Intelligent Design & Evolution [Archive]

SSchultz0956

Nov 21, 2005, 05:01 PM

... the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the [40,000 exponent] to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger

BTW scotty, I did this one with as little emotion as possible just for you!

Here's one of the websites: (if this is being discussed in a week still, I'll post the others)http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html

I'll give a quick abstract:
The main argument is based on two different kinds of order. This doctor and others I have read use this as a simple example:

"Let's explain these two kinds of order in greater detail. As you travel through various parts of the United States, you may come across unusual rock formations. If you consult a tourists' guide, you will learn that such shapes result when more than one type of rock make up the formation. Because their mineral composition varies, some rocks are softer than others. Rain and wind erode the soft parts of the formation faster than the hard parts, leaving the harder sections protruding. In this way, the formation may take on an unlikely shape. It may even come to resemble a familiar object like a face.

In other words, the formation may look as though it was deliberately carved. However, on closer inspection, say from a different angle, you notice the resemblance is only superficial. The shape invariably accords with what erosion can do, acting on the natural qualities of the rock (soft parts worn away, hard parts protruding). You therefore conclude the rock formed naturally. Natural forces suffice to account for the shape you see.

Now let's illustrate a different kind of order. Say in your travels you visit Mount Rushmore. Here you find four faces on a granite cliff. These faces do not follow the natural composition of the rock: the chip marks{14} cut across both hard and soft sections. These shapes do not resemble anything you have seen resulting from erosion. In this case the shape of the rock is not the result of natural processes. Rather, you infer from uniform experience that an artisan has been at work. The four faces were intelligently imposed onto the material.

None of us finds it difficult to distinguish between these two kinds of order, the one produced naturally and the other by intelligence. To come back to the argument from design, the question is: which kind of order do we find in nature?"

Proponents for ID go on to say that the difference is between random and complex orders. E. Coli has enough "letters of sequence" in it's DNA to fill more books than in the largest library in the world, and if just one "letter" is off, than it isn't E. COli. Random structures need very little instructions. THey said it's like a book that says "i love you" over and over again. However, one complex structure has many instructions, it's like programing a computer.

ID doesn't contradict evolution, but rather they are bound together. Design precedes adaptation. THe design for DNA is such that after it's set in place, evolution will take it's place. WHen Darwin (who originally supported ID until the death of his daughter who was 9 years old) theorized evolution, he knew practically nothing if anything of DNA. THis one thing [DNA] demonstrate what design is. Evolution demonstrates the result of design.

ID and Evolution must be taught side by side, it can be done in a secular way. ID doesn't make reference to GOD, just an organism that has progressed beyond us. It could be the result of man evolving in another galaxy to the point that they found ways of designing life. It could have been deity, or other things. As we can see there are many ways to look at ID.

I personally support both. I do think they are tied together. Obviously, my belief is also that it wasn't some other type of organism but GOd who designed us. That part is the only non-secular part of the ID v. evolution theory.

ScottGem

Nov 21, 2005, 05:10 PM

No one can show us proof of either, so adherants of either should not throw stones.

That's not the point! Whether there is conclusive proof one way or the other isn't the issue. The issue is whether ID has any scientific basis so it could be taught as a science. I can't see how there can be ANY scientific evidence. If there was, it would have been found long ago. I said it before, ID can only be inferred by logic, not science. And then you have to believe in the logic.

I have a lot of sources downloaded at school showing how ID is a science. It has been proven through DNA and it's complexity and design. Unfortunately this week is a holiday week and i have no school and am going home. So i can't give them to you, i'll look for them though.

Oh I have to see this. I'm sure it will be most amusing. Are any of those sources not from religious or creationists groups? I would doubt it.

Scott<>

SSchultz0956

Nov 21, 2005, 05:13 PM

That's not the point! Whether there is conclusive proof one way or the other isn't the issue. The issue is whether ID has any scientific basis so it could be taught as a science. I can't see how there can be ANY scientific evidence. If there was, it would have been found long ago. I said it before, ID can only be inferred by logic, not science. And then you have to believe in the logic.

Oh I have to see this. I'm sure it will be most amusing. Are any of those sources not from religious or creationists groups? I would doubt it.

Scott<>

I don't know why you keep saying this, it's obvious that every study out there is PARTISAN!! It's either from the liberal or conseravtive media, or it's from the darwanists and creationists. THere is no middle ground now adays. Your open-mindedness is killing me. Actually... you are sounding awfully close-minded all of sudden scotty.

SSchultz0956

Nov 21, 2005, 05:15 PM

QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?

RickJ

Nov 21, 2005, 05:44 PM

One says

Whether this is "scientific" or not is a very important part of the point.

The poll asks "should it be taught...".

Well, it isn't taught at all. So isn't asking if it should be taught as a science, about as valid as asking if the wheels on submarines ought to be 12" or 16"?

The theory that there is no God and that we can find a "natural" explanation for everything is at the root of most of what "is taught".

... so much of this is just word games.

Science, not science. Who cares?

Proof lacking, the real question is whether it's more reasonable to be for or against I.D.

talaniman

Nov 21, 2005, 05:50 PM

Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA! :p

jduke44

Nov 21, 2005, 05:54 PM

Nice! This sums it up

ScottGem

Nov 21, 2005, 06:36 PM

Is that according to Hoyle? (sorry couldn't resist). I've read previously what Hoyle had to say. But its nothing more than his opinion. There is no scientific basis for it. Personally I agree with him. Logically, the complexity of nature would suggest that natural laws just didn't happen by chance. But is there any scientific evidence to support it? No!

As to the abstract, that says pretty much the same thing I've been saying. But I don't like the analogy. It assumes that there is some guiding hand that applied the forces of erosion to shape the natural formation. I don't believe that. I believe that the intelligent force setup the rules and forces by which erosion occurs, but that the results of erosion are by chance.

Scott<>

psi42

Nov 21, 2005, 07:02 PM

Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA!! :p

There is no debate.

This is about a few people making a lot of noise.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is that you can recognize what is science and what is not.

If it doesn't utilize the scientific method, it is not science.

In a science class, you do not "discuss" things that are not science. You discuss science. Intelligent design is not science. Therefore, you shouldn't discuss intelligent design in a science class.

All _real_ scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, know that creationism is not science. If you think creationism is science, then you are not a scientist.
As a side note, if you regularly use the phrase "just a theory" or don't know the difference between a theory, a fact, and a hypothesis, you aren't a scientist either.

In other words, people who actually know what they are talking about know that creationism has no place in a science class.

I feel like I am repeating myself over and over and you guys don't seem to get it. I don't care what you believe, I care about science.

Science, not science. Who cares?

Because it is important to teach children the difference between the scientific method and faith. If you cloud the distinction, and teach intelligent design as science, you are going to undermine human progress for the last three hundred years.

And, on top of that, do you honestly think real universities are going to accept "Creationist Biology" as a prerequisite for college-level life science classes? You'd have to be out of your mind if you think this sort of thing will prepare children for medical school.

psi42

talaniman

Nov 21, 2005, 07:04 PM

I believe in God and everything all around us is his Will.My understanding of Him will come as I grow to understand the universe around me.If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.So the best I can do is Believe and pray for guidance and understanding.I'll keep living and learning. :cool: :cool:

psi42

Nov 21, 2005, 07:09 PM

If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.

Some of us like that feeling. ;)

Curlyben

Nov 21, 2005, 11:34 PM

QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?

Lets put that another way:

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

wizzkid89

Nov 22, 2005, 01:09 AM

I agree with scott and the psi42, ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts, and any kind of science has studies that have been done to prove it or at least create theories. And psi is totally right when saying if it doesn't use the scientific method then it isn't science, so all in all, is ID a science no, could it be taught sure, would it be interesting, who knows?

CroCivic91

Nov 22, 2005, 07:05 AM

...ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts...
I'm not quite sure I can grasp the idea that flew through my mind right now, but I'll say what I can and you try to clarify it for me.

Mathematics is a science (at least it's in Science part of this forum). There are "things" in mathematics that do not exist (well, most of mathematics is just ideas), but you can explain them. You make axioms and use logic to explain some imaginary "objects" you just "created" (which could once be used to calculate something that physicians could use to create something). Does it make mathematics un-scientific? I know that you could call those "proofs" you make about such objects (that come from logical thinking) "cold hard facts", but those "facts" are based on axioms - if you change axioms, you change the "facts". If you change what you believe in, you can change the logical order of thinking that comes from such beliefs.

This post is so confusing and it has nothing to do with ID, I know, but I just don't agree with the quoted text.

NeedKarma

Nov 22, 2005, 07:12 AM

If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.
I bet you don't know how a nuclear reactor works or a hydroelectric power plant but yet you can still use the electricity all around you. All this is provided to you through the benefits of science. You aren't lost really, you just don't need to understand that part in order to live your life. If you are trying to understand everything around you then how do you make it through a day?

talaniman

Nov 22, 2005, 07:32 AM

You are correct.I found at a young age I could function in this world by accepting certain things for what they are and use them.even though this is a confusing post I still believe that it is important to debate the concept of ID.To be honest Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things to work just as they appear to us?We are just to dumb(or not smart enough)to figure it out. :cool:

Curlyben

Nov 22, 2005, 07:42 AM

Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things

This is the main problem with ID is that it is getting confused with Creationism.

So where does FAITH come it to all this?

As has been previously posted, the start of life on Earth could be due to an alien "seed" brought here from another planet. Why does there have to be any supreme being involved at all ?

talaniman

Nov 22, 2005, 08:06 AM

Till we know for sure all we can do is talk and one idea is as good as another so call it anything you want its just an opinion not science. :cool:

SSchultz0956

Nov 22, 2005, 01:32 PM

Here's something thought provoking and ridiculous at the same time (more ridiculous than provocative):

It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds ridiculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, I know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.

ScottGem

Nov 22, 2005, 01:54 PM

Here's something thought provoking and rediculous at the same time (more rediculous than provocative):

It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds rediculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, i know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.

Your arguments are facetious. The point is gravity is a physical law provable extremely easy. Try jumping and see if you stay in the air. Physics is a science because physical laws can be proven using establish experimentation. There is no amount of experimentation that can prove ID. The closest you can come is trying to prove a negative. You can prove that the odds of the complexity of DNA occurring by chance is extremely high, but you can't prove its impossible. That would be trying to prove a negative.

Scott<>

fredg

Nov 23, 2005, 05:45 AM

Hi,
I am reminded of the joke about the Law of Gravity.
A small boy said in class, "if there wasn't a Law, then there would be no Gravity".

If there weren't laws against "church and state", then there would be Intelligent Design, taught in any subject area a school board chooses. But, according to the following quote, it's becoming "outlawed": From Nov. 5, 2005:

"by Amy Worden
Philadelphia Inquirer

Intelligent design will soon be history in Dover Area High School science classes, following an election that is reverberating around the country.

Voters on Tuesday ousted eight of the nine members of the school board, currently defendants in the first lawsuit over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Replacing them is a bipartisan slate of "pro-evolution" candidates who say intelligent design, with its biblical leanings, has no place in the high school biology curriculum.

The victory for Darwin's theory, the undisputed foundation of modern biology, in the York County school district came on the same day the Kansas State Board of Education approved public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

"The Dover election is a real shot across the bow to school boards anticipating passing these policies," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group dedicated to defending evolution."

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

NeedKarma

Nov 23, 2005, 05:49 AM

That's American democracy at work. Although the article seemed a little biased.

Curlyben

Nov 23, 2005, 05:54 AM

Thank you for your points Fred.

As I have said all along, I don't think that the teaching of ID is a problem.
The problem is which subject to teach it in !

As the Dover farce has shown, if they had recommended it be taught as Religious Studies, there wouldn't of been a problem. As they insisted as teaching it as science that is how the out cry started and to insist on taking their case to court as well has annoyed a lot of people.

As normal, if a contensious subject is handle with tact then you will succeed, otherwise it is doomed to failure.

ScottGem

Nov 23, 2005, 06:54 AM

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

Your hypocrisy is showing again, Fred. You have previously supported the will of the majority. Well that's what happened in Dover. As Need said, "democracy at work".

Faith SHOULD be out in PUBLIC schools. Faith is a religious subject, it should be taught in religious institutions and/or in the home.

And I think you meant "moot", though "mute", is what I hope the proponents of ID as a science become.

Scott<>

fredg

Nov 23, 2005, 07:03 AM

ScottGem

Nov 23, 2005, 07:34 AM

Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.

Fred, Fred, Fred, We have been over this so many times before.
I've mentioned several times about your penchant for false generalizations. The fact is that my responses rarely include a "condemnation of a personal nature". But sometimes, when a comment is so off the wall, its hard
To condemn what one has written without condemning the person writing it. But I try to restrict my comments to what was actually said.

And your writings here WERE hypocritical. On the one hand you have supported the will of the majority, but when that majority will is exercised you complain about it because it doesn't fit your desires.

Scott<>

Nez

Nov 23, 2005, 07:55 AM

Probably should put this elsewhere,but as I "know" most of the other members who have responded to this thread,I thought you might like to view this link (with apologies to Curlyben for "wrecking" his original post),to Carl Sagan.Even here in the UK,years after his death,he is still respected amongst the scientific community.As a kid,here in the UK, I remember watching many interesting programs that he hosted for the BBC:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

His views on alien civillisations,time travel,plus many others,are interesting to read.There's even an audio link,to the right of the page,so you can hear the great man's thoughts yourselves.You'l need to have RealAudio installed to hear Mr Sagan.
At the bottom of the page are more useful links,to more wonders of life,the universe,etc. :D

Curlyben

Nov 23, 2005, 07:59 AM

No worries Nez, an excellent post.
Doesn't really address the point I'm trying to make, but opens other avenues of discussion.
As I mentioned earlier, why does the 'designer' have to be God, in any form.

I love the Hitchhickers Guide explanation of the Great Green Arcleseizure (sp) and sneezing the whole universe into existence ;)

speedball1

Nov 24, 2005, 07:46 AM

Guys!

We're all beating our heads against a brick wall here. Does anyone ,including myself, think that any arguments that we come up with is going to change anyone's opinion? How do I know this? Because I've been on the front lines for 13 years after I retired from plumbing on the other side of fundamental Christians and I've heard all the auguments both pro and con.
I'm going to share a piece of my life with you to show you how I came to the above conclusion.

I retired as a construction foreman in 1988. I used to drive by the Sarasota Women's Health Clinic and see 50 to 75 protesters with signs and gross pictures ganging up on a single female as she attempted to enter the clinic compound.
One day I stopped and listened to what they were shouting at the girls. "Whore! slut! murderer! were just a few of the nasty things that were heaped on them as they walked in. They were throwing tiny plastic dolls dipped in red fingernail polish in open car windows as they drove into the parking lot.
When I volunteered as a escort the next day I had no idea it would last for thirteen years and that I would end up working with our local police and be responsible for sending a lot of the protesters to jail. In 1993 when the "lifers" begain killing doctors and escorts, the clinic owner put me on staff as head of security and chief escort for the four clinics that he owned.
In my job I have gone head to head with most of the heavy hitters in abortion protesting. Randel Terry of Operation Rescue, Flip Benham of Rescue America, Joe Scheidler of The Pro-Life Action League, Tom and Linda McGlade of Missionaries for Life to name a few. All used guilt as a club and religion as a threat. I'll not go into the insults, the threats, the stalking of both are patients and staff members, except to say the threats, intimidation, guilt and physical violence were just some of the weapons used against clinic staff and patients.
In my job I have been attacked three times, shot at twice, went through four bomb scares and had two anthrax letters come to our office, one of which we opened and got white powder on myself and the office manager. The letter inside the envelope condemed abortion and informed us we had just been exposed to anthrax and were going to die. It took three days for Hazmat to analyze the substance and report it was harmless. Have you any idea the terror involved in not knowing if you would live or die?
In my capacity as head of security, I have sent many protesters to jail and spent a lot of free time in court testifying against them. Some for violent action but most for harassment and trespass after warning. I kept at my job because I believe in women's rights. For far too long they were second class citizens, not being able to vote, own property or have control over their own bodies.
Women have fought too long and hard, have suffered too many hardships attaining these rights to have even one of them taken from them.
I'm retired again. I've run my race and looking back on it, remembering the hundreds of frightened girls I've escorted past screaming whackos, I can feel proud that in my small way I have helped keep women's rights where they belong. With women, and not with some middle-aged white man shouting threats and insults outside a clinic.

So when I say that all the lodgic and reason in the world isn't going to change a believers mind I know what I'm talking about. They have a right to their beliefs and opinions and this right should be defended at all costs. They just don't have the right to force their religious beliefs in the school system under the guise of science. I'm with the poster that wanted religion taught in the school system, but not in a science or biology class. I would like to see all religions taught as a separate subject and not snuck in under the fence as warmed over creationism. I have the utmost respect for believers, they are happy with the church fellowship and the feeling that they are being watched over and at times I envy them. But my opinions were formed many years ago and I'm too old to change them now. I apologize if I've ruffled any feathers by this post but I think this thread should be dropped and I've given my reasons. My warmest thoughts to my fellow experts on this Thanksgiving Day. Tom

RickJ

Nov 24, 2005, 07:54 AM

Excellent points, everyone.

Frankly I think debate or discussion of such issues is good. Sometimes people are so set in their ways they just don't know why they believe what they claim to.

"Cause it's how I was taught" is the answer too many people give for what they believe about such things as this.

Everyone can learn.

Heck, I respect a person who vehemently disagrees with me using good arguments than I do someone who believes like I do but preaches it's truths because he "knows it in his heart".

Ok, I'm rambling... enough. :o

RickJ

Nov 24, 2005, 07:58 AM

Ok... so I wasn't done yet, then...

I'll finally vote: Undecided. But only because I think ID might be better taught (if it were taught) under History rather than Science. :D

ScottGem

Nov 24, 2005, 09:48 AM

Tom,
First let me convey my kudos and congratulations to you for what you have done with a part of your life.

I have always objected to anti-abortionists calling themselves "pro-life". It is abundantly clear, from their actions, that they care little about life and only about their fanatic religious fervor against abortion. Your points about their use of guilt and intimidation rather than compassion are telling.

I also agree that generally, we are beating our heads against the proverbial wall. But, I still think its worth the exercise. This thread (currently) has 466 views and 40 replies. That's more than a 10:1 ration between views and replies. That shows there are people reading who are not commenting. If even one of those people starts to truly think and apply some logic to these arguments rather than a blind faith in religious teachings, then its worth it.

I also agree that religion should be taught in schools, but as a comparative course that teaches about all relgiions and what each stands for and its history. The teachings of any specific religion is the province of church and home.

Scott<>

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

NeedKarma

Nov 24, 2005, 09:57 AM

Wonderful post. I share your stance.

RickJ

Nov 24, 2005, 10:44 AM

Scott, you make an excellent point - that goes along with mine:

I will not be involved with people who believe as I do but twist the "pro-life" angle. Con to "pro-life" would be "pro-death", and I know well that most people who do not believe as I do are not "pro-death".

And dittos: a very Happy Thanksgiving to all!

ScottGem

Nov 24, 2005, 01:25 PM

Rick,
I do not condone nor approve of abortion. If asked I would advise anyone not to take that step. But the keyword there is advise. Not cajole, not intimidate, not harangue, etc. Simply advise. I would then respect that person's decision and understand that it is THEIR choice to make, not mine.

Scott<>

RickJ

Nov 24, 2005, 01:36 PM

I'm with you there.

Yes, the decision is theirs and only theirs, but it's never quite as simple as advising them then respecting their decision.

Frequently there is much between those two steps... the tough part being when their next question, after our advice, is "why would you advise me to not have an abortion".

That's where the tough juggling act of support, education, kindness, tact and fact comes into play...

speedball1

Nov 25, 2005, 08:55 AM

Rick says, "Yes, the decision is theirs and only theirs, but it's never quite as simple as advising them then respecting their decision.
Frequently there is much inbetween those two steps...the tough part being when their next question, after our advice, is "why would you advise me to not have an abortion".
That's where the tough juggling act of support, education, kindness, tact and fact comes into play."

I don't agree. The "juggling act" comes into play when a outsider attempts to insert himself into a families private medical decision and control it.

And Scott says, "I do not condone nor approve of abortion."
Nobody approves of abortion, (with the possible exception of clinic owners) Even we who work in clinics wish that access to abortion wasn't necessary. It's not abortion that we approve or condone, it's choice that we approve and condone. I have worked in abortion clinics for 13 years and if any female in my family had a problem I would hope it could be resolved without resorting to abortion. However, I would always want her to have that option. I would hope that some day the hard line "choicers" and the hard line "lifers" could get together and eliminate the need entirely for abortion. But as it stands now each sides point of focus is 180 degrees apart. While we focus on the woman the lifers focus on the unborn. They may claim to have the women's best interest at heart but when push comes to shove the fetus comes first and the woman follows behind. If the hardliners would let go and allow the moderates,( of which I'm one) to interface with each other and hash out a solution that would be acceptable to both sides then perhaps the conflict could be resolved. Sadly I don't see that happening as long as we have a president that sucks up to the hardliners in the religious right for a block of votes. Hey! Don't blaime me! I voted for Kerry. Regards, Tom

RickJ

Nov 25, 2005, 09:21 AM

"attempts to insert himself "..

