 6.27.11 @ 7:43PM
Evolution is not a trick question - it is the media who is sucking up to any and all liberals - could not have been demonstrated better than the fact that the Liberal MSM has never vetted Obama - he is the worst example of any elected official and the MSM still sucks up to him and Hillary. What a bunch of fools.
qed| 6.28.11 @ 4:22AM
Looking at the above interest in the theory of evolution. Whether or not a particular candidate is hostile to evolutionary theory is not irrelevant, a trick or a trap. It is a straight forward question which many people hold strong and conflicting views on, and therefore should be asked and answered without puerile evasiveness.
David Dodge| 6.28.11 @ 10:12AM
I have a B.S. in Geology, dont support anthropogenic global warming (i signed the petition to congress against it), and Im a very conservative guy, but im not religious - at best im a deist like some of the founding fathers. I cant stomach intelligent design being promoted as science however. Intelligent design is just a new label for creationism and simply put is religion masquerading as science. I dont have any problem with people choosing to believe it, but there is no evidence for it in the fossil record. Evolution is the only logical mechanism (along with genetics) to explain the development of complex life forms over time. Anything along the lines of inferring a creator based on the mechanism of lifes development crosses the line into religion because if there is a creator he doesnt leave obvious fingerprints anywhere - that requires faith which again leads us into religion. Believe it if you want to, Dont call it science and dont teach it as such. Teaching it as religion though is fine.
Nick| 6.28.11 @ 7:42PM
Mr. Dodge,
The difference between creationists and proponents of ID are thus:
Creationists believe in a young earth, i.e., thousands, not billiions, of years old; or a literal 6 day creation, i.e., Genesis 1-3.
The ID camp believes the universe is 12-15 billion years old and in the Big Bang.
If Darwinian/Dawkinist evolution is ever reproduced in the lab (which I doubt will ever happen,) I find the whole debate useless.
I'm more of an applied physics and engineering kind of guy. Not really into the theoretical sciences. It seems to me that those who can't make it in the theoretical realm go on to write Star Trek episodes.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 1:20AM
Oops! That should have been: If Darwinian/Dawkinist evolution is ever reproduced in the lab (which I doubt will ever happen,) I'll take a second look. In the meantime, I find the whole debate useless.
diviz| 6.30.11 @ 3:31PM
It's already been done.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 7:53PM
Diviz,
No....it hasn't.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 7:56PM
Diviz,
Also, I see you had no rebuttal to my argument about the bacteria not evolving, from above.
RickK| 6.28.11 @ 1:04PM
Proponents say: "Intelligent Design is the scientific search for evidence of design in nature."
In theory, that may be true. In practice however, ID is an advertising campaign and a tool for fundamentalist Christians who see it as a wedge with which to drive Genesis back into science classes and public policy.
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the ID "researchers" are not the actions of scientists seeking actual truth. They do not attempt to convince their scientific peers with weight of evidence. They treat criticism as an attack, as a shunning, rather than as part of the gauntlet that any new scientific idea must run. The ID proponents appeal directly to the public with scientific-sounding books like "Signature in the Cell", using math and terminology that the vast majority of the general public is not equipped to critique.
And they use lawyers and press releases. The Discovery Institute in Seattle is promoting intelligent design with a media machine that is churning out several press releases every week. Using funding from Young Earth Creationists, the lawyers and politicos who head the Discovery Institute keep the ID "manufactroversy" in business.
If there are any actual honest ID "scientists", people actually trying to study something scientifically and trying to devise actual falsifiable tests, they are lost in sea of bamboozle and mis-direction that is the heart and soul of the "Intelligent Design" lobby.
The pseudo-scientific advertising machine of the Discovery Institute most closely resembles the ad campaigns by Big Tobacco in the late 60s. But where Big Tobacco were (by their own admission) marketing doubt in the science that showed smoking causes cancer, the Discovery Institute (by its own admission) markets doubt in the science of evolution.
These are not the ACTIONS of people of science. They are the actions of people of politics and religious ideology.
So let's not confuse what Intelligent Design should be with what Intelligent Design is.
Kingofthenet| 6.28.11 @ 11:34PM
Nailed it
Kingofthenet| 6.28.11 @ 11:54PM
Tell you what you can call ID... science, ONLY when you can ID the the 'Creator', and no the Bible don't count.Let's see he/it's Mugshot.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 1:16AM
Kook of the Net,
Here ya' go:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ompare.jpg
Ask, and ye shall receive!
Now, I'm still waiting for you to explain the term enthalpy. Oh...and what the difference is between Latent and Sensible Heat. You know so much about science, right?
GalapagosPete| 7.1.11 @ 12:01PM
Of course, we're not holding our breath.
David | 7.2.11 @ 6:06PM
Kirk Davis wrote: "There is very little - if any - real scientific evidence that calls the entire theory of evolution into question. The major parts of the theory (that background radiation and transcription errors cause mutations, that beneficial mutations are propagated while disadvantageous ones are not) have been proven beyond any doubt in the lab."