Scott said "if asked" - and to that I replied.

And to the comment

"Nobody approves of abortion, (with the possible exception of clinic owners) Even we who work in clinics wish that access to abortion wasn't necessary."

... I disagree whole heartedly.

Clinics generally do not advise or encourage other options.

NeedKarma

Nov 25, 2005, 09:31 AM

Clinics generally do not advise or encourage other options.
That's because your health care system is privatized and the owners are driven to make a profit.

(For disclosure's sake: I live in Canada. :) )

speedball1

Nov 25, 2005, 10:03 AM

Rick,

"Clinics generally do not advise or encourage other options."

And you know this how? Rick, your prejudice is showing. That's where you're entirely wrong. The above statement was right off the top of your head and probably based on your personal belief or off a pro life site but was it based in fact or truth? Hell no it wasn't! I think the only access that you have to a woman's clinic is what you read in the pro life propaganda sites.
Let me tell you how it really goes. When a woman first comes into a clinic she first takes a pregnancy test. If it's positive then she,(and a companion if there's one) will go into pre consul where she will be advised of the procedure. At that time she will be advised of the other options available to her. Birth, adoption or termination. If there is any hesitation on her part or if her companion has any doubts or attempts to talk her out of it the interview is terminated on the spot and she is asked to go home and rethink her decision. There's a sign posted in the Ladies restroom that they can see at the time they give a urine sample for the pregnancy test. I know it by heart.
It reads. " Remember you do have choices. You can give birth, adopt or abort. This is your choice and yours alone. we will respect and help with any one of the three that you choose. we are here to help. The Clinic Staff "
So please don't attempt to tell someone who has worked in clinics for 13 years how a clinic's run. And PLEASE don't post up a "copy and paste" from a pro life site. I've seen most of them. Tom

Curlyben

Nov 25, 2005, 11:24 AM

WoW not much to do with the teaching of ID as science but WoW!!

ScottGem

Nov 25, 2005, 01:14 PM

Clinics generally do not advise or encourage other options.

Rick,
I would definitely bow to Tom's greater experience in these matters. But I know, from my own research, that is not true of clinics run by Planned Parenthood. The procedure Tom described is typical of PP run clinics.

As for profit motive, its my understanding that a large proportion of abortion clinics are not-profit. Many of the women seeking abortion in clinics are lower income or teens. Given the dangers incurred by doctors. I sincerely doubt that profit motivates them.

Scott<>

RickJ

Nov 26, 2005, 07:21 AM

Tom, I'm not sure what's got you so worked up. I've copy and pasted nothing - and I know far more than you think.

You blow my mind that you claim to know "what goes on in clinics", yet can say I don't. So how many of the thousands of abortion clinics of this nation have you worked in Tom? Clearly neither of us knows what goes on in all of them... only the ones we have knowledge about.

How can you justify what you're typing supposedly in answer to what I've said? You're reading stuff that's not there.

When I first got into this, I said that you made a good point... next piggybacking on Scott's comments about what to do when someone asks!. then you get on a tirade about people "when a outsider attempts to insert himself into a families private medical decision and control it"

Then you're accusations!

Tom, you should be ashamed of yourself. I've not made one single comment about you yet you've accused me of making things up and all but called me a jerk.

Your explanation of what goes on in your clinic is informative... but it has NOTHING to do with what I said at all.

People at abortion clinics do NOT advise against having an abortion.

Read the post, Tom. THAT's what it was about.

Curlyben

Nov 26, 2005, 07:23 AM

Guys we seem to be RUNNING away from the question in hand ;)

speedball1

Nov 26, 2005, 08:59 AM

Ricki,

You posted,
"Clinics generally do not advise or encourage other options."(first Post)
"People at abortion clinics do NOT advise against having an abortion."(Last Post)

Your first post was way off base and just for your information I have posted my credentials for making my statements. I still have to see yours.
Your second post was correct, only faith based CPC's attempt to control choice. We give options not advice.

You are also correct when you say, " You blow my mind that you claim to know "what goes on in clinics", yet can say I don't. So how many of the thousands of abortion clinics of this nation have you worked in Tom? Clearly neither of us knows what goes on in all of them...only the ones we have knowledge about."
I interfaced with clinics in four major clinics here in Florida and every year at clinic conventions we hear different methods discussed from clinic all over the United States. So I resent you telling me I don't have knowledge about "what goes on in clinics". We share knowledge with each other because we're always on the defensive against attacks from the religious right, anti abortion groups and just plain homicidal wackos. Abortion clinics interface and share knowledge and procedures for self protection.
So don't tell me that I don't know what goes on in the clinics that I haven't worked at.

"...next piggybacking on Scott's comments about what to do when someone asks! ...then you get on a tirade about people "when a outsider attempts to insert himself into a families private medical decision and control it""
I apologize for that but most of the people that I've dealt with attempt to control the decision, and that's wrong. You are correct when you said, "Yes, the decision is theirs and only theirs, but it's never quite as simple as advising them then respecting their decision.
Frequently there is much between those two steps... the tough part being when their next question, after our advice, is "why would you advise me to not have an abortion".
That's where the tough juggling act of support, education, kindness, tact and fact comes into play.""

But here , once again your bias comes into play. ""why would you advise me to not have an abortion?"" There are many good and valid reasons for advising FOR a abortion. So if the only "advice " a person can give is "don't get one" then yes that person is attempting to control a personal medical decision under the guise of advice.

"you've accused me of making things up and all but called me a jerk."

Rick I would never call you a jerk. I have too much respect for you for that, but you must realize this. I'm a old man, I've been many places, lived many life styles and have been exposed to many belief systems. I have learned from abortion debate forums not to post up anything that can be challenged or that I can't back up with facts or knowledge. So yeah! I got a little pissy when you questioned my statements about clinics. And began to make statements of your own without either knowledge or facts. But CurlyBen's correct, this discussion has veered way off the subject, let's let it drop here. Let's bury the hatchet and kiss and make up. Kissy-Kissy! Tom

RickJ

Nov 26, 2005, 10:00 AM

It's 6 feet under (http://www.jackson8.com/images/amhd/hatchet.jpg).
:p

Curlyben

Nov 29, 2005, 05:05 AM

This is starting to get silly:
"University of California sued by monkey haters
The University of California is facing legal action in the US for promoting a commonly-held scientific theory.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell are suing the university over its "Understanding Evolution" website which offers information and advice to teachers."

Full story here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/29/creationists_sue_california/)

What is it with America where people use legal action at the drop of a hat??

Sorry to the American users here, but I am lost for words.
Does the phrase "common sense" mean nothing ?

RickJ

Nov 29, 2005, 05:42 AM

You are right.

The blight of ridiculous lawsuits is one of America's black eyes.

ScottGem

Nov 29, 2005, 05:52 AM

What is it with America where people use legal action at the drop of a hat ???

Sorry to the American users here, but I am lost for words.
Does the phrase "common sense" mean nothing ?

The ABA (American Bar Association) has a strong lobby ;)

The problem here is more a matter of people with money to burn. I'm reasonably sure this case will never see the inside of a court room. Its up to the judiciary to exercise the common sense and throw out the suit as being without merit. But as long as someone is willing to pay an attorney to file the suit (or find one who's fanaticism outweighs their common sense), taxpayer money will continue to be wasted on such garbage.

Scott<>

Curlyben

Dec 6, 2005, 08:21 AM

Good call

NeedKarma

Jun 20, 2006, 07:33 AM

Txgreasemonkey,

Couldn't the same be said for evolution? That is, if you don't bother to understand it or study it then you'll never get it? I've read the bible, I went to catholic school, I've studied both sides.

Starman

Jun 20, 2006, 10:46 AM

If everyone made their own assumptions then the book becomes anything to anyone, I can assume that Jesus slept with prostitutes because he kept company with them. See how it serves no end to imply a multitude of events that are not written?

BTW
This thread could easily boil down to a question of faith since faith is a belief that cannot be proven.

Those who think that the Bible is open to all and any interpretation and that all these interpretations are all equally valid regaredless of how greatly they differ from one another do not understand the Bible and perhaps never will.

About assuming, I'm not assuming anything though when faced with the obviously ridiculous and the rational a reader is expected to choose the latter in preference to the former unless bias is his agenda. In any case, your accusation that no daughters of Adam are mentioned is false.

About Jesus, he condemned sexual immorality.
Anyone familiar with his teachings would never reach such a ridiculous conclusion.

BTW
I suggest that you apply the same skeptisism to your evolutionary ideas since they are
Based on preconceived notions, biased opinions, assumed causes, and educated conjecture.

NeedKarma

Jun 20, 2006, 10:57 AM

I suggest that you apply the same skeptisism to your evolutionary ideas since they are
based on preconceived notions, biased opinions, assumed causes, and educated conjecture.Actually they are based on science (knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ) which involves the publication and replication of findings by anyone who wishes to put the theories to the test.

(Reread your post - I'm assuming you mean "latter" instead of "former", if not then the sentence is quite funny) :)

Curlyben

Jun 20, 2006, 11:02 AM

All open for new input.
Enjoy

Starman

Jun 20, 2006, 11:05 AM

Actually they are based on science (knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ) which involves the publication and replication of findings by anyone who wishes to put the theories to the test.

(Reread your post - I'm assuming you mean "latter" instead of "former", if not then the sentence is quite funny) :)

The scientific method of observation and experimentation is applied AFTER

The assumption that evolution is a fact and all evidence is then

Interpreted to fit the assumption my friend.

EVOLUTION IS A HOAX - DOCUMENTED!
By Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.
http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/03-30-03PM_EvolutionIsAHoax.htm

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

BTW
Thanks for pointing out the typo.

TxGreaseMonkey

Jun 20, 2006, 02:20 PM

If you want to be "blown away" take a look at Dr. Hugh Ross' website:

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

He's one of the most brilliant scientists in the world, who will answer many questions that people have and give you "Reasons to Believe." You can get lost in this website for days--truly fascinating!

ndx

Jun 21, 2006, 04:31 AM

I agree with most of you. Adam & Eve is a creation story IMO. Told so that the creation of the world would make sense to people in an ancient culture who had little science or technology. Creation stories exist in every culture. said orange. Kind of hit it on the head.

Now you can be religious, and put faith into god, because its comforting, or because you want to go somewhere lovely after you die... but for whatever reason you are choosing to believe something that has no proof.

People who blindly follow, may do it to be "the most religious" that's fine, but when science comes along and proves something like evolution, to still blindly follow imo is down right closed minded. Now I can use your god against you and say, I'm sure "he/she" doesn't want you to be a close minded individual...

I think the problem with taking everything so literally, is that in time, society changes. We have multiple religions, so, if god created everyone, a large number of his beloved creations are going to go to "hell" simply for beliving in a different god. That's great for him.

Now, people can say that they believe adam and eve were the physical first humans on the planet, the only ones, and they can give their reason for this as "because god said so" but with that, I'm just going to ignore you. There is a time line to this planet, and just like keeping weather records different tests can be made to have an insite into the past. And evolution was found to be the way we were made. FACT. We came from a glob of goo. FACT. Everything around us has evolved. And adam and eve was just another one of those stories that was created to comfort people, who couldn't and didn't know what we do now.

Don't take things so literally. Us humans arnt that special, maybe that's why people believe in adam and eve, because they want to feel suppiriour to snails, well we were once there. :p

I wonder if snails have religion.

Northwind_Dagas

Jun 21, 2006, 05:15 AM

FACT. We came from a glob of goo.

Actually, that's a theory--a hypotheses. There's been no proof, nor may there ever be, as to where we came from.

ndx

Jun 21, 2006, 05:22 AM

They run it back to as far as atoms bonding together to make compounds etc, which eventually made cells of somekind, and so on, and on. I guess when I said glob of goo it might not of been a glob, it might have been a blob or something, might not of been gooy either... The first living thing was the first thing that was able to reproduce. And when all those attoms combined, blabla, the procaryotic cell was born. Voilà!

31pumpkin

Jun 21, 2006, 08:15 AM

When science can create a living thing from this so called pond scum of elements and CREATE life, not just reproduce a sample of something already living - then I would consider that theory.

Krs

Jun 21, 2006, 08:18 AM

There are so many possibilities we will never learn the truth

ndx

Jun 21, 2006, 08:28 AM

You know pumpkin, we know how to do it, but actually in practice is another matter, unfortunately. So, maybe you should consider it slightly ;)

Starman

Jun 21, 2006, 08:56 AM

Very well said! By a very attractive lady!

RickJ

Jun 21, 2006, 11:59 AM

Evolution has the fossil record, geology and science to back up their claim. Creationism has nothing but faith and belief. It's a "no brainer".

In actuality, evolution does not have the fossil record to back it up; this is one of the major reasons that the issue is still largely debated.

Evolution is a Theory as is Creationism.

speedball1

Jun 21, 2006, 12:28 PM

ScottGem

Jun 21, 2006, 01:07 PM

EVOLUTION IS A HOAX - DOCUMENTED!
by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.

That evolution is a hoax is documented in this article less than the documentation supporting Evolution. I point out that this article is from a religious sermon. I would assume there is some bias there.

Yes Evolution is a theory. But it is the ONLY theory that fits all the scientific evidence that currently exists. I'm not going to go into what that evidence is, one can do their own research.

The fact that it fits scientific fact is why its taught to the extent it is. The fact that it is so widely accepted even though it has never been conclusively proven is because it so neatly fits the body of scientific evidence.

I don't believe that Evolution directly contradicts Creationism, only a strict interpretation of the Bible. But Evolution explains scientific fact in a way the Bible fails to.

Starman

Jun 21, 2006, 11:40 PM

That evolution is a hoax is documented in this article less than the documentation supporting Evolution. I point out that this article is from a religious sermon. I would assume there is some bias there.

Yes, Evolution is a theory. But it is the ONLY theory that fits all the scientific evidence that currently exists. I'm not going to go into what that evidence is, one can do their own research.

The fact that it fits scientific fact is why its taught to the extent it is. The fact that it is so widely accepted even though it has never been conclusively proven is because it so neatly fits the body of scientific evidence.

I don't believe that Evolution directly contradicts Creationism, only a strict interpretation of the Bible. But Evolution explains scientific fact in a way the Bible fails to.

Please keep in mind that everything you believe about evolution comes from from pro evolutionary sources. So if I were to follow your logic, then I would be also very justified in suspecting considerable bias from any evolutionary source you might use to support your belief.

I find that evolutionists assume evolution and then interpret everything they find in that context. You see it differently. So I guess we simply disagree in that area.

There are respected scintists who don't believe in the evolution theory.

Excerpt:
Dr. Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist)
Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory as a guest scientist. During the time he worked there, he was recognized as the world's leading authority in his area of research. It is interesting to note that when he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist.

World's Greatest Creation Scientists. Sponsor:
http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

Not all scientists share your belief in the teaching of evolution in schools.

Creation scientists answer back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1979840.stm

Evidence For Intelligent Design -
Phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are machines at the deepest, molecular level.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/ev...ent-design.htm
BTW
Not all evolutionists are atheists.

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 05:21 AM

Talk about denial and "head in the sand" mentality. Creationists that deny the fossil record, geology and science are broadcasting their ignorance to the world. They deny the obvious. Since they can not prove any part of Creation the only thing they can do is attack Evolution.
Let's look at this debate without all the spin the creationists are putting out.
Now you can call it Creation, Intelligent Design, Scientific Creation or the next "catchy name" they use to get around a religious belief but that's exactly what is is, a religious belief and no matter how much "spin" you give it, belief can never convert to knowledge with being backed up by proof and facts.
The Creationists have tapdanced around the word God in their attempt to remove religion from the equation but tell me. What exactly is the Creator? Who was the "Designer" behind "Intelligent Design"? If not God then perhaps God has competition in the design field.
Which opens a whole new can of worms. More then one God out there?
Try as hard as they might, until they can prove the existence of God and can show proof that he designed humans and everything else, Creationism will still remain a failed attempt by the religious right to insert religion into the public school system by way of science classes.

Comments on this post
Rickj disagrees: They're both theories, period.

Then all ypu have to do is prove your claim. Hey! One little bit of physical evidence to back up the belief that God said "poof" and there we are, complete with one man, one woman a garden and a snake. What's that? You don't have any proof? No divine sign? No heavenly revelation to set this debate to rest? You deny that the fossil record exsists? And you do that because? I can only give you a explanation the a fundamentalist protesting outside the clinic where I worked gave me in all seriousness. He said. " Satan put those bones there to confuse us" They can't be real because the earth is only about 5000 years old. So there is no fossil record".
If that's what you're telling me Rick? The fossil record going back millions of years and clearly showing mans raise from upright ape to modern man is some kind of a fabrication?
Like I say. Having no way to prove their claim of Creation, Intelligent Design, Scientific Creation, ( take your pick) the only recourse a Creationist has is to attempt to attack evolution which doesn't back up the creation claim one little bit even if it could be proved that evolution never happened. The physical evidence seems to favor evolution while we're still waiting for any physical evidence from the Creation side of the fence.
"God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!" just don't cut it with me some how.

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 05:22 AM

Please keep in mind that everything you believe about evolution comes from from pro evolutionary sources. .

Sorry that's not true. As I said, I believe in evolution because it's the only theory that fits scientific facts like fossil evidence, carbon dating etc.

Frankly, I don't give a darn how many eminent scientists or crackpots support either theory. I think for myself. I take the facts and weigh those facts to determine what I think

Not all evolutionists are atheists.

Who said they were? I believe in evolution and I'm not an atheist. As I said, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is in direct conflict with the Bible. I believe that Genesis was written to explain something the people of that time didn't understand, i.e. how they came into being.

RickJ

Jun 22, 2006, 05:39 AM

Comments on this post
rickj disagrees: They're both theories, period.

Then all ypu have to do is prove your claim.

I don't have a claim. I simply chose to accept one of the two Theories.

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 06:23 AM

I don't have a claim. I simply chose to accept one of the two Theories.

Ok, I accept that. I'm not hard to get along with. Then all you have to do is show me some proof to back up your "acceptance". What's that? No proof?
Then I guess you're out of gas.

RickJ

Jun 22, 2006, 06:32 AM

If there was proof for either side, then it would not be a Theory. Even the scientists and theorists agree - which, again, is why Evolution is a Theory.

Personally, I accept that living things evolve. The evidence for this is overwhelming. But there is nothing near proof that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 07:58 AM

Our Primate Origins: An Introduction Like all other organisms, humans have evolved over time from earlier species, and share a genetic relationship to all other forms of life on Earth. The study of human evolution involves understanding the similarities and differences between humans and other species in their genes, body form, physiology, and behavior.

To understand human evolution one must understand where humans fit in relation to other forms of life. Modern humans belong to the group of mammals known as Primates. This is the scientific category describing such diverse creatures as lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, the monkeys of the New World and Old World, and also the apes. As primates we all share many characteristics, such as overlapping fields of vision caused by forward looking eyes (this allows for greater 3D vision), fine ability to grasp and handle objects in our hands, and enlarged brains relative to body size. The evolution of the Primates started in the early part of the Eocene epoch (about 55 million years ago).

Olive Baboon: Papio anubis
Old World Monkey "Common" Chimpanzee: Pan troglodytes
African Ape
Photographs courtesy of Don Wilson, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Vertebrate Zoology

By comparing humans and other living species, scientists have learned that humans are most similar to the large apes of Africa and Asia. Among all animals, humans and apes are the most alike in brain and body form, by having a complex social life, and in many other major and minor features, including the lack of a tail. The fossil record of several ancient ape species collectively called Proconsul shows that the split between the common ancestors of the Old world monkeys (above left) and the apes (above right) happened in the earliest Miocene, at least 20 million years ago.

Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and most studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species.

So when did humans originate? The answer to that question really depends on what traits are meant by the term "human."

Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually bipedal (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years.

Rick,

DNA, the fossil record and a progression of human skulls all are concrete evidence the we evolved.
Now! I have just put forth some of the evidence that substantiates my claim.
Short of attacking evolution or what I've posted have you any evidence that will further your creation theory and do you deny that Creation, Intelligent Design, Scientific Creation, ( take your pick) is nothing more then a religious belief that the religious right is attempting to insert into the public school system by way of science classes? When you can come up with some POSITIVE PROOF that your theory's valid I'll agree they should be taught side by side. Until then you have nothing to offer then faith and belief. BTW. Please explain exactly who the "intelligent designer" is?

Starman

Jun 22, 2006, 09:20 AM

Sorry that's not true. As I said, I believe in evolution because its the only theory that fits scientific facts like fossil evidence, carbon dating etc.

Frankly, I don't give a darn how many eminent scientists or crackpots support either theory. I think for myself. I take the facts and weigh those facts to determine what I think

Who said they were? I believe in evolution and I'm not an atheist. As I said, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is in direct conflict with the Bible. I believe that Genesis was written to explain something the people of that time didn't understand, i.e. how they came into being.

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself. So saying that it wasn't is calling all these either imbeciles or liars. You can't have it both ways. Calling it myth makes a mockery of what Jesus died for, our sins which are traced back to Eden and what occurred there, and stamps him as a deluded lunatic who died for nothing but his own delusions. From my standpoint I don't see any reason why I should doubt Jesus, the Son of God, and prefer to believe a mere sinful evolutionist.

Scientific facts? They are facts only from an evolutionary viewpoint. You depend on evolutionists to interpret the data they discover for you and their interpretation is always pro evolution. The same evidence can be interpreted from the intelligent design viewpoint. But then you would say that there is bias.

BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

RickJ

Jun 22, 2006, 09:26 AM

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself.

Can you cite some examples? While Christ and his Apostles did cite Scripture (what we now call the Old Testament), they were not commenting on what is literal and what is not.

RickJ

Jun 22, 2006, 09:51 AM

BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

Yeah, it's one thing to call someone who believes the north pole is a hole that leads to a world of people inside the earth a crackpot, as there is solid proof that it does not exist... but calling people who believe in creation, including educated and reputable Scientists, crackpots is silly.

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 09:56 AM

The Genesis account is repeatedly quoted as historical fact by the prophets, the apostles and even by Jesus himself. So saying that it wasn't is calling all these either imbeciles or liars. You can't have it both ways. Calling it myth makes a mockery of what Jesus died for, our sins which are traced back to Eden and what occurred there, and stamps him as a deluded lunatic who died for nothing but his own delusions. From my standpoint I don't see any reason why I should doubt Jesus, the Son of God, and prefer to believe a mere sinful evolutionist.

Scientific facts? They are facts only from an evolutionary viewpoint. You depend on evolutionists to interpret the data they discover for you and their interpretation is always pro evolution. The same evidence can be interpreted from the intelligent design viewpoint. But then you would say that there is bias.

BTW
The use of such words as crackpots, wackoes, loonies, and so on when referring to scientists who choose to support creation is considered fallacious reasoning since it falls under the category of ad hominem. Of course you you included any scientist but within the context of your argument those reading your words will assume you mean creationist scientists.

First, I wasn't referring to scientists in my crackpots remark. I specifically said "eminent scientists OR crackpots". My intent was not to lump the two together. I also specifically stated support for "either theory". Again not specifying either side.

I dealt with this first, because it shows that despite what I actually said, you applied a different interpretation to my words. An interpretation clearly not supported by what I actually said. This leaves one to ponder on what else you might have interpretted incorrectly to support your position.

If calling Genesis a myth implies what you said it implies, then so be it. If you can produce one iota of concrete proof that the Old Testament represents an accurate historical account of the origin of this planet and the life on it, then I will change my position.

As for the scientific facts only being facts from an evolutionary viewpoint, you are incorrect there. Again, I'm not going to go into all the evidence that exists supporting the Theory of Evolution. But a good deal of that evidence is simple bare facts. Facts that Evolution accounts for where Creationism doesn't.

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 10:04 AM

Yeah, it's one thing to call someone who believes the north pole is a hole that leads to a world of people inside the earth a crackpot, as there is solid proof that it does not exist...but calling people who believe in creation, including educated and reputable Scientists, crackpots is silly.

See my Answer to Starman. Try reading what I ACTUALLY said, instead of what you think I said.

Starman

Jun 22, 2006, 10:16 AM

Can you cite some examples? While Christ and his Apostles did cite Scripture (what we now call the Old Testament), they were not commenting on what is literal and what is not.

I see absolutely no evidence in the Bible indicating that the Genesis account is myth. I can quote dozens of scriptures where prophets apostles and even Jesus spoke of it clearly as history. But that would not change your viewpoint since you have chosen to consider it myth and would then proceed to give your reasons you prefer to see it as myth. Round and round it would go ad infinitum. So I prefer not to do an exercise in futility and acknowledge your right to your opinion.

Curlyben

Jun 22, 2006, 10:25 AM

I see absolutely no evidence in the Bible indicating that the Genesis account is myth
LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

Starman

Jun 22, 2006, 10:26 AM

First, I wasn't referring to scientists in my crackpots remark. I specifically said "eminent scientists OR crackpots". My intent was not to lump the two together. I also specifically stated support for "either theory". Again not specifying either side.

I dealt with this first, because it shows that despite what I actually said, you applied a different interpretation to my words. An interpretation clearly not supported by what I actually said. This leaves one to ponder on what else you might have interpretted incorrectly to support your position.

If calling Genesis a myth implies what you said it implies, then so be it. If you can produce one iota of concrete proof that the Old Testament represents an accurate historical account of the origin of this planet and the life on it, then I will change my position.

As for the scientifc facts only being facts from an evolutionary viewpoint, you are incorrect there. Again, I'm not going to go into all the evidence that exists supporting the Theory of Evolution. But a good deal of that evidence is simple bare facts. Facts that Evolution accounts for where Creationism doesn't.

Simple bare facts as interpreted by evolutionist scientists to dovetail with their assumpions. In any case, I am sure that if you found a simple arrowhead in the desert and I told you it was a product of chance you would immediately protest by saying that it shows clear evidence of planning and forethought which indicates intelligent design. But faced with the infinitely more complex human brain you immediately switch criteria ans say you see nothing indicvating forethought and planning? Sorry but that type of biased reasoning or selective blindness weakens your case, for evolutionary or mindless chance emergence of things since it shows a serious flaw in reasining and inconsistency of criterion.

BTW
The scientific method is not the only way to prove things. There is also logic.

Starman

Jun 22, 2006, 10:30 AM

LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.
You are right, lack of evidence doesn't prove anything about the Bible but it does deprive the accusers of a very useful tool--evidence.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

The burden of proof lies primarily with the accuser not with the accused.
All I see here are statements without any scientific or logical support which are expected to be taken as fact simply because they are stated.

Fallacious reasoning:

Popularity of a belief isn't proof of accuracy. That premise is faulty and the use of it to buttress a fallacious argument called "Appeal to bandwagon" This is not to say that it is being used directly as proof of evolution or mindless emergence of the universe and all life within it, but in a roundabout way it is. Not necessarily by anyone here, but by the general public who believes what evolutionist scientist say.

BTW
Having computer problems and can't cite scripture or provide links inn support of my statements. Will have to log out and come back later after I tweak thi infernal machine.

RickJ

Jun 22, 2006, 10:31 AM

LACK of evidence doesn't prove FACT or MYTH for that matter.

Correct.

The Bible is a collection of stories that have neither been proven as FACT or MYTH. So your belief is based purely on FAITH.

Incorrect. I can't cite a percentage, but many of the events described in the Bible are confirmed by extra-biblical historical, textual, archaeological, etc sources.

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 10:52 AM

Popularity of a belief isn't proof of accuracy. That premise is faulty and the use of it to buttress an argument is called "Appeal to bandwagon" It is simply fallacious reasoning.

Exactly, popularity of belief is NOT proof of accuracy. And popularity of belief accounts far more for support of creationism then it does for evolution.

You keep trying to support your position by referring to evolutionist viewpoint in interpreting facts. However, much of the Bible is subject to interpetation.

I will say again, that the Theory of Evolution is popular because it's the only explanation that fits scientific fact.

Starman

Jun 22, 2006, 11:08 AM

Exactly, popularity of belief is NOT proof of accuracy. And popularity of belief accounts far more for support of creationism then it does for evolution.

You keep trying to support your position by referring to evolutionist viewpoint in interpreting facts. However, much of the Bible is subject to interpetation.

I will say again, that the Theory of Evolution is popular because its the only explanation that fits scientific fact.

.Very good that you acknowledge that popularity is meaningless in terms of truth or objective reality. However, I disagree that most evolutionists know what they are placing their trust in. Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct. Ask any high school student to give you an intelligent explanation of the fine point of the evolution theory and you will get a blank stare or some superficial response. So their belief is for all practical purposes blind faith based on the conclusions reached by others which they have chosen to consider indisputable because that's the way they were taught to think--if indeed it can be considered thinking art all.

You say that most of the Bible is subject to interpretation. It seems that way doesn't it. But what you are seeing is misinterpretation. So I would rephrase that statement as the Bible is subject to an infinite amount of misinterpretation. As a matter of fact, the Bible itself tells us that it would be misinterpreted and that the misinterpretations were fostered by God's arch enemy Satan. It also tells us that God doesn't grant just anyone to understand it correctly but that some are kept from that understanding by the condition of their hearts.

One example: people who read it in order to find faults, in order to attack it further. These might come away more mislead then they originally were since their minds are closed to anything but what they had already concluded.

BTW
How do you explain your inconsistency in criteria in reference to the arrowhead example?

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 11:44 AM

However, I disagree that most evolutionists know what they are placing their trust in. Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct.

BTW
How do you explain your inconsistency in criteria in reference to the arrowhead example?

The same can be said, with more basis, about religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is drummed into people during their more impressionable years.

What I see the fact here is that you see the Theory of Evolution as attacking your beliefs in the Bible and religion. Therefore, to reinforce your belief, you have to attack Evolution. I prefer to look at the body of scientific evidence. When I do I see how that evidence fits the points of Evolution and I choose to accept Darwin's ideas as the most likely.

I don't now and never have put my faith in religion. I've indicated why in other posts I've placed on this site. If you want to put your faith in it, your are welcome to. But when you try to deny the scientific evidence. When you try to denigrate in the name of supporting your faith, I will dispute you.

BTW
What inconsistency?

talaniman

Jun 22, 2006, 12:21 PM

I have seen no scientific facts that refute anything the bible says so I tend to believe that God had many ways to bring life to this planet and our intellect still is trying to grasp the concept, so ancient man probably had no clue and had to fill in the blanks the best they could. Whether we believe whatever theory or not the bottom line is that no matter how it sounds or seems to fit none of us can explain the mystery of how GOD does things or makes them happen. Even our supercomputers can only theorise the creation and it maybe a long time before man can even wrap his head around the fact that God created everything his own way

ScottGem

Jun 22, 2006, 12:32 PM

This goes along with some other things I have said.

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 01:12 PM

Scotty,

Starman has dug up of that oldy but goody augment for intelligence design but gave it a new twist. He substituted arrowhead for the original watch. But it's still the same old argument that was shot doiwn decades ago. "In any case, I am sure that if you found a simple arrowhead in the desert and I told you it was a product of chance you would imediately protest by saying that it shows clear evidence of planning and forethought which indicates intelligent design. But faced with the infinitely more complex human brain you imediately switch criteria ans say you see nothing indicvating forethought and planning? Sorry but that type of biased reasoning or selective blindness weakens your case, for evolutionary or mindless chance emergence of things since it shows a serious flaw in reasining and inconsistency of criterion."
Scotty, there is no winning a religious debate with a believer. Although they can offer no concrete proof they still attempt to push their cause.
I've had 13 years of arguing reason and logic against faith and design. Ya can't win, sport! If you make a valid point or convincing argument that they can not respond they simply ignore it and pretend it was never said or change the subject. Once more! Ya can't win! It's next to impossible to open a closed mind. "God said it! I believe it! and that settles it!" Those that believe Genesis is literally the "word of God" and not composed by the framers of the Bible as a moral guide will never be convinced that man lived for 800 years, that the entire earth was under water from a "great flood" , that the universal physical laws of nature are reversed where a man could transport himself over water without getting wet and come back from the dead will never be convinced that this never happened. That the Bible was written by men whose one purpose in life was to glorify their religion. That most of the Jewish Religion was lifted from earlier pagan religions and the Christian Religion was lifted from that. There's no denying that. The flood, virgin birth, resurrection, angels, devils etc. All lifted from the Zoroastran Religion that flourished in Persia in the 6th. Century BC.
Interestering enough, Zororaster was born of a virgin, preached, was crucified and rose from the dead. Or so they claim. This is historical fact and can not be disputed. This also gave raise to the movement that denied that jesus even existed.

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 01:18 PM

So you believe the Bible literally? Man lived 800 years, the entire world was covered by a great flood etc? And can yet find nothing to disprove it? How about The Universal Law of Physics. Or just common sense.

talaniman

Jun 22, 2006, 01:59 PM

Speedball1-First off if you'd read my post or read my previous posting you'd know that I don't believe anyone's bible is of a divine nature but mans attempts at rallying the masses under one banner or another .Also to add a fact whether you believe A or B or C there are no hard facts one way or another that someone's theory is right or wrong. For whatever your belief system is, there will always be those who say I'm RIGHT so that makes you wrong, a concept I thoroughly reject as being non-productive and unprovable. Since I doubt if you or anyone else will be there when I meet my maker I really don't care about theories and opinions when it comes to how I go down the path of my own life. I do believe people should at least be able to debate with out getting so carried away with there own bull crap that nothing that they disagree with starts a debate not about give and take but comes down to calling names and casting aspersions on people who have the same rights to whatever as everyone. I really don't give a rats behind if the world was flood since I wasn't there and neither were you or anyone else who forms an opinion. The problem I have with some of the people who engage in these post is they take themselves so seriously that good debate is impossible. We aren't here to convert anyone just talk and exchange ideas and I 'm sure that those who claim to know about the universal laws and such are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as anything is possible and because you think you know you don't and guess what neither do I. So chill with that absolute proof thing cause it just ain't absolute!

speedball1

Jun 22, 2006, 02:51 PM

Tally,
I didn't think so until I picked up on. " I have seen no scientific facts that refute anything the bible says." If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. I have no wish to burst the bubble of anyone that believes the Universal Law of Physics are suspended when religious "miracles" are involved. I'm not attempting to convert any one. Years of debating Fundamentalists have convinced me that it's impossible. I'm just pointing out the most of the Bible isn't based on historical fact. I take a very dim view of word for word conversations that were written down hundreds of years later.
Of coures you're entitled to your beliefs. Just as I'm entitled to debate them.

"I do believe people should at least be able to debate with out getting so carried away with there own bull crap that nothing that they disagree with starts a debate not about give and take but comes down to calling names and casting aspersions on people who have the same rights to whatever as everyone."

I certainly appreciate your classy put down. Bull crap? Show me! Calling names? Show me! Casting aspirations? By challenging a statement? Nah Tally! Don't takie this so seriously. Have a drink or take a took and just go with the flow.

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 03:48 AM

Scotty,

Starman has dug up of that oldy but goody augment for intelligence design but gave it a new twist. He substituted arrowhead for the original watch. but it's still the same old argument that was shot doiwn decades ago.

"In any case, I am sure that if you found a simple arrowhead in the desert and I told you it was a product of chance you would imediately protest by saying that it shows clear evidence of planning and forethought which indicates intelligent design. But faced with the infinitely more complex human brain you imediately switch criteria and say you see nothing indicvating forethought and planning? Sorry but that type of biased reasoning or selective blindness .

If indeed the arrowhead argument is refuted as easily as you claim why not simply post the refutation?

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 04:17 AM

RickJ

Jun 23, 2006, 04:22 AM

I have to agree that some of the posts seem belittling. I'm speaking as rickj here, not as a moderator. I have edited nothing in this thread.

Remember folks, words are words; we cannot see facial experession or other body language, and we can't read minds.

... so maybe some it is meant to be in jest - or harmless sarcasm - but with text this is often hard to read.

In my opinion the most effective debaters of subjects like this are the ones who say what and why they believe without mention of others or their beliefs.

... that's just my 1.01 cents worth...

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 04:51 AM

Tally,

"I do believe people should at least be able to debate with out getting so carried away with there own bull crap that nothing that they disagree with starts a debate not about give and take but comes down to calling names and casting aspersions on people who have the same rights to whatever as everyone.".

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. It is truly unfortunate that
A discussion which might simply lead to an interesting exchange of ideas degenerates into what you describe,

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 04:59 AM

Which shows that you have an open mind.

speedball1

Jun 23, 2006, 05:11 AM

Creationist Whoppers
Various Authors

This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together. [plus my @#$! Mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's an example of creationist misquoting, from Henry Morris' book, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, p. 12:

The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm. with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved...

... strongly suggests that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization.(19)

Note 19 refers to an article in the journal Geology by Buccheim and Surdam, which says:

The abundant and widespread occurrence of skeletons of bottom feeders, some with soft fleshy skin intact, strongly suggests that the catfish were a resident population. It is highly improbable that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization. Experiments and observations made on various species of fish have shown that fish decompose and disarticulate after only very short distances of transport (Shafer, 1972).
Karl Fezer discovered this, and wrote a critique, which he sent to Morris for comment. This resulted in the following "correction" in Acts & Facts (vol. 12, no. 11, p. 6):

CORRECTION: Readers who may have purchased the booklet, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, announced in the August issue of Acts & Facts, should make the following correction: on page 12, delete lines 18 and 19. A section which was inadvertently omitted in this quotation (from an article in Geology by Buccheim and Surdam) inverts the authors' intended meaning. However, the argument being advanced in this section by the booklet's author, Dr. Henry Morris, is not affected by this correction. ICR writers always try diligently to quote accurately and in context, knowing that evolutionists are carefully watching their writings to ferret out any examples of misquoting which may occur, but this one got by. If the authors of the quoted paper were embarrassed in any way by our lapse in this case, we apologize.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gish has been caught on numerous occasions spouting lies, yet he never offers retractions and his own religion tells him that he should be honest.

One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)

Another example involving numerous creationists is the claim that Donald Johanson discovered "Lucy's" knee joint 2 km away from the rest of the skeleton. This claim was first made in the Bible-Science Newsletter by Tom Willis in 1987, and has since been repeated by Walter Brown, John Morris, Paul Taylor, Russell Arndts, and Michael Girouard. But it's false, apparently based on a misunderstanding at a Q&A session at the University of Missouri attended by Willis. Johanson did find a knee joint 2 km away from "Lucy," but he never claimed that this knee joint was "Lucy"'s. I gave a copy of a letter from Johanson describing the facts of the matter to Girouard in person at an ICR seminar, and he claimed he would read it carefully and respond to any letters I wrote him. I wrote him in December of 1989 and never received a reply. Brown was also informed of the facts of the matter, in both the pages of Creation/Evolution and of Origins Research. In both cases he responded with new claims about "Lucy" which had nothing to do with the knee joint--he just ignored the issue at hand. (Origins Research didn't print my follow-up.) My letter to Tom Willis received no reply. My letter to the Bible-Science Newsletter (in response to Arndts' more recent repetition of the false claim) went unpublished and I received no reply...

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 05:13 AM

I agree.

speedball1

Jun 23, 2006, 05:20 AM

Starman,
"If indeed the arrowhead argument is refuted as easily as you claim why not simply post the refutation?" All you hadda do is ask!

The Watch/Arrowhead in the Desert

OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some Great Designer. The mere existence of well-designed watches and animals is all the proof we should need that both were created by someone with infinitely more wisdom than the creations. Both, by their existence alone, imply the existence of a great designer or creator. Watches don't "just evolve," and neither do animals (or people); ergo, evolution is logically absurd (and, by extension, anyone who believes in it is an illogical idiot).

Anyway, that's sort of how the analogy usually goes. And it looks pretty good at first glance. I imagine a few evolution-minded folks have been taken aback by this one, the first time they heard it, not knowing quite how to answer it at the time. I'll also bet that some creationists see this as an irrefutable gem of logic that utterly destroys evolution and all its works.

Hold on a minute, though. Since this argument is presented in the form of an analogy, let's hold the creationist to his own logic, and see if the analogy holds up. For an analogy to make any logical sense at all, the two things being compared have to have a LOT in common, not just one salient feature. For instance, when we're considering the functioning of a living thing (like a person), an analogy is often drawn with a complex machine of some sort (like a watch, but a car works even better). Both need fuel, both produce heat and waste products, both wear out eventually, both turn chemical energy into mechanical energy, both have many small but critical parts, etc. But the watch-in-the-desert analogy is not about how the things work. It's about where they came from--or really, how they came to be. And when you think about that, you come to some interesting conclusions. Remember, it's supposed to work this way: because a watch doesn't spontaneously assemble and has to have a maker who made it just the way it is, therefore an animal can't spontaneously assemble either, and it, too, must have a maker who made it just the way it presently is.

Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here?

Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs , not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."

Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural). If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.

Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves," if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much.

"But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!" Well, that's half right, and here's where the analogy breaks down. Any analogy can only be stretched so far. The car stops being analogous to the human body when you start talking about thought or emotions. And watches stop being analogous to animals when you start talking about how the individual item is assembled. Watches, after all, never have little baby watches! An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves , quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves , and get rid of what we don't need.

OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of the simplest chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating , if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.

And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?

RickJ

Jun 23, 2006, 05:28 AM

Creationist Whoppers
Various Authors ...