John Sanford writes in "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome": "Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 'mutation' hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word 'beneficial' (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed 'beneficial mutations' were only beneficial in a very narrow sense--but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes--hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome." (pp. 26-27)
Interview with Dr. John Sanford [Nov. 30 and Dec. 7/08]
See also:
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture
http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
Danny| 7.4.11 @ 6:05PM
So true. What's more to the point, once you have A beneficial mutation, you have to have another, and another, in unbroken succession. See where this is going? How long would it really take to get from amoeba to human? A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would take a lot longer than however many billions of years the earth has been around to produce THAT Shakespearean play, wouldn't it? And that's without even looking at the problem of entropy.
GalapagosPete| 7.6.11 @ 2:27AM
"...you have to have another, and another, in unbroken succession."
Why? When you are dealing with a large population over a long period of time, that is more than sufficient for enough beneficial mutations to accumulate, as we have seen.
Jill Johnson| 3.20.12 @ 11:58PM
Ah, but you avoid the question of how much time, illustrated by the million monkey analogy.
David | 7.2.11 @ 6:09PM
Interview with Dr. John Sanford [Nov. 30 and Dec. 7/08]
http://www.evidence4faith.com/shows/e4f-113008.mp3
http://www.evidence4faith.com/shows/e4f-120708.mp3
David | 7.2.11 @ 6:16PM
Kirk Davis wrote: "There is very little - if any - real scientific evidence that calls the entire theory of evolution into question. "
See:
http://crev.info/content/11062.....y_cambrian
Danny| 7.4.11 @ 5:55PM
Ah, but you see, if the federal government had not made itself the custodian of all matters educational, a President would never have to bother with the question which is irrelevant to the proper governance of a nation.
Bottom line: if there were no Dept. of Education, what difference would it make on the national stage?
ghd australia | 7.12.11 @ 10:01AM
http://www.ghdoutletshop-au.com
David Prentice | 8.6.11 @ 8:19AM
I want to point out an error in your column on "Answering the Dreaded 'Evolution' Question:
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" requiring the presentation of scientific evidence for creation alongside that for evolution (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, No. 85-1513, 1987), the decision did not prohibit the teaching of creation. Rather, the Justices said that this particular law defeated its own purpose by requiring that creation be taught side by side with evolution. Their reasoning was that the law's stated purpose was to enhance academic freedom. However, teachers uncomfortable with creation would probably teach neither idea rather than having to teach both. This would limit academic freedom instead of enhancing it.
The Court's majority opinion stated that the law was not needed to protect academic freedom anyway because
"The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Indeed, the Court of Appeals found that no law prohibited Louisiana public schoolteachers from teaching any scientific theory... The Act provides Louisiana schoolteachers with no new authority. Thus the stated purpose is not furthered by it."
According to the Court, then, individual teachers have the freedom to teach any scientific theory.
Kelly| 8.15.11 @ 4:17PM
If evolution is false, then all cancer and genetics research is invalid. We base our research on model organisms, such as E.coli, yeast, and fruit flies because they have homologous genes to our own. This means that we all diverged from a common ancestor billions of years ago, and bits of our genome are still shared among what appear to be non-related organisms (fruit flies and humans, for example). Without evolution and homology, there is no basis for most biological research. Sure, God could have made us all with a common retinoblastoma protein, but it seems a bit unlikely/uncreative. Also this would make God responsible for the rapid mutation of HIV, cancer, and other diseases - a claim that most Creationists would find sacrilegious.
leebowman| 8.26.11 @ 7:06PM
"If evolution is false, then all cancer and genetics research is invalid. We base our research on model organisms, such as E.coli, yeast, and fruit flies because they have homologous genes to our own."
It's not that evolutionary theory is false, or is alleged to be in its phylogenetic progressions, unless one holds to YEC philosophy/ theology.
Where there is disagreement over its stated and currently 'consensus based' tenets, is primarily over the proposed methods of phylogenetic change to produce novelty, complexity, and radical body plan alterations.
The primary view is that upward lineage changes are due to random mutations, and to a lesser degree, genetic drift. The ID hypothesis is not intended to replace that hypothesis, but to augment it with an adjunct hypothesis, that of intervention at key points. I have proposed genetic engineering by directed actions, rather than happenstance.
Sexual and geographic isolations can produce a form of speciation, but is not necessarily confluent with the above speciation examples. It is an error in logic to conflate the two, but understandable, due to a need to explain evolutionary theory in the Darwinian sense.
And despite efforts to empirically reproduce radical speciation events experimentaly, (body plan revisions, and in particular, body plan improvements), there have been none performed that are equatable to what is observed in nature.
Correlating various experimental (adaptive) genotypic and phenotypic alterations with the more extreme genotypic and phenotypic alterations found in nature is extrapolation (assumption based), and thus tentative and unproven. Thus, evolutionary theory is incomplete (nonconclusive by purely natural means) in its present synthesis.
Once again in summary, acknowledging the above limitations does not invalidate it as a viable research tool (genetics, cancer research), nor does it introduce supernatural concepts as necessarily integral or required. It merely acknowledges a known limitation to our present understanding of all of its causative factors.
steve| 8.20.11 @ 5:29PM
The "lady" and her child were nothing but democratic party plants trying in a feeble effort to make anyone who shares Mr Perry's Views look like idiots. President Obama And the Idiots who share his views believe the Government made the world in six days and on the 7th day collected Taxes.