... and this contributes to the discussion how? There is no dispute that there are some bad arguments out there.

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 05:42 AM

Here are examples of what evoltionists are capable of:

DARWINISM-WATCH.com - Responding Evolutionist Propaganda in the Media
A New Page in the History of Evolutionist Fraud. It has emerged that an evolutionist professor of anthropology has been providing false information regarding the age of some key fossils for the last 30 years.. . theory of evolution, but of evolutionist fraud. The dating and interpretation based...
www.darwinism-watch.com/new_page.php

The Ape-Men III
The interesting story of Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), one of the shameful patchworks of evolutionists.. . Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni): an Evolutionist Fraud. Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) is one of the... was only an artfully conceived fraud. The skull fragments belonged to a...
www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen3.html
More pages from cryingvoice.com

DARWINISM-WATCH.com - Responding Evolutionist Propaganda in the Media
... THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIM OF A TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND IS A LIE... A NEW PAGE IN THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONIST FRAUD...
www.darwinism-watch.com/articles.php

The Ape-Men II
... A good example of evolutionist fraud and deceit of the whole world is Eugene Dubois and his ape... displays 22 stages of our ancestry. The German evolutionist G. H. R...
www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen2.html

Letters to the Editor North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News - NCTimes.com -...
A daily newspaper with News, Business and Sports for San Diego and Riverside Counties.. . North County Times. Evolutionist fraud never corrected... It was fraud that got that idea going, but I've never known an evolutionist who seemed interested in correcting it...
www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/04/24/export8993.txt

Evolution - October 1998 by thread
... RE: Haeckel and N-rays: Fraud or self-deception ?Pim van Meurs... RE: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals.Pim van Meurs...
www.asa3.org:16080/archive/evolution/199810

Evolution Fraud in School Scienfic Textbooks
Textbook Fraud. Evolutionists deliberately tolerate knowingly fraudulent pro-evolution evidence in School Textbooks. Students are deceived by fraudulent science textbooks.. . New Textbooks purchased by schools in the last year are full of fraud and lies to promote evolution... at the idea that man evolved from monkeys! Evolutionist-Converter Video Lectures...
www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm

... Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud. Posted by tomzz...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/browse

What does this prove about the issues we are supposed to be discussing?
It focuses on people who made mistakes. But that doesn't affect the objective truth in one way or the other which remains unchanged regardless of such mistakes.

ScottGem

Jun 23, 2006, 05:52 AM

I am not trying to denigrate or attack your beliefs.

Cmon Starman! Then what is this all about? Hasn't just about every post from in this thread been an attempt show that the Theory of Evolution is false?

Lets look at this quote; "Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct." That seems to denigrate the intelligence of the majority of students. Yes they may have deen indoctrinaterd early on, but as they mature and go through higher education, they do learn to think for themselves.

The irony here is that I believe in Intelligent Design, though probably not in the way you do. I believe that some intelligent force created the building blocks of our universe, setting up natural and physical "laws". I believe this force then sat back to see what would evolve from the foundation that was created.

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 07:14 AM

The Watch/Arrowhead in the Desert

OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some Great Designer...

Yes, you are missing the very important fact that via a serious discrepancy you are promulgating what is called a false analogy
By omitting the human intelligence that caused the watch to change with time. By redesigning it. It fact, you are providing the very evidence which you claim to reject.

False Analogy
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKR3_ZtEWyQAW5drCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11oee6qa1/EXP=1151160055/**http%3a//skepdic.com/falseanalogy.html

Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."

Unfortunately, you are describing two completely different things--change guided by human intelligence and change taking place by blind chance. They are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination.

Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural).

The natural process of being designed by human intelligence as opposed to blind chance!

If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.

All natural processes are not the same. On the one hand you have what you claim to be the natural process of evolution. On the other hand you have what you call the natural process of design and change under human intelligence. They are as different as night and day since one involves a reasoning conscious purposeful guiding force while the other doesn't.

Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves," if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much. "But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!"

Of course they assemble via the reproductive abilities given them by their creator. The issue is original life appearing on earth with the ability to replicate itself. Self replication is something that the creator of the watch if wise enough could have given it.

... We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve.

That goes completely contrary to the law of entropy which is based on the observation that nattier tends toward disorganization.

Excerpt:
Entropy: Enemy of Evolution?
By Babu G. Ranganathan
27 May 2005
The natural tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder -- not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach.

Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter tends to evolve towards greater and greater complexity and order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, doesn't work the same way.

The simple fact is that the law of entropy precludes macro-evolution from ever occurring. Entropy is the measure of increasing disorder in a system. The natural (or spontaneous) tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder -- not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach. This tendency towards disorder that exists in all matter can only be temporarily overcome if there exists an energy converting and directing mechanism to develop and maintain order.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4365.html

When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.

There is a vast chasm between simple spontaneous chemical reactions and combinations on an atomic and molecular level with that required to produce the complex organisms we see all around us. That, my friend requires more that an inductive leap. It requires an insurmountable leap of faith based on what evolutionists think happened.http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKTz7JtEjxMAxnVrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=126eepk21/EXP=1151155827/**http%3a//www.detectingdesign.com/maquiziliducks.html

we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur.

I understand that some would imagine God creating in the way you describe and if it were so then I would accept it. However, I find the evolution argument unconvincing. No, the watch in the desert example was and example you gave to prove that evolution occurs. The arrowhead example was an example showing how scientists apply the rules of intelligent design to the arrowhead but refuse to do the same when faced with far greater evidence in the form of organisms.

Watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?

Once more, watches change under intelligent guidance, human forethought, a mind at work. That is not analogous to a supposed mindless organization of matter. They are actually at opposite extremes. The conclusion about the watch being a product of intelligent design is not unproven by the watch's changing in design over time. It merely reinforces it by showing the ones who designed it continued to work on it.

Also, why refer to God's works as magic? God has full command of natures forces and what might seem magical to us might be based on his deeper understanding of how nature works. What seemed like magic to mankind just a few decades ago is now taken for granted.

In any case, it was a nice discussion and thanks for your patient and decent participation. I think I will go to a less controversial subject at another forum.

Cmon Starman! Then what is this all about? Hasn't just about every post from in this thread been an attempt show that the Theory of Evolution is false?

Lets look at this quote; "Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct." That seems to denigrate the intelligence of the majority of students. Yes, they may have been indoctrinated early on, but as they mature and go through higher education, they do learn to think for themselves.

The irony here is that I believe in Intelligent Design, though probably not in the way you do. I believe that some intelligent force created the building blocks of our universe, setting up natural and physical "laws." I believe this force then sat back to see what would evolve from the foundation that was created.

I apologize for hurting your feelings. That was not my intention.

ScottGem

Jun 23, 2006, 07:47 AM

Kids aren't taught to think for themselves either in grade, or high school. When they get to college, if they get to college, they are not required by most course curriculums to learn to think for themselves.

Your timing on this is not good. My daughter is working on her Masters in Education. She is currently taking a course in Philosophy of Education. So this issue was part of the discussions in her class. I won't dispute that the American Education system has many problems. But its not as bad as you paint it. The conclusions she reached from this course was to teach students to think for themselves. So there is hope.

I went through my secondary and college education more than 30 years ago. I don't recall being especially brainwashed and indoctrinated. I very strongly believe that I am a free thinker. That I arrive at conclusions based on factual evidence and logical considerations.

One of the problems I perceive in your arguments is that you seem to consider only extremes. Things are either one way or another. That just isn't always the case.

speedball1

Jun 23, 2006, 10:58 AM

Starman,
"Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it"
Whoa! Back the truck up. Your entire package is about a Creator/ Intellect Designer who just said "poof" and there we were. And now you say it's not germane to this debate? Let's stop copying and pasting up articals both pro and con. I can find as many as you can but it's nonproductive since we don't believe each other anyway.
Let's focus instead on the issues.
This is not about whether evolution happened. Of course it happened. We're here aren't we. This is about HOW evoluation happened. Your claim is that it happened by Intelligent Design. Mine is that it happened by natural selection.
You claim intelligent Design. That requires a designer. Trot him out! Who is he? Does he have a name and what is it? If you can't produce or even name a Designer then how can you argue that it even took place. If you have no evidence and the only thing you can do is attempt to discredit Evolution or trot out old tired Creation arguments then you're out of gas. But I'm a fair guy. I'll back off and let you prove your case. If you have no evidence or proof to back up your claim then this debate is over and I'll get back to the plumbing page where I belong. It's been fun. For me it's been a case of "daja Vue" (sp.)
I debated for years, both in religious chat rooms and in the street at the clinic, and this gave me a little stroll through the "faded yellow pages of yesterday". Starman, Take it from me. In those years I heard just about all the arguments that there were to hear. You haven't surprised me with anything different. Just as I could never win out there so can I never win in here. As can you. Unless you have some dramatic proof to put forth let's just agree to disagree. You're a fine debater and a challenge, plus a lot of fun to debate but I don't think Ben should have ever started this thread. It's just too emotional a subject. And your thoughts? Regards, om

talaniman

Jun 23, 2006, 12:02 PM

Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.

This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.

The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.

OK now time for some back up to my position:
Overview 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)
Overview 2 (http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm)
Dover Legal Case 1 (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8172&feedId=online-news_rss20)
Dover Lagal Case 2 (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp)
The Vaticans Response (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/)
Sweet Irony (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/dover_school_board_booted/)
Comment (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html)

Now I am looking for some reasoned arguments here NOT just opinionated mudslinging
As I see it with the limited knowledge that man has there is on thing that's obvious. NO BODY KNOWS the true facts of how we came to be. I think it would be a hoot if we found out that we where all wrong and way off base. AS it stands in the big picture one does not contradict the other nor does it go very far at all in contradicting the bible or any other of the great books. I think the main problem is that we humans are so full of ourselves that we cannot imagine not knowing something! Why can't we just tell our kids the truth, that we just don't know!! :rolleyes:

Northwind_Dagas

Jun 23, 2006, 02:29 PM

Very well put. Evolution is not a theory about the beginning, but instead of how we got from there to here.

valinors_sorrow

Jun 23, 2006, 05:55 PM

ScottGem

Jun 23, 2006, 06:20 PM

I know this may be a risky thing to stick out there with all the really impressively great posting going on here but why do we have to settle for an either/or set up on this? Why can't there be a third choice that embodies both areas well enough, a kind of strange gap filler? I know a great many of the writers I have enjoyed reading fall somewhere between science and faith themselves. They would be the first to propose another bookcase labeled.... ummmm, SCIAITH or FAIENCE.... to house their tomes?

I know, I warned you it was kinda silly! :o

I have said in several posts here that I don't believe that evolution and belief in the bible are mutually exclusive. Unless one believes only in a strict, literal acceptance of the bible rather than a allegorical one, one can believe in both.

Starman

Jun 23, 2006, 09:30 PM

Your timing on this is not good. My daughter is working on her Masters in Education. She is currently taking a course in Philosophy of Education. So this issue was part of the discussions in her class. I won't dispute that the American Education system has many problems. But its not as bad as you paint it. The conclusions she reached from this course was to teach students to think for themselves. So there is hope.

I went thru my secondary and college education more than 30 years ago. I don't recall being especially brainwashed and indoctrinated. I very strongly believe that I am a free thinker. That I arrive at conclusions based on factual evidence and logical considerations.

One of the problems I perceive in your arguments is that you seem to consider only extremes. Things are either one way or another. That just isn't always the case.

College courses in the humanities require learning how to think. Most college students today take practical courses in order to make money so humanities courses are not as popular as they once were. These money-making oriented courses, such as banking,
Computer programing, architecture, and others like it do not make etrhics and logic required subjects. So these students are graduated essentially unable to reason any better than they were in high school.

The problem is that from grade school to high school no concerted effort is made to teach kids ethics, or logic. These are left up to the churches which only teach deontological reasoning based on rules which doesn't really teach the kids why it is that they are required not to do certain things and makes them inflexible when faced with situations that require flexible thinking or a judgment call after weighing the pros and cons.

These are the same kids who grow up and justify child abuse, wife beatings,
Stealing when it's convenient, lying when it suites them, or else are walking robots which pave a road to hell via good intentions. That remains my view based on my familiarity with this educational system and the type of citizens it irresponsibly generally produces.

Again my apologies if I came or come across as rude.

BTW

When you expose a young mind to authoritative texts calaimin certainty where there is no certainty, and indirectly calling religeon myth or foolisness, or making them feel stupid if they reject evolution, then if that's not brainwashing then what is it? Indoctrination? This is common in all public schhools. If it weren't the there would not be protests about it from creationists.

Starman,
"Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it"
Whoa!! Back the truck up. Your entire package is about a Creator/ Intellect Designer who just said "poof" and there we were. And now you say it's not germane to this debate? Let's stop copying and pasting up articles both pro and con. I can find as many as you can but it's nonproductive since we don't believe each other anyway.
Let's focus instead on the issues.
This is not about whether evolution happened. Of course it happened. We're here aren't we. This is about HOW evoluation happened. Your claim is that it happened by Intelligent Design. Mine is that it happened by natural selection.
You claim intelligent Design. That requires a designer. Trot him out! Who is he? Does he have a name and what is it? If you can't produce or even name a Designer then how can you argue that it even took place. If you have no evidence and the only thing you can do is attempt to discredit Evolution or trot out old tired Creation arguements then you're outta gas. But I'm a fair guy. I'll back off and let you prove your case. If you have no evidence or proof to back up your claim then this debate is over and I'll get back to the plumbing page where i belong. It's been fun. For me it's been a case of "daja Vue" (sp.)
I debated for years, both in religious chat rooms and in the street at the clinic, and this gave me a little stroll through the "faded yellow pages of yesterday". Starman, Take it from me. In those years I heard just about all the arguments that there were to hear. You haven't surprised me with anything different. Just as I could never win out there so can I never win in here. As can you. Unless you have some dramatic proof to put forth let's just agree to disagree. You're a fine debater and a challange, plus a lot of fun to debate but I don't think Ben should have ever started this thread. It's just too emotional a subject. And your thoughts? Regards, om

Do you really consider you evolution arguments novelties? Tagging an argument as tired only means that you are unable to refute it via logic and evidence and find it convenient to tag it that way and evade the issues.

Actually, I consider your arguments not only tired but beyond your comprerhension not because you can't reason, but because you refuse to. This refusal causes your attempt to be logical to destroy what little credibility you might have had by contradicting yourself. So sadly, the one lacking evidence here is you my friend since what you present as evidence are biased conclusions buttressed by a pathetic attempt at using an analogy.

You deamand disrespectfully for me to trot out my God? Why not trot out yours since you have made evolution your religion and the evolutionist sceientists your god.
No one has seen one animal change into another. All animals appear inn the geological stratum fully developed. Intermediary forms are assumes to be intermediary by a stretch of the imagination. Harmful process of mutations are claimed to benefit organisms in the long run because the original survival of the fittest idea proved inadequate. Human remains that are contemporary with your cherished man apes are conveniently shelved or ignored because they don't fit in with your precious beliefs. DNA similarities are interpreted to mean lineage. The law of Entropy is conveniently ignored because if they don't then evolution is impossible so they choose to make believe it doesn't exist. A simple arrowhead is evidence of mind but the human brain popped up from mindless shufflings. And on and on it goes. So in terms of proof, sorry but you really have none.

Who is he? He is the creator. What is his name. "I am that I am"
Why do I believe he exists, because his creation gives powerful testimony that he does.

I am not attempting to win out only to show the reasons for my beliefs and let the coin fall wherever it falls.

I don't claim that evolution happened by intelligent design. I believe it didn't happen at all.

Also, the manner in which you choose to describe creationist beliefs comes across as ridicule. Do you really believe that we believe such things? I don't imagine God saying "poof!" and things popping magically into existence and I am sure that you are unable to present evidence that creationists belief things in the way you describe.

The universe is complex even down to the atomic and subatomic levels and such complexity requires planning and scientific investigation shows it took vast quantities of time--from a human standpoint.

I imagine God delving on how he is going to design something before embarking on the task and then using the power and wisdom available to him to accomplish that task.

The fact that we are here doesn't prove evolution. In order for that conclusion to be reached simply because we are here, one must first reject intelligent design. Only then can we say what you say. But first comes the belief in evolution and the rejection of creation.

No one is out of gas my friend. I present you with the Entropy problem and prove to you that your analogy is faulty. You choose to ignore it which is a sign of inability to face the issues via counterargument. A watch changing because of intelligent design is not comparable to MINDLESS evolution. The mindless part is what causes your analogy to be false. Ignoring entropy is not scientific.

Actually, you are very skillfully proving my point instead of yours and asking me to accept it as proving yours. The reason for this? Beats me.

BTW

Idenifying a false analogy was one of the basics in logic which I aced. So this is not a matter of feeling that it is a false analogy it is a matter of knowing it is a false analogy.

Your constant accusation that my purpose in this discussion is motivated by my need to denigrated other people's beliefs is annoying. I hope that you realize that the same accusation can be leveled at you in relation to religion. Also, I only posted those examples of evolutionist fraud because you posted examples about creationists. It was more as an illustration that such displays of one-upmanship can go on and on and prove nothing.

But let's just agree to disagree since this can go on ad ad infinitum.

ScottGem

Jun 24, 2006, 03:46 AM

Starman,
You missed my point. But its getting off topic. My daughter is being taught how to teach. What she is being taught is to teach free thinking. Letting studenjts learn by discovery and experience. Now just depositing knmowledge into their heads.

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:12 AM

Oh no! We can't quit on insults and put downs. Wherever did you get the impression that making me liook bad makes you look good?
You state;"I don't claim that evolution happened by intelligent design. I believe it didn't happen at all."
I love it! Reason and logic against faith and belief. If you can not process the information below then I can provide pictures. Or if you let me know what large city you're near I can give you directions to the nearest Musum of Natural History where you might even be allowed to touch a fossil bone from the evolutionary process that you claim doesn't exsist. Read in my acid tongued friend and then deny history.

Timeline of evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the history of evolutionary biology, see History of evolutionary thought.
This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth. For context, see geologic time scale, and the history of Earth. Dates given are estimates based on scientific evidence. The table uses the symbols "Ma" for "mega-annum (million years ago)" and "ka" for "kilo-annum (thousand years ago)". English literature also uses the abbreviations "mya" (m.y.a) and "tya" (t.y.a) or "kya" in the same sense.

In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its occurrence over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years.

Date Event
4600 Ma The planet Earth forms from the accretion disc revolving around the young Sun.
4100 Ma The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The atmosphere and the oceans form.[1]
4000 Ma The earliest life appears, possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms requires resources like energy, space, and smaller building blocks, which soon become limited, resulting in competition. Natural selection favors those molecules which are more efficient at replication. DNA molecules then take over as the main replicators. They soon develop inside enclosing membranes which provide a stable physical and chemical environment conducive to their replication: proto-cells. At this time, the atmosphere does not contain any free oxygen.
3900 Ma Late Heavy Bombardment: peak rate of impact events upon the Earth, Moon, Mars and Venus by asteroids and comets (planetesimals). This constant disturbance may encourage life to evolve (see panspermia). It is thought that these impacts cause the oceans to boil away completely, more than once; yet life persists.[2]
Cells resembling prokaryotes appear. These first organisms are chemoautotrophs: they use carbon dioxide as a carbon source and oxidize inorganic materials to extract energy. Later, prokaryotes evolve glycolysis, a set of chemical reactions that free the energy of organic molecules such as glucose. Glycolysis generates ATP molecules as short-term energy currency, and ATP continue to be used in almost all organisms, unchanged, to this day.

3500 Ma Lifetime of the last universal ancestor; the split between the bacteria and the archaea occurs.
Bacteria develop primitive forms of photosynthesis which at first do not produce oxygen. These organisms generate ATP by exploiting a proton gradient, a mechanism still used in virtually all organisms.

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:16 AM

3000 Ma Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve; they use water as a reducing agent, thereby producing oxygen as waste product. The oxygen initially oxidizes dissolved iron in the oceans, creating iron ore. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rises, acting as a poison for many bacteria.
2500 Ma Some bacteria evolve the ability to utilize oxygen to more efficiently use the energy from organic molecules such as glucose. Virtually all organisms using oxygen employ the same set of reactions, the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation.
The "runaway icehouse" effect[3] results in the Huronian glaciation (2500–2100 Ma).[4]

2100 Ma More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes, the closest relatives of whom are probably the archaea. Eukaryotes contain various organelles with diverse functions, probably derived from the co-evolution of symbiotic communities of prokaryotes. The most dramatic examples are mitochondria, which use oxygen to extract energy from organic molecules and appear similar to today's Rickettsia. Many eukaryotes also have chloroplasts, organelles which originated from cyanobacteria and similar organisms, which derive energy from light and synthesize organic molecules.
1200 Ma Sexual reproduction evolves, leading to faster evolution.[5] While most life still exists in oceans and lakes, some cyanobacteria may already live in moist soil by this time.
1000 Ma Multicellular organisms appear: initially colonial algae, and later seaweeds, living in the oceans.[6]
900 Ma
ChoanoflagellateThe choanoflagellates develop. These protists are considered the ancestors of the entire animal kingdom, and specifically the direct ancestors of the sponges: the choanocytes ("collar cells") of sponges (and a few other animal groups, such as flatworms) have the same basic structure as choanoflagellates, and DNA evidence suggests a close relationship between the two.
The modern species proterospongia, consisting of choanoflagellates that live in colonies and exhibit primitive cell specialization for different tasks, is likely very similar to the ancient ancestor species that would have bridged the gap between choanoflagellates and sponges, and thereby between protozoa and all metazoa (multicellular animals).

1000–750 Ma The first known supercontinent, Rodinia, forms, and then breaks apart again.
950–780 Ma Sturtian ice age, a time of multiple near-global glaciations, with periods oscillating between a Snowball Earth and a greenhouse Earth.
900 Ma There are 481 18-hour days in a year. The rotation of the Earth has gradually slowed ever since.
750–580 Ma According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, the Precambrian Varangian ice age is so severe that the Earth's oceans freeze over completely; only in the tropics do oceans remain liquid.
600 Ma
SpongeSponges (Porifera), the earliest multicellular animals, develop from cell colonies. Sponges are the simplest and most primitive animals, having partially-differentiated tissues but no muscles, nerves, internal organs, or capacity for locomotion.
JellyfishFollowing sponges, Cnidaria (jellyfish, etc.), Ctenophora, and other multicellular animals appear in the oceans. Cnidaria and Ctenophora are some of the earliest creatures to have neurons, in the form of a simple net, with no central nervous system. They possess muscular tissue and digestive systems with mouths. Unlike sponges, these animals have structured bodies with organs and radial symmetry.

FlatwormFlatworms (Platyhelminthes), the earliest animals to have a rudimentary brain and the simplest animals with bilateral symmetry, develop. They are also the simplest animals to have organs that form from three germ layers (triploblasty). There are still no organisms with a true circulatory or respiratory system.

The Ozone layer forms, allowing for the first major excursions onto the land. The second supercontinent, Pannotia, forms, then breaks up by 540 Ma.

542–530 Ma
TrilobiteThe Cambrian explosion, a rapid set of evolutionary changes, creates all the major body plans (phyla) of modern animals. The cause of this huge expansion in the variety of life forms is still a matter of scientific debate. Arthropoda, represented by an abundance of trilobites, is the dominant phylum. Anomalocaris is a predator up to 2 meters in length.[7]
The worm-like organisms develop more highly specialized and advanced structures, such as the circulatory system of acorn worms, which features a heart that also functions as a kidney. Acorn worms have a gill-like structure, similar to that of primitive fish, used for breathing. Acorn worms are thus sometimes said to be a link between vertebrates and invertebrates.

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:17 AM

PikaiaPikaia, a small swimmer and the earliest-known animal with a notochord, is believed to be the ancestor of all chordates and vertebrates. The lancelet, a species still alive today, retains some of the features of the primitive chordates, and resembles the Pikaia in many ways. Another early chordate-like fossil is from a conodont, an "eel-shaped animal of 4–20 cm long" with a pair of huge eyes and a complex basket of teeth.

The first known footprints on land date to 530 Ma, indicating that early animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.[8]

505 Ma
AgnathaThe first vertebrates appear: the ostracoderms, jawless fish (Agnatha) such as Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia. They have cartilaginous internal sekeltons, and lack the paired (pectoral and pelvic) fins of more advanced prehistoric fish. They are precusors of the Osteichthyes (bony fish), and are related to present-day lampreys and hagfishes.
488 Ma
PlacodermiThe first of the seven major extinction events over geological time occurs at the Cambrian-Ordovician transition.
Soon after, the first of the jawed fishes, Placodermi, develop. Their jaws evolve from the first of their gill arches.[9] Their head and thorax are covered by articulated armored plates, while the rest of the body is scaled or naked.

475 Ma The first primitive plants move onto land,[10] having evolved from green algae living along the edges of lakes.[11] They are accompanied by fungi, and very likely plants and fungi work symbiotically together; lichens exemplify such a symbiosis.
450 Ma Arthropods, with an exoskeleton that provides support and prevents water loss,[12] are the first animals to move onto land.[13] Among the first are Myriapoda (millipedes and centipedes), later followed by spiders and scorpions.
Over the next ten million years, the two Ordovician-Silurian extinction events occur. Taken together, these constitute the second mass extinction event.

400 Ma The first insects evolve, the wingless silverfish, springtails (no longer considered insects), and bristletails. First sharks appear.[14] First Coelacanth appears; this order of animals had been thought to have no extant members, until living specimens were discovered in 1938. It is often referred to as a living fossil.
375 Ma Tiktaalik is a genus of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fishes from the late Devonian with many tetrapod-like features.
370 Ma Cladoselache, a shark, is a high-speed predator.[15]
365 Ma The Late Devonian extinction is the third mass extinction.
New insect species evolve on land and in fresh water from the myriapods.

PanderichthysSome lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to early four-limbed tetrapods: Ichthyostega, Acanthostega and Pederpes finneyae. Initially aquatic, dwelling in shallow, swampy freshwater habitats, these fishes use their fins as paddles to assist in navigating shallow waters choked with plants and detritus—the likely origin of front limbs bending backward at the elbow and hind limbs bending forward at the knee. Eventually, these tetrapods use their rudimentary legs to move out onto land for brief periods, probably to hunt insects. Lungs and swim bladders evolve.

Primitive tetrapods developed from a fish with a two-lobed brain in a flattened skull, a wide mouth, and a short snout, whose upward-facing eyes show that it was a bottom-dweller, and which had already developed adaptations of fins with fleshy bases and bones. The "living fossil" coelacanth is a related lobe-finned fish without these shallow-water adaptations. Amphibians today still retain many characteristics of the early tetrapods.

360 Ma Plants evolve seeds, structures that protect plant embryos and enable plants to spread quickly on land.
Creation of Woodleigh crater (100 km wide) and Siljan Ring (40 km wide, Dalecarlia, Sweden).

360–286 Ma The golden age of sharks[16].
350-250 Ma Karoo Ice Age, beginning with early Carboniferous and ending with late Permian. Two particular periods in which much of Gondwanaland is glaciated from an early centre in Africa and South America, and a later centre in India and Australia, caused by polar wandering
300 Ma The supercontinent Pangea forms and will last for 120 million years; this is the last time all of the earth's continents fuse into one. Evolution of the amniotic egg gives rise to the Amniota, reptiles, who can reproduce on land. Insects evolve flight, and include a number of different orders (e.g. Palaeodictyoptera, Megasecoptera, Diaphanopterodea, and Protorthoptera) Dragonflies (Odonata) still resemble many of these early insects. Vast forests of clubmosses (lycopods), horsetails, and tree ferns cover the land; when these decay they will eventually form coal and oil. Gymnosperms begin to diversify widely. Cycads, plants resembling palms, first appear.
280 Ma The Protodonatan dragonfly Meganeura monyi is among the biggest insects that ever lived, with a wingspan of about 2 feet. Vertebrates include many Temnospondyl, Anthrachosaur, and Lepospondyl amphibians and early anapsid and synapsid (e.g. Edaphosaurus) reptiles.
256 Ma Diictodon, Cistecephalus, Dicynodon, Lycaenops, Dinogorgon and Procynosuchus, are a few of the many mammal-like reptiles known from South Africa and Russia. Pareiasaurs were large clumsy herbivores. The first Archosauriformes.
250 Ma The Permian-Triassic extinction event wipes out about 90% of all animal species; this fourth extinction event is the most severe mass extinction known.
Lystrosaurus is a common herbivore that survives the extinction event. The archosaurs split from other reptiles. Teleosts evolve from among the Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish), and eventually become the dominant fish group. Atmospheric oxygen, at 10%, is one third of its former level, so animals with air sac breathing systems will do well (present-day bird respiration exemplifies the air sac system). Some spores of bacteria Bacillus strain 2-9-3 (Sali bacillus marismortui) are trapped in salt crystals known as halite in New Mexico. They are re-animated in AD 2000 and have multiplied rapidly. Currently the world oldest living organism. [17]

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:18 AM

220 Ma The climate is very dry, and dry-adapted organisms are favored: the archosaurs and the Gymnosperms. Archosaurs diversify into crocodilians, dinosaurs, and pterosaurs.
From synapsids come the first mammal precursors, therapsids, and more specifically the eucynodonts. Initially, they stay small and shrew-like. All mammals have milk glands for their young, and they keep a constant body temperature. Also, one of a pair of autosomes acquires gene SRY (derived from the SOX3 gene of the X chromosome) to become the Y chromosome, which has been decreasing in length since. Gymnosperms (mostly conifers) are the dominant land plants. Plant eaters will grow to huge sizes during the dominance of the gymnosperms to have space for large guts to digest the poor food offered by gymnosperms.

208-144 Ma Second major spread of sharks[18].
200 Ma Fifth mass extinction event occurs at the Triassic-Jurassic transition.
Marine reptiles include Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs. Ammonites and belemnites flourish. Dinosaurs survive the extinction and grow to large size, but the thecodonts, or "socket-toothed" reptiles, die out. Modern amphibians evolve: the Lissamphibia; including Anura (frogs), Urodela (salamanders), and Caecilia. Geminiviridae, a diverse group of viruses, are traceable to this epoch or earlier[19].

180 Ma The supercontinent Pangea begins to break up into several land masses. The largest is Gondwana, made up of the land masses which are now Antarctica, Australia, South America, Africa, and India. Antarctica is still a land of forests. North America and Eurasia are still joined, forming the Northern supercontinent, Laurasia.
164 Ma The oldest swimming mammal, Castorocauda lutrasimilis, is the immediate predecessor of modern mammals such as the platypus and echidna.
160 Ma 3 metres long, Guanlong wucaii - meaning crested dragon from the five colours, Xinjiang province in northwestern China, is the oldest Tyrannosaur.
150 Ma Giant dinosaurs are common and diverse - Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, along with smaller forms like Ornitholestes and Othneilia. Birds evolve from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is an ancestor of birds, with claws, feathers but no beak.
135 Ma New dinosaurs Iguanodon, Hylaeosaurus, etc. appear after extinction of Jurassic forms. Microraptor gui, a 77 cm long dinosaur in Liaoning, Northeast China, has bird-like feathered wings on 4 limbs.
133 Ma Jeholornis prima, primitive bird in the Jiufotang Formation of north-eastern China eats seeds. The bird has large, strong wings, and also had a long, bony tail, like many dinosaurs.
130 Ma Angiosperm plants evolve flowers, structures that attract insects and other animals to spread pollen. This innovation of the angiosperms causes a major burst of animal evolution and co-evolution.
128 Ma One early tyrannosaur is Dilong paradoxus in Lioning Province of China. Has feathers and a small body of 5 feet (1.5 m) long.
125 Ma Eomaia scansoria, a eutherian mammal, which leads to the formation of modern placental mammals. It looks like a modern dormouse, climbing small shrubs in Liaoning, China. The parrot-beaked Psittacosaurus is the ancestor of the later horned dinosaurs.
123 Ma Sinornithosaurus millenii is a dinosaur in Liaoning, China that has primitive feathers not used for flight. Other dinosaurs with feathers are Sinosauropteryx (most primitive feathers, simplest tubular structures) and Changchanornis. Have common ancestor with Archaeopteryx. Other dinosaurs include Polacanthus (armoured herbivore) and Eotyrannus (early tyrannosaur).
110 Ma Sarcosuchus imperator, eight metric tons, 12 m long, head 2 m long, largest crocodile. Carnivorous dinosaurs included the "raptor" Deinonychus and sail-backed semi-aquatic spinosaurs, herbivores include the tallest known sauropod Sauroposeidon proteles, as well as the bulbous-nosed iguanodont Altirhinus (ancestral to duck-bills) and the armoured Sauropelta.
100 Ma The giant theropod dinosaurs Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus are even bigger than Tyrannosaurus.
88 Ma Breakup of Indo-Malagasy land mass.
80 Ma Many kinds of sauropod, duck billed, horned and meat-eating dinosaurs; half of all known dinosaur species are from the last 30 MY of the Mesozoic, after the rise of the angiosperms. India starts moving to Eurasia.
75 Ma Oviraptor was one of the most bird-like of the non-avian dinosaurs. Last common ancestor of humans and mice [20].
65 Ma The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (sixth extinction event) wipes out about half of all animal species including all non-avian dinosaurs, probably because of a cooling of the climate precipitated by the giant impact of an asteroid: iridium powder from the asteroid forms a layer that covers the whole Earth. Creation of the Chicxulub Crater (170 km across, now half-submerged off the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico).
Without the presence of the giant and diurnal dinosaurs, mammals can increase in diversity and size. Some will later return back to the sea (whales, sirenians, seals) and others will evolve flight (bats). A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Archonta branches into what will be the primates, treeshrews, and bats. Primates have binocular vision and grasping digits, features that help them to jump from one tree branch to another. One example of a proto-primate is Plesiadapis which is extinct by 45 million years ago.

60 Ma Creodont, meat eater, northern hemisphere, extinct by 5.2 million years ago, possible ancestor of Miacids.
55 Ma Australia breaks away from Antarctica. Proto-primates first appear in North America, Asia, and Europe. One example is Carpolestes simpsoni at Clarks Fork Basin of Wyoming. It has grasping digits but no forward facing eyes. Another (earliest?) euprimate Teilhardina asiatica (Hunan, China) is mouse-sized, diurnal, and has small eyes. Mako Sharks are the probable ancestor of the Great White Shark [21].
50 Ma The evolution of the horse starts with Hyracotherium: the size of a fox with large nails instead of hoofs. Ancestor of whales (which include dolphins), Ambulocetus natans (Pakistan) probably walks on land like the modern sea lion and swims like modern otters. It has webbed feet that give it added power when swimming, and still hears directly from its ears. Pezosiren portelli, ancestor of modern manatees, walks like a hippo and swims like an otter. Miacids include Miacis, a five-clawed ancestor of all dogs, cats, bears, raccoon, fox, hyena, jackal, civet; it is a meat-eating, weasel-like tree climber.
48.5 Ma Gastornis geiselensis (Europe, USA), 1.75 m tall carnivorous bird, is a top predator
46.5 Ma Rodhocetus, ancestor of whale, successor to Ambulocetus, no longer needs to drink fresh water.
43 Ma Earliest elephant, Moeritherium (Egypt): 1m tall, size of a large pig, eats soft, juicy plants. It has a long nose, but no trunk nor tusks.
40 Ma Primates (order) diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (lemurs and lorises) and Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes); the latter is diurnal and herbivorous.
37 Ma Basilosaurus, up to 20 m long, snakelike ancestor of whales, has reduced but well-developed hind limbs. Hears from sounds transmitted to middle ears through vibrations from lower jaws. In Egypt's 'Whale Valley', what would later be the Wadi Hitan desert is underwater, teeming with Basilosaurus isis which had no blowhole but had to raise its head above water to breathe. Early ancestors of strepsirrhines primate appear in the Egyptian desert, Biretia fayumensis and Biretia megalopsis.[22].
35 Ma Grasses evolve from among the angiosperms.
30 Ma Haplorrhini (suborder) splits into infraorders Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World primates). New World monkeys have prehensile tails and migrate to South America. Catarrhines stay in Africa as the two continents drift apart. One ancestor of catarrhines might be Aegyptopithecus. New World monkey males are color blind. Haplorrhines: Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum, similar to today's lemurs, live in rainforests on Bugti Hills of central Pakistan. Ancestor of all cats, 9 kg Proailurus, lives in trees in Europe, goes extinct 20 million years ago.
27.5 Ma Indricothere, rhino relative, 4.5 m tall, tallest mammal on land, lives in Mongolia.
27 Ma Phorusrhacos longissimus (Terror Bird) 2.5 m tall in the Americas. Extinct by 15,000 years ago.
25 Ma Catarrhini males gain color vision but lose the pheromone pathway [23]. Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). The Old World primates do not have prehensile tails (e.g. Baboon); some do not have tails at all. All hominoids are without tails.
22 Ma India collides with Asia, causing the rise of Himalaya and the Tibetan plateau. Cut off from the humidity, Central Asia becomes a desert. Appearance of deinotherium, ancient elephant, extinct by 2 million years ago. Evolving from an animal that looks part dog, part bear and part raccoon, the dawn bear (Ursavus elmensis) is the ancestor of all bears living today. It is the size of a fox, hunts in the tree tops, and supplements a diet of meat with plant material and insects. The first group, the Ailuropodinae, follows a plant-based diet, branches off, and only one member, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), survives today.
21 Ma A mongoose-like creature floats to Madagascar from Africa on a raft of vegetation. It becomes the ancestor of all carnivorous mammals there.

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:32 AM

20 Ma The African plate collides with Asia. Cynodictis, ancestor of dogs, has a shortened fifth claw which foreshadows the dewclaw (vestigial) of modern dogs. They look like the modern day civet and have feet and toes suited for running. The two superfamilies of carnivores (canines and felines) are distinct by this time. Gomphotherium, ancient elephant.
19 Ma Megatherium americanum (giant sloth 6m long). Extinct 8000 years ago.
16 Ma Squalodon shows early echolocation of whales. Megalodon is a gigantic shark the size of a bus [24]; it has a long reign and disappears suddenly about 1.6 Ma.
15 Ma Apes from Africa migrate to Eurasia to become gibbons (lesser apes) and orangutans. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gibbon. Orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees are great apes. Humans are hominins.
13 Ma Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the orangutan. A relative of orangutans: Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis (Northern Thailand). Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, Spain, possibly common ancestor of great apes and humans.
10 Ma The climate begins to dry; savannas and grasslands take over the forests. Monkeys proliferate, and the apes go into decline. Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gorillas. This is the heyday of the horses as they spread throughout the Northern hemisphere. After 10 Ma they decline in the face of competition from the artiodactyls. Tomarctus, ancestor of dogs, is an extremely dog like animal.
7 Ma Biggest primate Gigantopithecus is 2 m tall and lives in China (Gigantopithecus blacki), Vietnam, and northern India (Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis). Extinct by 300,000 years ago.
5.6 Ma Drying up of the Mediterranean Sea (the Messinian Event).
5 Ma Volcanoes erupt and create the small area of land that joins North and South America. Mammals from North America move South and cause extinction of mammals there.
Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The latest common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Chad, Sahara, west of Rift Valley). The earliest in the human branch is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya). Chimpanzees and humans share 98% of DNA: biochemical similarities are so great that their hemoglobin molecules differ by only one amino acid. One group of chimps can have more genetic diversity than all of the six billion humans alive today, due to later population bottlenecking on the human lineage. Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precursor of speech.

4.8 Ma Chimpanzee size hominim genus, Ardipithecus walks upright
3.7 Ma Some Australopithecus afarensis leave footprints on volcanic ash in Laetoli, Kenya (Northern Tanzania).
3.5 Ma Orangutans diverge into Bornean (Pongo pygmaeus) and Sumatran (Pongo abelii) sub-species. Great white sharks appear.
3 Ma The bipedal australopithecines (early hominins) evolve in the savannas of Africa being hunted by Dinofelis. Species include Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus bosei. Other genera include Kenyanthropus platyops.
Gorillas die out on the South bank of the Congo River. North and South America become joined, allowing migration of animals. Modern horses, Equus first appear. Deinotherium (4 m tall), is a gigantic cousin of the elephant, with downward pointing tusks in the lower jaw.

2.5 Ma Smilodon (Saber-toothed cat) appears.
2.2 Ma Gorillas diverge into the Western lowland (Gorilla gorilla) and Eastern (Gorilla beringei) sub-species.
2 Ma Homo habilis (handy man) uses primitive stone tools (choppers) in Tanzania. Probably lives with Paranthropus robustus. Emergence of Broca's area (speech region of modern human brain). Homo species are meat-eating while Paranthropus eats plants and termites. Some chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at the Southern part of the Congo River branch off to form the Bonobos (Pan paniscus/pigmy chimps). Bonobos live in female dominated society. Saber Tooth moves from North America to South America.
1.8 Ma Homo erectus evolves in Africa and migrates to other continents, primarily South Asia.
1.75 Ma Dmanisi man/Homo georgicus (Georgia, Russia), tiny brain came from Africa, with Homo erectus and Homo habilis characteristics. An individual spent the last years of his life with only one tooth by depending on the kindness and compassion of others to obtain sufficient sustenance.
The glyptodon, a giant armadillo the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, lives in southern Peru.

1.6 Ma Biggest marsupials: Appearance of Giant Short-faced Kangaroo (Procoptodon goliah) in Australia, extinct by 40,000 years ago. At 2 m to 3 m tall and weighing 200 kg to 300 kg, it is the largest kangaroo ever known. Wombat-like Diprotodon optatum, 2,800 kg, 3 m long, Australia, extinct by 45,000 years ago.
1.5 Ma Marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex or Leo) appears in Australia and goes extinct by 46,000 years ago.
1 Ma Genus Canis (coyotes, jackals, wolves, dingoes, domestic dogs) develops as a branch from Tomarctus. The gray fox, Urocyon cinereogenteus is the most primitive canid still alive today.

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:33 AM

800 ka Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) moves to Arctic North America.
780 ka The Earth's last (most recent) geomagnetic reversal.
700 ka Common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthals.
500 ka Homo erectus (Choukoutien, China) uses charcoal to control fire, though they may not know how to create or start it.
400 ka Eastern gorillas (Gorilla beringei) diverge into the eastern lowland (G. beringei graueri) and mountain (G. beringei beringei) sub-species. Giant deer Megaloceros giganteus, Ireland; the antlers together span about 3.6 m or larger, extinct by 9.5 ka.
355 ka Three 1.5 m tall Homo heidelbergensis scramble down Roccamonfina volcano in Southern Italy, leaving the earliest known Homo footprints, which were made before the powdery volcanic ash solidified.
250 ka The Polar Bear evolves from an isolated high latitude population of Brown Bears.
195 ka Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest known Homo sapiens.
160 ka Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practise mortuary rituals and butcher hippos. Their dead bodies are later covered by volcanic rocks.
150 ka Mitochondrial Eve lives in Africa. She is the last female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today.
130 ka Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) evolves from Homo heidelbergensis and lives in Europe and the Middle East, buries the dead and cares for the sick. Has hyoid bone (60,000 yrs ago, Kebara cave, Israel), used for speech in modern humans. (Today humans use roughly 6000 spoken languages). Uses spear, probably for stabbing rather than throwing. FOXP2 gene appears (associated with the development of speech).
100 ka The first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa by this time or earlier; they derive from Homo heidelbergensis. Homo sapiens (humans) live in South Africa (Klasies River Mouth) and Palestine(Qafzeh and Skhul), probably alongside Neanderthals. Modern humans enter Asia via two routes: one North through the Middle East, and another further South from Ethiopia, via the Red Sea and southern Arabia. (See: Single-origin hypothesis). Mutation causes skin color changes in order to absorb optimal UV light for different geographical latitudes. Modern "race" formation begins. African populations remain more 'diverse' in their genetic makeup than all other humans, since only a subset of their population (and therefore only a subset of their diversity) leaves Africa. For example, mtDNA shows that an individual with English ancestors is more similar genetically to an individual with Japanese ancestors than are two individuals drawn from two African populations.
82.5 ka Humans in Zaire fish using sharp blades spears made from animal bones.
80 ka Humans make bone harpoons in Katanda, Democratic Republic of Congo.
74 ka Supervolcanoic eruption in Toba, Sumatra, Indonesia, causes Homo sapiens population to crash to 2,000. Six years without a summer are followed by a 1,000 year ice-age. Volcanic ash up to 5 m deep covers India and Pakistan.
70 ka The most recent ice age, the Wisconsin glaciation, begins.
Humans in the Blombos cave in South Africa make tools from bones, show symbolic thinking by creating ochre paintings. They also collect and pierce holes through sea shells to make necklaces. Giant beavers (Castoroides ohioensis, Toronto, Canada) largest rodents, length up to 2.5 m, dies out 10,000 years ago.

60 ka Y-chromosomal Adam lives in Africa. He is the last male human from whom all current human Y chromosomes are descended.
50 ka Modern humans expand from Asia to Australia (to become today's Indigenous Australians) and Europe. Expansion along the coasts happens faster than expansion inland. Woolly rhino (Coelodonta antiquus) in Britain.
40 ka Cro-Magnon Humans paint and hunt mammoths in France. They have extraordinary cognitive powers equivalent to modern humans, which enable them to become predators/hunters at the top of the food chain. Extinction of gigantic marsupials in Australia, probably due to humans, results in the lack of domesticated animals, partially leading to the relatively primitive lifestyle of the humans there, later, when compared to the rest of the world.
32 ka First sculpture found in Vogelherd, Germany. First (bird bone) flute found in France. Stone tools in Kota Tampan, Malaysia.
30 ka Modern humans enter North America from Siberia in numerous waves, some later waves across the Bering land bridge, but early waves probably by island-hopping across the Aleutians. At least two of the first waves left few or no genetic descendants among Americans by the time Europeans arrive across the Atlantic Ocean. Humans reach Solomons. Humans move into Japan. Bow and arrows used in Sahara (grassland). Fired ceramic animal models made in Moravia (Czech Republic).
28 ka Oldest known painting: in the Apollo 11 Rock Shelter[25]. Namibia, Africa. A 20 cm-long, 3 cm-wide object found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura in Germany is the earliest sculpted stone penis[26].
27 ka Neanderthals die out leaving Homo sapiens and Homo floresiensis as the only living species of the genus Homo. Czech invented textile and pressed weaving patterns into pieces of clay before firing them.
25 ka Throwing sticks for hunting animals made from mammoth tusk (Poland).
23 ka Venus of Willendorf, a small statuette of a female figure, discovered at a paleolithic site near Willendorf, Austria, dates from this era.
20 ka Humans leave foot and hand prints in Tibetan plateau. Oil lamps made from animal fats on shells used in caves in Grotte de la Mouthe, France. Bone needles used to sew animal hides. (Shandingdong Man, China). Microblade culture (Northern China). Mammoth bones used to build houses (Russia).
18 ka Homo floresiensis existed in the Liang Bua limestone cave on Flores, remote Indonesian island.
15 ka The last Ice Age ends. Sea levels across the globe rise, flooding many coastal areas, and separating former mainland areas into islands. Japan separates from Asia mainland. Siberia separates from Alaska. Tasmania separates from Australia. Java island forms. Sarawak, Malaysia and Indonesia separate. The cave paintings of Lascaux and Altamira were produced. Sedentary hunter-gather societies develop in the Natufian culture of the Near East - an essential precursor to later agricultural societies.
14 ka Megafauna extinction starts (continuing to current day), where over 100 large mammal species disappear possibly caused by the expanding human population.
11.5 ka Extinction of the Sabertooth (Smilodon).
11 ka Human population reaches 5 million. Extinction of Homo floresiensis.
Extinction of woolly mammoth. Domestication of dogs (first domesticated animal) from Gray Wolf subspecies (Canis lupus pallipes). All modern dogs today (5 main groups, about 400 breeds) belong to a single subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.

10 ka Humans in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East develop agriculture. Plant domestication begins with cultivation of Neolithic founder crops. This process of food production, coupled later with the domestication of animals caused a massive increase in human population that has continued to the present. Jericho (modern Israel) settlement with about 19,000 people.
10 ka Sahara is green with rivers, lakes, cattles, crocodiles and monsoons. Japan's hunter-gatherer Jomon culture creates world's earliest pottery. Humans reach Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, the last continental region to be inhabited by humans (excluding Antarctica).
8 ka Common (Bread) wheat Triticum aestivum originates in southwest Asia due to hybridisation of emmer wheat with a goat-grass, Aegilops tauschii.
6.5 ka Two rice species are domesticated: Asian rice Oryza sativa and African rice Oryza glaberrima.
3 ka Humans start using iron tools.
AD 1 Human population 150 million.
AD 1835 Human population 1 billion.
AD 1969 Humans walk on the moon.
AD 2006 Human population approaching 6.5 billion[27].
Holocene extinction event continues with the observed rate of extinction rising dramatically in the last 50 years. Most biologists believe [28] that we are at this moment at the beginning of a tremendously accelerated anthropogenic mass extinction. E.O. Wilson of Harvard, in The Future of Life (2002), estimates that at current rates of human destruction of the biosphere, one-half of all species of life will be extinct in 100 years.

[edit]
See also
Extinction events
Fossils and the geological timescale
Geologic time scale
List of archaeological periods
List of prehistoric mammals
Prehistoric life
Period (geology) - a list of geological periods
Timeline of human evolution
History of Earth
[edit]
References
^ "However, once the Earth cooled sufficiently, sometime in the first 700 million years of its existence, clouds began to form in the atmosphere, and the Earth entered a new phase of development." How the Oceans Formed (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:34 AM

^ " Between about 3.8 billion and 4.5 billion years ago, no place in the solar system was safe from the huge arsenal of asteroids and comets left over from the formation of the planets. Sleep and Zahnle calculate that Earth was probably hit repeatedly by objects up to 500 kilometers across" Geophysicist Sleep: Martian underground may have harbored early life (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ Walker, Gabrielle, (2003) "Snowball Earth: The Story of the Great Global Catastrophe that Spawned Life as we know it" Bloomsbury ISBN 0747654337
^ John, Brian (Ed)(1979) "The Winters of the World: Earth under the Ice Ages" Jacaranda Press ISBN 047026844-1
^ "'Experiments with sex have been very hard to conduct,' Goddard said. 'In an experiment, one needs to hold all else constant, apart from the aspect of interest. This means that no higher organisms can be used, since they have to have sex to reproduce and therefore provide no asexual control.'
Goddard and colleagues instead turned to a single-celled organism, yeast, to test the idea that sex allows populations to adapt to new conditions more rapidly than asexual populations." Sex Speeds Up Evolution, Study Finds (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ " What, then, was the selective advantage that led to the evolution of multicellular organisms?" From Single Cells to Multicellular Organisms (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ "The evolutionary foundation for the organization of many animal body plans is segmental—we are made of rings of similar stuff, repeated over and over again along our body length" Pycnogonid tagmosis and echoes of the Cambrian
"Pycnogonids are primitive chelicerates related to ticks and mites, and they make their living as predators and scavengers. This one, Haliestes dasos, is the oldest sea spider known." Haliestes dasos, a sea spider
"If you were a trilobite or other small Cambrian animal, you did NOT want to see this coming" The Anomalocaris Homepage (animation)
^ "The oldest fossils of footprints ever found on land hint that animals may have beaten plants out of the primordial seas. Lobster-sized, centipede-like animals made the prints wading out of the ocean and scuttling over sand dunes about 530 million years ago. Previous fossils indicated that animals didn't take this step until 40 million years later." Oldest fossil footprints on land

^ 1
^ "The oldest fossils reveal evolution of non-vascular plants by the middle to late Ordovician Period (~450-440 m.y.a.) on the basis of fossil spores" Transition of plants to land
^ "The land plants evolved from the algae, more specifically green algae, as suggested by certain common biochemical traits" The first land plants
^ "The waxy cuticle of arachnids and insects prevents water loss and protects against desiccation" Natural history collection: arthropoda
^ "For hundreds of millions of years, animal life resided only in the oceans. And then about 400 million years ago, fossil tracks suggest that an animal called a eurypterid left the water to walk on land. Maybe it was fleeing enemies, maybe it was searching for an easy meal, or maybe it was seeking a safe place to lay its eggs." The shape of life. The conquerors. PBS
^ "The ancestry of sharks dates back more than 200 million years before the earliest known dinosaur. Introduction to shark evolution, geologic time and age determination
^ "Cladoselache was something of an oddball among ancient sharks. A four-foot (1.2-metre) long inhabitant of late Devonian seas (about 370 million years ago), it exhibited a strange combination of ancestral and derived characteristics. Ancient sharks
^ "Sharks have undergone a lot of evolutionary experimentation since their earliest beginnings. Over hundreds of millions of years, sharks were tested by a mercurial and often violently changeable environment." A Golden Age of Sharks
^ “Here we report the isolation and growth of a previously unrecognized spore-forming bacterium (Bacillus species, designated 2-9-3) from a brine inclusion within a 250 million-year-old salt crystal from the Permian Salado Formation. Complete gene sequences of the 16S ribosomal DNA show that the organism is part of the lineage of Bacillus marismortui and Virgibacillus pantothenticus.” Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal (URL accessed on April 30, 2006)
^ "The second major radiation of sharks occurred during the Jurassic Period, 208 to 144 million years ago. At this time, pterosaurs ruled the skies and the first birds were taking to the air." The Origin of Modern Sharks (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ "Viruses of nearly all the major classes of organisms—animals, plants, fungi and bacteria/archaea—probably evolved with their hosts in the seas, given that most of the evolution of life on this planet has occurred there. This means that viruses also probably emerged from the waters with their different hosts, during the successive waves of colonisation of the terrestrial environment." Origins of Viruses (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ "A comparison of the two genomes reveals that both have about 30,000 genes, and they share the bulk of them—the human genome shares 99% of its genes with mice. Humans and mice diverged about 75 million years ago, too little time for many evolutionary differences to accumulate." Comparing genomes
" Their conclusion: although the mouse and human genomes are very similar, genome rearrangements occurred more commonly than previously believed, accounting for the evolutionary distance between human and mouse from a common ancestor 75 million years ago." The Hindu
"Mice have many more olfactory genes compared to the human. Smell matters for mice, especially for sex and mating; they also have more genes involved in reproduction (such as aphrodisin, which stimulates mating behaviour in males) and immunity" San Francisco Chronicle
^ "I also wish to completely dispel the myth that the modern Great White evolved from the megalodon shark. Is the proper way to do this to write this paper, publish it in a scientific journal, and subject it to peer review—yes? Is that what I am doing—no.......because I think there is no way to "win" with the opinions on this one as set in stone as they seem to be (on both sides)" Origin of the Modern Great White Shark (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
"'Most scientists would probably say the Great Whites evolved from the megalodon line, which existed from two million to twenty million years ago. They were huge sharks, approximately the length of a Greyhound bus and possessing teeth that were up to six inches [150 mm] long,' explains Ciampaglio. 'However, our research, which is based on analyzing fossils of several hundred shark teeth, shows that the Great White shares more similarities with the mako shark.'"Great White Shark Evolution Debate (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
".. most paleontologists agree [.. ] that Megalodon is not a direct ancestor of the modern White Shark, more like a great uncle or aunt." The Origin of Megalodon (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 06:35 AM

^ "Researchers have discovered fossilized remains of two previously unknown primate species that lived 37 million years ago in what is now the Egyptian desert." "The discovery, researchers say, is evidence that the common ancestor of living anthropoids arose in Africa and that anthropoids have been evolving on the now separated Africa-Arabia landmass for at least 45 million years." New Primate Fossils Support "Out of Africa" Theory (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ " Once humans could see in color the visual inspection of a potential mate yielded far more useful information and at a greater distance than was the case with scents. As a result of natural selection color-seeing primates came to have neuronal wiring that caused them to place much more importance on appearance in mate choice. In Zhang's view it is therefore not coincidental that around the time human males developed the ability to see color humans also lost the ability to respond to pheromones" Evolution Of Color Eyesight Led To Loss Of Pheromone Response (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ ""'At a length of 50 feet (15 metres) and a mass of over 52 tons (47 tonnes), it would take more than a mere morsel to satisfy the megalodon.'"" The Origin of Megalodon (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ "These stones were found in association with charcoal which has been dated to between 19,000 and 26,000 years old (Wendt 1974, 1976). Border Cave in Kwazulu has yielded engraved bone and wood dated between 35,000 and 37,500 years old (Butzer et al 1979); and a 20,000 year old incised stone was found at Matupi Cave, Zaire (Van Noten 1977)." Introduction to upper palaeolithic art (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ "The 20 cm-long, 3 cm-wide stone object, which is dated to be about 28,000 years old, was buried in the famous Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm in the Swabian Jura. " Ancient phallus unearthed in cave (URL accessed on January 9, 2005)
^ An United States Census Bureau estimate of the number of people alive on Earth at any given moment. United States census bureau
^ The American Museum of Natural History National Survey Reveals Biodiversity Crisis (URL accessed on February 23, 2006)
[edit]
External links
Berkeley Evolution
Tolweb - Tree of Life
A more compact timeline
Palaeos - The Trace of Life on Earth
University of Waikato - Sequence of Plant Evolution
University of Waikato - Sequence of Animal Evolution
editBasic topics in evolutionary biology
Processes of evolution: adaptation - evidence - macroevolution - microevolution - speciation
Mechanisms: selection - genetic drift - gene flow - mutation
Modes: anagenesis - catagenesis - cladogenesis
History: History of evolutionary thought - Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species - modern evolutionary synthesis
Subfields: population genetics - ecological genetics - human evolution - molecular evolution - phylogenetics - systematics - evo-devo
List of evolutionary biology topics | Timeline of evolution | Timeline of human evolution

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 09:10 AM

"I imagine God delving on how he is going to design something before embarking on the task and then using the power and wisdom available to him to accomplish that task."
You see that's where your argument hits a snag. You talk about the actions of a being that you can't even prove exists. Your entire thrust hinges on a creator or designer that seems to be "the little man who wasn't there".
Do I call that into question? Hell yes I do! I say he doesn't exist and you claim he not only exists but he said "poof", waved a wand or just plain thought the world and mankind into being. And there. By golly, is another snag.
Since you brag about how educated you are perhaps the addage; " the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim" might ring a bell.
Hello! We're still waiting for that proof.
This is the proof that you supplied. "Who is he? He is the creator. What is his name. "I am that I am" "I yam what I yam" that's your proof? I'm not even sure that Popeye didn't say it first just after he downed a can of spinach. Some proof!! Let me make a statement. "You can not show proof that creation, a creator or a designer either happened or exists."
Now if you can do away with the insults and put downs long enough to rebut that statement with PROOF that it's incorrect I'm waiting to hear it. In the meantime go back and read the "Time Line of Evolution" again, Or is that all lies also?

talaniman

Jun 24, 2006, 10:47 AM

speedball1

Jun 24, 2006, 11:31 AM

Some choice- Quote scripture you believe is true Or quote some scientific evidence that you believe to be true! I guess they're can be no happy medium. Where humans will always go WRONG is to presume they know what the creator is thinking and how he works. The funny part about this is that we can get so righteously angry at any that dispute our point of view.

Tally,

" Quote scripture you believe is true Or quote some scientific evidence that you believe to be true!"

There's a big difference here. One believes or has faith that scripture is true but when one's confronted by scientific evidence he has the "evidence" to prove a fact. ** Evidence** The data on which judgement can be based or proof established.
Starman claims that evolution never happened. I challenged that and then asked him for evidence/proof to back up his claim that evolution never occurred and Creation most certainly did and it was orchestrated by a Creator/Intelligent Designer. Instead of proof of his claim I get attacks on myself and evoluation. If he doesn't have the answer or if there is. Indeed, no answer to be found just let him say so and end this debate

talaniman

Jun 24, 2006, 05:11 PM

I believe that the Creator used evolution to develop the life he put on earth, and whether it was a pool of goop or a real person named Adam, his hand was surely behind the whole thing. Now the way man(ancient man) viewed and interpreted these things he saw or believed is another matter all together as in many cases his limited knowledge didn't always allow him to grasp the truth and I've always thought that his use of the fact was not to enlighten but to control the masses for presumably the sake of his survival. I think every bible written by man has the same goals in mind to control the masses and organize the power so it stays in certain hands and justifies the actions of the ruling class over the worker class. I also think this same thinking goes on to this day. So take man out of the equation we see a lot of isolated tribes of humans trying to eek out an existence the best way they can and they have come a long way in the 1000 years so those tribal rules seem so inadequate to form the basis for mans new-found knowledge. One of my problems with the bible for instance is the literal interpretation put on it by some and the way that over the years it was a man or men who decided who and what the bible talks about. Being a spiritual person I sort of reject religion as being man-made and subject to mans flaws but I also can see the wisdom in the jist of all the good books as a general way for society to behave toward one another. Until I find out different I can say that the God that I understand is the Creator of everything and the only evidence I can submit is to just look around and behold HIS works!:cool:

Starman

Jun 24, 2006, 07:27 PM

Tally,

" Quote scripture you believe is true Or quote some scientific evidence that you believe to be true!"

There's a big difference here. One believes or has faith that scripture is true but when one's confronted by scientific evidence he has the "evidence" to prove a fact. ** Evidence** The data on which judgement can be based or proof established.
Starman claims that evolution never happened. I challenged that and then asked him for evidence/proof to back up his claim that evolution never occurred and Creation most certainly did and it was orchestrated by a Creator/Intelligent Designer. Instead of proof of his claim I get attacks on myself and evoluation. If he doesn't have the answer or if there is. indeed, no answer to be found just let him say so and end this debate

No need to end the debate on my account, just keep posting in response to those who wish to continue discussing it with you.

"I imagine God delving on how he is going to design something before embarking on the task and then using the power and wisdom available to him to accomplish that task."
You see that's where your argument hits a snag. You talk about the actions of a being that you can't even prove exists. Your entire thrust hinges on a creator or designer that seems to be "the little man who wasn't there".
Do I call that into question? Hell yes I do! I say he doesn't exist and you claim he not only exists but he said "poof", waved a wand or just plain thought the world and mankind into being. And there. by golly, is another snag.
Since you brag about how educated you are perhaps the addage; " the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim" might ring a bell.
Hello!! We're still waiting for that proof.
This is the proof that you supplied. "Who is he? He is the creator. What is his name. "I am that I am" "I yam wot I yam" that's your proof? I'm not even sure that Popeye didn't say it first just after he downed a can of spinach. Some proof!! Let me make a statement. "You can not show proof that creation, a creator or a designer either happened or exists."
Now if you can do away with the insults and put downs long enough to rebut that statement with PROOF that it's incorrect I'm waiting to hear it. In the meantime go back and read the "Time Line of Evolution" again, Or is that all lies also?

To me this is not a life or death issue.
I think you need someone who will show as much dedication as you do to the subject and who is willing to engage in the type of give and take you seem to require.

Starman,
You missed my point. But its getting off topic. My daughter is being taught how to teach. What she is being taught is to teach free thinking. Letting studenjts learn by discovery and experience. Now just depositing knmowledge into their heads.

I didn't say that there were not teachers out there who might be learning how to teach others how to think. All I said was that it isn't and hasn't been part of the children's curriculum in public schools in the USA. I had three kids of various ages in school and none of them were taught how to reason. During that time I also made comparisons of my children's curriculum with other curriculums ion other schools. In fact, there was a yearly comparison provided for parents in order for us to compare how our kids stacked up with others in the USA. In none of those curriculums was their and mention of a course in logic, ethics, or how to reason.

Sure, learning via experience has always been valued and there are courses which apply this now and then. But much more is needed. A full focus on ethics, and logic is needed. A class devoted for each in order for the student to be thoroughly versed in these when he becomes of age to marry have a family and job and enter the full responsibility of being a citizen. This concentrated effort on these two essential subjects which Plato saw as very important for proper citizen development is not present in our educational system. Which leads of course to irrationalities being put forth as reasons for behavior and the irrational behavior lowering the quality of life not only for the students themselves but for those who must have them as neighbors, fellow workers, wives husbands sons daughters fathers mothers and so on. It also makes for a bad democracy since it makes citizenry susceptible to inane political arguments. Maybe that's the reason why people are kept unable to reason properly by those in power.

BTW

The effects of this are really disconcerting. Things claimed as facts are accepted simply because they are taught by the highly educated. Relevant counterarguments are summarily ignored as not counting or are viewed as personal attacks. Fallacious reasonings go unrecognized and are practiced as if they were a virtue. When brought to light, anger flares up followed by a barrage of sarcasms. In short, if they can't out reason you they will out insult you but they will have satisfaction. The frustratingly sad thing about it is that one knows that the people doing this really mean no harm and are just doing the best they can with what they were equipped and are really not to blame.

These are symptoms of a deficiency in our educational system. Perhaps it will change or is in the process of changing now and your daughter will be part of that change for the better.

Excerpt

Faith-Based Evolution
By Roy Spencer :

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.
In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKQDGJ5EYn0AaGdrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=125r5kab5/EXP=1151297923/**http%3a//www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx%3fid=080805I

If you are a producer or reporter who is interested in receiving more information about this article or the author, please email your request to [email protected]

I agree with scott and the psi42, ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts, and any kind of science has studies that have been done to prove it or at least create theories. And psi is totally right when saying if it doesn't use the scientific method then it isn't science, so all in all, is ID a science no, could it be taught sure, would it be interesting, who knows?

I thought that observation and conclusions based on what is observed was part of the scientific method, as scientists observe an arrowhead and conclude it is the product of intelligent design because it's form has a purpose which indicates forethought and planning.

EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS FAITH
Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.. . certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. . Exactly the same sort of faith which it... Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is not fact to...
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc04.htm

Scientists Speak Out About Evolution
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

I agree with scott and the psi42, ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts, and any kind of science has studies that have been done to prove it or at least create theories. And psi is totally right when saying if it doesn't use the scientific method then it isn't science, so all in all, is ID a science no, could it be taught sure, would it be interesting, who knows?

I thought that observation and conclusions based on what is observed was part of the scientific method, as scientists observe an arrowhead and conclude it is the product of intelligent design because it's form has a purpose which indicates forethought and planning.

(Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

speedball1

Jun 25, 2006, 05:17 AM

Starman,
First, I wish to thank you for your courteous response. In return for that kindness let me share a little bit of my life with you.

I retired as a plumbing construction foreman in 1988. I used to drive by the Sarasota Women's Health Clinic and see 50 to 75 protesters with signs and gross pictures ganging up on a single female as she attempted to enter the clinic compound.
One day I stopped and listened to what they were shouting at the girls. "Whore! slut! murderer! were just a few of the nasty things that were heaped on them as they walked in. They were throwing tiny plastic dolls dipped in red fingernail polish in open car windows as they drove into the parking lot.
When I volunteered as a escort the next day I had no idea it would last for thirteen years and that I would end up working with our local police and be responsible for sending a lot of the protesters to jail. In 1993 when the "lifers" begain killing doctors and escorts, the clinic put me on staff as head of security and chief escort.
In my job I have gone head to head with most of the heavy hitters in abortion protesting. Randel Terry of Operation Rescue, Flip Benham of Rescue America, Joe Scheidler of The Pro-Life Action League, Tom and Linda McGlade of Missionaries for Life to name a few. All used guilt as a club and religion as a threat. I'll not go into the insults, the threats, the stalking of both are patients and staff members, except to say the threats, intimidation, guilt and physical violence were just some of the weapons used against clinic staff and patients.
In my job I have been attacked three times, shot at twice, went through four bomb scares and had two anthrax letters come to our office, one of which we opened and got white powder on myself and the office manager. The letter inside the envelope condemed abortion and informed us we had just been exposed to anthrax and were going to die. It took three days for Hazmat to analyze the substance and report it was harmless. Have you any idea the terror involved in not knowing if you would live or die?
In my capacity as head of security, I have sent many protesters to jail and spent a lot of free time in court testifying against them. Some for violent action but most for harassment and trespass after warning. I kept at my job because I believe in women's rights. For far too long they were second class citizens, not being able to vote, own property or have control over their own bodies.
Women have fought too long and hard, have suffered too many hardships attaining these rights to have even one of them taken from them.
I'm retired again. I've run my race and looking back on it, remembering the hundreds of frightened girls I've escorted past screaming whackos, I can feel proud that in my small way I have helped keep women's rights where they belong. With women, and not with some middle-aged white man shouting threats and insults outside a clinic. .

If I seem passionate about the subject it's because for years I was the object of attack by fundamentalist Christians. So I apologize for any hurt feelings that may have resulted from our interchange. You have posted articles copied from the religious web site, Abounding Joy. I could retaliate by pasting up excerpts from secular web sites but I blew my wad when I put up the Time Line of Evolution.
By now you must realize it's useless for this debate to continue. I'm not going to change your view and you certainly aren't going to change mine. I haven't had so much fun since I left the abortion and religious chatt rooms. It's been a blast debating with you but now I remember why I left the chatt rooms in the first place. Nobody won any converts, debates went on for weeks with no resolve and the "nonproductivity" became overpowering. I believe "spinning your wheels" is the term I'm searching for and I'm beginning to get the same feeling here. Tell me the truth! Have I convinced you to have a change of heart? No? Then this entire debate has been a lesson in futility hasn't it Starman? Just as all the countless debates on the subject that I've been a participant in. I can see no reason to continue a debate where no one wins and emotions get frayed. While it was fun for a while I'm getting the impression that we're "beating a dead horse" by continuing.
You have a great week end. Tom

valinors_sorrow

Jun 25, 2006, 05:57 AM

It becomes clearer now why debates always have a moderator managing a beginning, middle and end and polls are limited to certain definable demographics... since given enough time or ground one can always make the numbers work for their side.

talaniman

Jun 25, 2006, 06:01 AM

And they can write forever too!

ScottGem

Jun 25, 2006, 07:52 AM

talaniman

Jun 25, 2006, 08:17 AM

My only point was it is all subject to the limit of our intelligence as ancient man knew nothing of gravity or the sun being the center of the solar system but he did his best with what he had and even though we have more info at our disposal we still cannot connect all the dot For example it is a scientific fact that we share 98% the same DNA with the apes so many have said we have evolved from primates and have been looking for the missing link for ages but have not found it. So the conclusion while it has a strong argument is not a fact but a belief based on given facts pending MORE evidence. As we wait for more evidence or discover more of Gods design we can only be human and speculate, facts notwithstanding.:cool: :)

Not trying to convince anyone of anything just expressing myself and staying busy till the grandkids get here and the world as I know it changes-Now that's a fact!

speedball1

Jun 25, 2006, 10:04 AM

Good post Scotty!

Starman

Jun 25, 2006, 10:53 AM

I am holding a ball in my hand about 4 feet off the ground. I let go of the ball and what happens? It drops to the ground.

Why does this happen? Because there are laws of gravity. Laws that have been proven because they are constant and irrefutable. The ball never falls up, it drops.

Who created the laws of gravity? I don't know. I have seen no proof one way or another. I know what I believe but there is no proof like there is that the ball will drop.

According to a strict interpretation of the Bible, the world is only a few thousand years old (counting back the begats). Yet scientifically proven methods, such as carbon dating, show that its actually millions of years old.

The point is that there are irrefutable scientific facts. The Theory of Evolution fits those facts. No other theory does.

To Talaniman,
My BELIEFS are pretty close to yours. However, you can't say; "scientific evidence that you believe to be true". By its very definition scientific evidence is factual. Its not subject to belief. One may believe (or not) in conclusions based on the evidence, but not the evidence itself. And that's where Starman's arguments break down. He seems to think that scientifically proven facts are subject to belief. Either that or he can't separate the facts from the conclusions and merges them together.

The point that Tom and I have tried to make is that the facts are separate. The facts are facts. We may not disagree with the conclusions some people derive from those facts.

As for me (and I think Tom as well), until and unless someone can come up with a viable theory that better fits the facts, or proof of some other theory, we feel that Evoultion makes the most sense.

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is several thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.

Of course there are irrefutable facts as detected by our subjective senses.
I do see these so called irrefutable facts you allude to and accept perceived facts as facts. I just don't agree that these so-called facts prove evolution/ The sad truith is that facts can be, have been, and are manipulated in such ways as to create the illusion of supporting an idea. In short the patient is stretched or shortened to fit the bed as convenience presents itself. It's done all the time in politics where the same fact is interpreted in several different ways as convenience dictates. True, that is a social science, but facts are facts.

How many times have evolutionists asserted that a certain fossil represented one of mankind's ancestors and then several years later said it wasn't? Evolutionists have even put forth hoaxes as fact and only discovered them to be hoaxes later when these were examined as they should have been examined before blindly accepting them as fact.

During that interval those who consider evolutionist scierntific oipinion sacrosanct would celebrate the discovery and use it to refute the Genesis account. Then suddenly what had been put forth as irrefutable fact, had to be rejected for what it was, an overzelous misinterpretation of facts to support an idea.

There are also the cases where facts not fitting the idea are either discarded or ignored. Example? The remains of modern humans found alongside their supposed simian ancestors. I don't think that ignoring such evidence makes for trust in the people doing the research. Do you?

BTW
Neither do I see any reason why I should totally ignore, as evolutionists do, the scientific opinion of fully qualified scientists who are not evolutionists. Turning a deaf ear or calling them fanatics doesn't refute their views. It only shows the irrational approach which many evolutionists have toward the subject.

talaniman

Jun 25, 2006, 11:13 AM

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is seven thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.

Actually, I can't be merging facts with conclusions because I know the difference between the two. Actually, I do see the facts brought to my attention. I just don't agree that they prove evolution. I also see the conclusions you say I don't see or understand as for what they are,
interpretations of facts strung out in a convenient way to support an idea which is simply that--an idea. In short the patient is stretched or shortened to fit the bed as convenience presents itself.

The facts which are found and put forth as inevitably supporting evolution because the person finding these things has evolution in his mind before he finds them and then tries to niche them into the pattern he thinks already is there. If the facts don't fit he ignores it just as they have the remains of modern humans found alongside their supposed simian ancestors.

BTW

You seem to be isolating me as some kind of anomaly. That's really unfair since there are countless others, far more educated than you and I who refuse to accept what you say I am blind to. I suppose thery are blind as well? The reason evolutionists downplay their scientifically based opinions is because they tag them as fanatics even before they speak their minds. Which to me, with all due respect,smacks of brainwashing.
You got to admit once people get a notion in their heads it takes a lot of dynamite to get it out so we humans are doomed to move slowly into enlightenment. In the mean time anyone with a pet theory can voice it and sound like they know what their talking about and right or wrong till all the evidence is in its so much yakety yak! Even and some here have admitted it, evolution may fit the parameters but there are still more facts to be brought to light. I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Starman

Jun 25, 2006, 11:44 AM

Starman,
I can see no reason to continue a debate where no one wins and emotions get frayed. While it was fun for a while I'm getting the impression that we're "beating a dead horse" by continuing.
You have a great week end. Tom

I understand how you feel about the fanatics you mention. It reminds me of the film Contact based on the book written by the late Carl Sagan where a religious fanatic places a bomb for some religious reason he cooked up. I also understand that many religious people might feel strongly about abortion. But that doesn't justify acts of terrorism or the taking of human life. As a matter of fact, it contradicts what they are fighting for by showing disregard for human lives. It also contradicts what Jesus said about treating others. So they are wrong on both counts.

Yes, I know that debates are unproductive and that's why I have avoided them for the past thirty years and continue to do so. How I got involved in this one after so long beats me. In any case, it was an interesting conversation. As to the effects of the debate, I remain as I started just as you do. LOL

In any case, my apologies as well if I was rude in any way.

Have a great day.

ScottGem

Jun 25, 2006, 11:54 AM

For example it is a scientific fact that we share 98% the same DNA with the apes so many have said we have evolved from primates and have been looking for the missing link for ages but have not found it. So the conclusion while it has a strong argument is not a fact but a belief based on given facts pending MORE evidence.

Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.

But, I again say that the Theory of Evolution is the only one that fits the facts. I believe in Evolution because I have looked at the facts and decided that it fits. Not because teachers and other scientists have said it fits, but because it makes the most sense to me. I've read some of the attempts to refute the theory and none make the same level of sense to me.

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is several thousand years old. That's a biblical misinterpretation.
So how old does the Bible indicate the world is?

Of course there are irrefutable facts as detected by our subjective senses.
I do see these so called irrefutable facts you allude to and accept perceived facts as facts. I just don't agree that these so-called facts prove evolution/

See there you go again. You agree there are irrefutable facts, but then you refer to "so-called facts". Effectively denigrating and denying these facts. You can't have it both ways.

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

BTW
Neither do I see any reason why I should totally ignore, as evolutionists do, the scientific opinion of fully qualified scientists who are not evolutionists. Turning a deaf ear or calling them fanatics doesn't refute their views. It only shows the irrational approach which many evolutionists have toward the subject.

Who says you should? Who says Tom or I or anyone believing in Evolution does? And what does referring to some evolutionists as irrational do? Since there is NO absolute proof of Creationism, it would seem that creationists are the irrational ones since their beliefs are not based on factual evidence.

Let me suggest a statement from you that I could accept.
While I understand there is proven scientific evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution, I have read a significant body of writings that refute Evolution. I've also seen factual evidence that refutes some of the evidence used to prove Evolution. Therefore, I don't believe in Evolution.

Starman

Jun 25, 2006, 12:18 PM

You got to admit once people get a notion in their heads it takes a lot of dynamite to get it out so we humans are doomed to move slowly into enlightenment. In the mean time anyone with a pet theory can voice it and sound like they know what their talking about and right or wrong till all the evidence is in its so much yakety yak! Even and some here have admitted it, evolution may fit the parameters but there are still more facts to be brought to light. I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!

You hit the nail right on the head. Only the evolutionist side is being taught while the other side is shunted aside as if of no consequence. It stands to reason that such a policy will have an effect on how children view religion.
If we deny that it has this effect then we would have to deny that children are very susceptible to teachings by what they consider authority figures.
Furthermore, they are told to answer evolution questions in the affirmative regardless of parental religious teachings. So your suggestion would certainly balance the playing table.

The Rutherford Institute - Commentary
Our children should be given a choice. At least, they will be getting both sides of a fundamental question.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning Grasping for the Wind.

www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=316

Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.

But, I again say that the Theory of Evolution is the only one that fits the facts. I believe in Evolution because I have looked at the facts and decided that it fits. Not because teachers and other scientists have said it fits, but because it makes the most sense to me. I've read some of the attempts to refute the theory and none make the same level of sense to me.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]So how old does the Bible indicate the world is?

It doesn't give a specific age for the earth.

See there you go again. You agree there are irrefutable facts, but then you refer to "so-called facts". Effectively denigrating and denying these facts. You can't have it both ways.

No denigration intended. Just that all we know is sense based and as such it is open to perceptual interpretation. But assuming that we are perceiving things as they are, then there are definitely facts. But the assumption is necessary nevertheless.

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

Not at all! I recognize the facts you mention. Perhaps an example will clear this up. Take the upright walking simian creatures claimed to be our ancestors. The fact is that these creatures existed and that their skeletal structure indicates an upright walking manner. Accepted! What is not accepted is the evolutionist interpretation of that fact as making these creatures our ancestors. Hope that clears it up. That's the common fallacy of considering something the cause of something else simply because it has temporal priority.

post hoc fallacy
Post hoc fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event.
www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

Who says you should? Who says Tom or I or anyone believing in Evolution does? And what does referring to some evolutionists as irrational do? Since there is NO absolute proof of Creationism, it would seem that creationists are the irrational ones since their beliefs are not based on factual evidence.

Your interpretation of what constitutres factual evidence. Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence.

You are entitled to believe whatever conclusions you want to believe about the facts. But what I've seen, throughout this thread, is a denial of the facts on which Evolution is based.

Not at all! I recognize the facts you mention. Perhaps an example will clear this up. Take the upright walking simian fossils claimed to be our ancestors. The fact is that these creatures existed and that their skeletal structure indicates an upright walking manner. Accepted! What is not accepted is the evolutionist interpretation of that fact as making these creatures our ancestors. Hope that clears it up. That's the common fallacy of considering something the cause of something else simply because it has temporal priority.

post hoc fallacy
Post hoc fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event.
www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

talaniman

Jun 25, 2006, 01:15 PM

Scott

Exactly my point! Sharing 98% of DNA with apes is a fact. That we evolved from them is a conclusion based on that fact.
That we come from apes is not a fact only a theory

Starman

Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence
This I agree with and that interpretation is opinion and not fact.

ScottGem

Jun 25, 2006, 02:01 PM

Scott

That we come from apes is not a fact only a theory

That's what I said and what I have been saying.

ScottGem

Jun 25, 2006, 02:18 PM

Starman,
I agree the bible doesn't give a specific age of the Earth. However, if one calculates based on the begats (which is what I said) then the indication is several thousand years.

You may think you aren't denying the facts, but that's not what's coming out of what you write. Let me show an example. You state: "Your interpretation of what constitutres factual evidence. Interpretation of facts is not equivalent to factual evidence." This was in answer to my asking 'who says you should ignore anti-evolution scientists?'. But all I have ever stated in this thread, is that I believe in Evolution based on scientific facts. I have said very little about what factual evidence I am considering. I have been very adamant that you are entitled to your interpretation. It has been YOUR assumption that I am part of the brain washed you refer to who have not considered other interpretations or other facts that might not support Evolution.

No one is denying that children should be given a choice. The difference is in WHERE the choice should be given. Since Creationism is based primarily on faith and religion, then it should be taught as part of religious teachings. In America, with separation of church and state, it does not belong in publicly funded schools. Which finally brings us around to the original question.

speedball1

Jun 25, 2006, 02:35 PM

Tally,
I can see a "glitch" in your statrment, "I think the original question ask if evolution or intelligent design should be taught. Teach them both with the disclaimer WE STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!"
( Scottgem covered this as I was writing this post, but I'll put it up anyhow.)

Is it your contension that the Christian Religion should be taught in the public school system and paid for with tax dollars? The Religious Right have been attempting to force Creation in science and biology clases for years. You have just hit the same snag that is the main pitfall for Creationists. Creation demands a Creator just as Intelligent Design demands a Designer. What does a teacher say when a young fundamentalist brings up the "question", "Who is the Designer?"
And the teacher answers, "WE STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!" Well that kid knows the "truth" he was brought up to believe every word in the Bible is the literal Word of God. Wouldn't that be denying the Bible? The literal word of God that this pupil was brought up to believe? No, you can't mix religion with science and come up with a plan that pleases everyone
And what of kids of different religions and beliefs? And the kids that were brought up as freethinkers. The atheists and agnostics? What are they? Chopped liver?
This is why the framers of the Constitution, in all their wisdom, wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Now you can try as you might to deny that creationism has anything to do with religion but there's that pesky "snag" again. Who is the Designer? If you answer that with a "I don't know" then you aren't teaching are you? And if you answer God or a Supreme Being then you have just established a government backed religion.
Bottom line. Religion, faith and belief belong in the Church. Established facts, logic and reason belong in the classrom.

talaniman

Jun 25, 2006, 04:29 PM

Speedball1-You open a lot of issues so let me attempt to sort them out. In America all religion should be discussed and the fact that none can be in our schools is to the detriment of our young generation. Religion should be as free in the school as out as I think this would promote the tolerance a free multicultural nation deserves instead of this Politically correct nobody says nothing in school about GOD attitude we have now, just my opinion! I also think that in a free and open debate many views will be presented and no matter how blue in the face you get eventually you come to YOU STILL DON"T KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH! The truth is tho, we don't know do we? . So to teach anything ,but the truth is not teaching either its brainwashing! And just for arguments sake just because it is discussed in schools doesn't mean that it is backed by the government, And since when is declaring ones opinion establishing a government backed religion.? For to long we in America have been so afraid to express ourselves that we have been whupped in to silence by those who wish to silence anything that their so called bibles are against. That is not how a free society works in my book. That is also not how the tolerance for others works in my book either. And when little Johnny says he knows the truth you know good and well he is just parroting the parents. Which brings me to the whole crux of the problem, NOBODY is humble enough to admit the truth or else we could all be comfortable saying I DON"T KNOW!

speedball1

Jun 26, 2006, 05:36 AM

Tally,

"just for arguments sake just because it is discussed in schools doesn't mean that it is backed by the government, And since when is declaring ones opinion establishing a government backed religion."

If you teach Creationism in the public school system then you bring a Christian concept of how mankind came into being into a classroom and pay for it with tax dollars. And if you attempt to tapdance around the word "teach" by calling it a "discussion" or a "opinion" it doesn't change a thing.
You're still inserting a religious concept into the classrom. And that, my friend, is called proselytizing.

" Religion should be as free in the school as out"
And here we agree. But not just one religion, and not in a science or biology class but in a separate class devoted to comparative religions.
I would like to see ALL religions taught. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Wican plus the ancient mystery and pagan religions.
The Religious Right is dead set against this.
Tally, you sound open minded enough to agree that one religion should not be the only one brought into the classroom. Teaching all religions would not be "establishing just one" so I think the First Amendment wouldn't apply.

It would appear that you and I aren't that far apart. Regards, Tom

talaniman

Jun 26, 2006, 05:51 AM

" Religion should be as free in the school as out-I mean't all religions sorry. I said before I think it important that our children be exposed to all that America has to offer as tolerance is the key to future peace I believe.

excon

Jun 27, 2006, 07:05 AM

ID believers think it can be taught as science because they think that science is based on "faith".

Starman

Jun 29, 2006, 11:17 AM

The same can be said, with more basis, about religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is drummed into people during their more impressionable years.

What I see the fact here is that you see the Theory of Evolution as attacking your beliefs in the Bible and religion. Therefore, to reinforce your belief, you have to attack Evolution. I prefer to look at the body of scientific evidence. When I do I see how that evidence fits the points of Evolution and I choose to accept Darwin's ideas as the most likely.

I don't now and never have put my faith in religion. I've indicated why in other posts I've placed on this site. If you want to put your faith in it, your are welcome to. But when you try to deny the scientific evidence. When you try to denigrate in the name of supporting your faith, I will dispute you.

BTW
What inconsistency?

Inconsistency is when scientists apply a certain method to Evolution and refuse to acknowledge the same method when it is applied to creation.

The problem here, actually, is that you keep seeing this as a contest in denigration and attacks. That makes the whole discussion untenable and best left alone. Perhaps you are judging my motives based on your own?

Are you trying to reinforce YOUR belief in Evolution by denigrating and attacking religion? Not everyone has the same motives so the wise thing to do is not to egocentrically jump to that conclusion.

BTW
As I said before: it's not the evidence which I disagree with-it's the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence which is made to appear to support evolution when there are other possibilities of which I will not go into because that might trigger more accusations ad infinitum and since I have high blood pressure I might wind up evolving into a corpse. Now you wouldn't want that right?

Not all scientists accept evolution as the following quotes from respected scientists proves:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics." (Sir Fred Hoyle)

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm

ScottGem

Jun 29, 2006, 12:11 PM

Inconsistency is when scientists apply a certain method to Evolution and refuse to acknowledge the same method when it is applied to creation.

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

The problem here, actually, is that you keep seeing this as a contest in denigration and attacks. That makes the whole discussion untenable and best left alone. Perhaps you are judging my motives based on your own?

Frankly I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. All my posts here have been simply a statement of why I believe in evolution and attempts to refute claims that the Theory of Evolution is totally unfounded.

Are you trying to reinforce YOUR belief in Evolution by denigrating and attacking religion? Not everyone has the same motives so the wise thing to do is not to egocentrically jump to that conclusion.

No, my feelings about religion have little to do with my feelings about Evolution. I have said several times that I don't believe that Evolution is in direct contradiction to the Bible, except for a literal interpretation. My belief in Evolution is because it's the only theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific fact. Something I have stated several times and something I don't see refuted, by anything other than rhetoric.

BTW
As I said before: it's not the evidence which I disagree with-it's the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence which is made to appear to support evolution when there are other possibilities of which I will not go into because that might trigger more accusations ad infinitum and since I have high blood pressure I might wind up evolving into a corpse. Now you wouldn't want that right?

And I've responded to this by suggesting that you review what you've said. Because much of what you have said seems to be denigrating the scientific facts, not just Evolutionist interpretation of them. If you want to disagree with Evolutionist interpretation that is your right. But then deal with the interpretaions not the facts themselves.

As for your quotes. It is my experience that support against Evolution is an highly emotional charged since anti-Evolutionists feel its an attack on their religious beliefs. Ergo, even normally rational scientists may succumb to emotional rhetoric.

talaniman

Jun 29, 2006, 12:51 PM

By ScottGem

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. I wake up every day to the proof that the Creator does indeed exist. No matter how much science you apply or use to refute, anyone who believes can always stand firm in their convictions. Now making an argument for certain theories such as creationism or evolution is a different matter with the same answer:There may indeed be physical evidence that points in a certain direction and logical minds can make the leap of faith to any conclusion they wish but it is only speculation or opinion, absent of hard fact for example-Man came from the apes and no evidence connecting the two has ever been found so this statement even with all the evidence is only an opinion, learned or not. If you flip the coin over And I will concede that my relationship with a God of my understanding is also an opinion(mine) and has nothing to do with any one else's way they wish to think. So you may be able to quote scripture or publish scientific fact the sad(real) truth is it only means something to YOU.

ScottGem

Jun 29, 2006, 01:01 PM

by ScottGem

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesnt mean it cannot exist.

Agreed. But that leaves it up to the individual to choose whether to believe only in what can be proven or to rely on their faith as proof.

talaniman

Jun 29, 2006, 01:34 PM

By ScottGem

Agreed. But that leaves it up to the individual to choose whether to believe only in what can be proven or to rely on their faith as proof.
In my opinion that's exactly who should have the last word right or wrong. We as humans still have a long way to go before we can even begin to unravel the mysteries of the universe. And yes we will get many differing opinions but the main thing for now is how we deal with each other while we go through this period of I don't know for sure! So to answer the OP, In my opinion we should bury our prejudices and fears and give our children ALL the knowledge they can handle and leave that politically correct stuff alone. If nothing else maybe the next generation will not be obsessed with being right and more tolerant of others who are different!

ScottGem

Jun 29, 2006, 06:16 PM

So to answer the OP, In my opinion we should bury our prejudices and fears and give our children ALL the knowledge they can handle and leave that politically correct stuff alone.

I agree.

HOWEVER, the OP was not whether ID should be taught but whether it should be taught as a science. There is also the question of where it should be taught.

In my opinion it should be taught as part of a person's religious education. Not in public schools.

talaniman

Jun 29, 2006, 09:18 PM

Unfortunately and this is sad, intolerant people usually pass it to their kids so I think its safe to say it will be a while before we get it enough to make a difference.

ScottGem

Jun 30, 2006, 05:23 AM

Always reminds me of the song from South Pacific, You have to be carefully taught!

speedball1

Jun 30, 2006, 06:26 AM

All the scientists that Starmanposted were copied from a religious web site called "Abounding Joy". Slanted to say the least!

Starman

Jun 30, 2006, 02:40 PM

Refuse or just don't accept? As Tom keeps saying there is no scientific proof of a Creator. Absent that, how can any scientific proofs be made for Creationism or Intelligent Design?

Frankly I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. All my posts here have been simply a statement of why I believe in evolution and attempts to refute claims that the Theory of Evolution is totally unfounded.

No, my feelings about religion have little to do with my feelings about Evolution. I have said several times that I don't believe that Evolution is in direct contradiction to the Bible, except for a literal interpretation. My belief in Evolution is due to the fact that its the only theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific fact. Something I have stated several times and something I don't see refuted, by anything other than rhetoric.

And I've responded to this by suggesting that you review what you've said. Because much of what you have said seems to be denigrating the scientific facts, not just Evolutionist interpretation of them. If you want to disagree with Evolutionist interpretation that is your right. But then deal with the interpretations not the facts themselves.

As for your quotes. It is my experience that support against Evolution is a highly emotional charged since antievolutionists feel its an attack on their religious beliefs. Ergo, even normally rational scientists may succumb to emotional rhetoric.

The quotes were given by respected scientists. The problem is that if they are not evolutionists then you conveniently conclude that they aren't worthy of your respect.

Preponderance? Support?

Preponderance of interpretations of things discovered in order to fit in what is already believed to be the reasons.

Do nor understand?

That's because you don't really understand what I said due to your inability to grasp the concept of inconsistency.

If you don't know how evolutionists are being inconsistent how can you say one way or another?

If you do understand then why don't you offer up as refutation instead of falling back conveniently like a broken record on you accusations of emotionality and claims of preponderance?

As for emotions: You come across as very upset whenever someone doesn't accept your claims. Also, the argument stands or falls on its own merits. The person's emotions have NOTHING to do with its validity. Many arguments that are pure drivel are offered up by people with deadpan expressions and seemingly unemotionally. That doesn't add one iota of value to what they say if what they say is drivel--does it?

BTW
The reason I don't believe in evolution is because I find the arguments presented unconvincing. Am I allowed that here?

talaniman

Jun 30, 2006, 03:53 PM

I think we all can say our peace without the personal stuff!

ScottGem

Jun 30, 2006, 04:48 PM

No one as said you aren't allowed to believe what you want.

Since you seem to totally misread what I've said and have decided, to put your own biased interpretation despite words to the contrary, I see no reason to continue butting my head against it.

Starman

Jul 1, 2006, 09:45 AM

No one has said you aren't allowed to believe what you want.

Since you seem to totally misread what I've said and have decided, to put your own biased interpretation despite words to the contrary, I see no reason to continue butting my head against it.

About bias, and misinterpretations, the opinion is mutual.

speedball1

Jul 1, 2006, 01:13 PM

Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy. (your logic, not mine)

talaniman

Jul 1, 2006, 02:48 PM

speedball1 disagrees: Because science cannot prove or disprove doesn't mean it cannot exist. Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy. (your logic, not mine)

Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too, so it must be YOUR logic not mine.

ScottGem

Jul 2, 2006, 04:43 AM

Thought this was germane:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

speedball1

Jul 2, 2006, 05:18 AM

Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too, so it must be YOUR logic not mine.

No Tally,

I wasn't the one who stated, "Because science cannot prove or disprove doesnt mean it cannot exist."

All I did was to answer, " Ahh! Then you accept the existence of Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy."

Now you may explain to me the difference in beliving in gods and goddesses and believing in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy.

The operational word here is "belief" and whether you celebrate these holidays or not doesn't change anything.
Are you saying with this statement, " Just for the record I don't celebrate any of the holidays you refer too," that your beliefs are "flexible"?
Then that would render your original statement untrue wouldn't it?

speedball1

Jul 2, 2006, 05:22 AM

LMFAO, Gary Trudeau and Carl Sagin are two of my "heros"

talaniman

Jul 2, 2006, 08:33 AM

Not sure what your point is since it is based in the way YOU see things which is cool. But your reach from GOD to Santa Claus? And for the record your interpretation of my statement IS entirely Your logic and has nothing to do with me one way or another. And also for the record, YOU did more than answer, YOU cast the issue of my GOD with the cloud of YOUR own logic which makes no sense to me at all. MY belief is mine and no, flexible is not the word I would use but PERSONAL would be a lot more accurate. If you believe what "scientist " tell you Fine, I'm not trying to convert you ,I really don't care what YOU or anyone else believes to tell the truth . I probably won't be there to argue your point with YOUR GOD! If the Easter bunny or Santa Claus really do exist SO WHAT! What does that have to do with me! Now If the God that I understand presented himself in a red suit and red hat, I'd say HMMMM********Speedball was right! Until then... To each his own! :cool: :D

speedball1

Jul 2, 2006, 10:13 AM

Good response Tally,

I was just ragging on you and having a little fun. Now enjoy the rest of your week end. Cheers, Tom

talaniman

Jul 2, 2006, 10:20 AM

LOVE the debate my friend, And it is a holiday and it is TIME TO PARTY!! ENJOY-Bob

unbiased_thinker

Jul 9, 2006, 09:18 AM

As a scientist I can tell you that there are many signs of evolution, that is we descended from other primates. Human DNA resembles chimpanzee's DNA 95%.

galveston

Jul 9, 2006, 01:59 PM

Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes, and yet swallow the claims of evolution whole. Now THAT really takes gullibility. To say that evolution has been proven is a total mistake. There are many recognized scientists that do not accept evolution as a cause. Mutation is not the same as evolution. Evolution is a religion and just as vigorously supported as any other religion. So admit it. Your are religious after all.

TxGreaseMonkey

Jul 9, 2006, 08:15 PM

Excellent points--I agree 100%!

speedball1

Jul 10, 2006, 05:08 AM

And isn't it also interesting how many creationists tap dance around the word "Creator". I also find it fascinating the while discussing intelligent design "The Drsigner" is left out of the equation.

"Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes,"

And whadda you know, here it is again! We just did a "soft shoe shuffle" right around the word," Bible".

Tippity-tap-slip and slide! Isn't it fun to watch the creation apoligests twist and turn to avoid using that nasty word "religion" in their arguments.
Having a "Creator" or a "Intelligent Designer" as the center of their claim but not being able to give evidence that such a deity even exists plus having to deny that religion has nothing to do with intelligent design as they attempt to force the public school system to teach it as science must put a terrible strain on them. But it is amusing to watch them try.
Not having a shred of physical evidence to back up the claim of either creationist science or intelligent design the best they can do is attempt to debunk evolution.
Keep it up guys! Tippity-tap-tap and a soft shoe slide! We're enjoying the act!

Starman

Jul 10, 2006, 05:34 AM

As a scientist I can tell you that there are many signs of evolution, that is we descended from other primates. Human DNA resembles chimpanzee's DNA 95%.

Resemblance doesn't prove descent. We live on the same planet and have to deal with the same gravity, radiation, atmosphere, temperatures and so on. So physically there will be resemblances which simply means that the same plan was used
To deal with the same environmental conditions.

And isn't it also interesting how many creationists tap dance around the word "Creator". I also find it fascinating the while discussing in belligerent design "The Drsigner" is left out of the equation.

"Isn't it interesting how some folks can dismiss a book that has been proven correct so many times by fulfilled predictions, archeological finds, scientific discoveries, and an unbroken line of history through ancient scribes,"

And whadda ya know, here it is again!! We just did a "soft shoe shuffle" right around the word," Bible".

Tippity-tap-slip and slide!! Isn't it fun to watch the creation apoligests twist and turn to avoid using that nasty word "religion" in their arguments.
Having a "Creator" or a "Intelligent Designer" as the center of their claim but not being able to give evidence the such a deity even exists plus having to deny that religion has nothing to do with intelligent design as they attempt to force the public school system to teach it as science must put a terrible strain on them. But it is amusing to watch them try.
Not having a shred of physical evidence to back up the claim of either creationist science or intelligent design the best they can do is attempt to debunk evolution.
Keep it up guys! Tippity-tap-tap and a soft shoe slide! we're enjoying the act!!

Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge, accompanied by
A mocking attitudeand false accusations doesn't constitute proof. Add to this inconsistency in reasoning and your whole argument, if indeed it can be classified as such, comes crashing down like a house of cards.

talaniman

Jul 10, 2006, 05:53 AM

It seems to me that both sides of this argument can be accused of being rather closed minded and I find it amusing that both sides think their so right that now the arrogance and name calling as reared its ugly head! When did we get so sensitive?

speedball1

Jul 10, 2006, 07:06 AM

RickJ

Jul 10, 2006, 07:08 AM

jduke44

Jul 10, 2006, 02:13 PM

I agree. This thread is going to the gutter.

Yep, this is why I like to read these more than reply to them. I get bored hearing all the name calling, over and over and over again. :)

ScottGem

Jul 10, 2006, 03:52 PM

Yodeladeehoo (insert name here)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Name calling
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Starman

Jul 10, 2006, 07:24 PM

"Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge, accompanied by
a mocking attitude and false accusations doesn't constitute proof. Add to this inconsistency in reasoning and your whole argument, if indeed it can be classified as such, comes crashing down like a house of cards."
,
More tippity-tap, (I love it!!) You saying that I have the "Inability to see plain evidence and refusal to acknowledge it" just adds more soft shoe routine to the act. you speak of "evidence", isn't that what I've been asking for ever since this thread started?? PRODUCE THIS "EVIDENCE" that you claim you have. I don't see one answer to my previous post. Not one response except to put me down. You attempt to discredit my augments while not offering one tiny shred of physical evidence to back up yours.
one more time! Making me look bad doesn't make you look good. Go ahead and try! I have argued reason and logic against faith and belief for decades with militant fundamentalists and am still waiting for the evidence to back ip their claims. I find you no different from them. Welllll! Perhaps a bit more humorous.

Respectful disagreement doesn't constitute putting you down unless you interpret it that way by identifying yourself worth with the ideas you put forth as fact. Your beliefs are not you. On the other hand, I agree that name-calling and mockery are ad hominem. However, I don't agree that my saying that you are unable to see my viewpoint is either. Actually, you have all the right in the world to hold whatever belief you wish and it shouldn't be any skin off anybody's nose unless your manner of stating your beliefs is offensive. In that case it's the manner of your expressing your views and not your beliefs that are questionable. I think that the problem in your case is that you express your views very vigorously and when someone responds with a little vigor you can't seem to tolerate it and begin to accuse these people of putting you down. I strongly suspect that if you'd tone it down a bit yourself then the responses you receive would most likely not be as irritating. No harm meant just a little advice.

As for the proof you require, I garnered some web site links that you might or might not wish to read. That's entirely up to you.

evolution
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION. The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory. 1. FOSSILS
Ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution
... EvC Forum All Forums Science Forums Biological Evolution Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution... Topic: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution. Wj. Member..

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
... Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose... evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution...
www.scienceagainstevolution.org

SCIENTIFIC FACTS AGAINST EVOLUTION —. ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. 3 Volume. ENCYCLOPEDIA. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 1... SECTION 7 - Additional Scientific Evidence Against Evolution. 25- THE LAWS OF NATURE VS. EVOLUTION The First and Second...
Evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

Scientific Arguments Against Evolution
Evidence for Intelligent Design... Evolution. Science Itself Refutes Darwinism... to the theory of evolution, at some time in the... • Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example...
www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

Scientific Creationism - The Web Site
A collection of essays and articles which refute the theory of evolution and support young earth creationism.. . Evidence against the theory of evolution. Scientific Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution. A Critique... Primary Evidence Used to Support the Theory of Evolution. Rebuttals to other...
www.scientificcreationism.org

Evolution Exposé
... we get is, "If the scientific evidence is against the theory of evolution, then why don't all scientists... answer is that the theory of evolution isn't scientific, it is philosophic...
www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v7i12f.htm

Evolution vs. Design: Is the Universe a Cosmic Accident or Does it Display Intelligent Design?
The universe, the earth and life on it testify to the involvement of an Intelligent Designer. Macroevolution fails to explain the history of life on planet earth.. . falsifiable, predictive biblical creation model. Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe - Why... macroevolution is false. A Scientific Case Against Evolution by Robert Locke, a...
www.godandscience.org/evolution

Main Creation Science Web Links
... advance knowledge of the scientific evidences of creation (and against evolution) in schools and among... We provide Biblical and scientific evidence that God created the universe, and...
www.creationism.org/topbar/linksWeb.htm

Evolution is not Necessarily True
Evolution is not Necessarily True. David D'Armond. Naperville, Illinois. Editor's Note: Mr.. . became aware of the serious scientific deficiencies of evolution as a result of changing... 3. Scientific facts and evidence are against evolution: A. Genetics-Evolutionists have...
www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume20/GOT020259.htm

Evidence Disproving Evolution
Thank you all very much! Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000. Evidence Disproving Evolution... both in evolution and God, It is interesting that when shown scientific evidence against their theory evolutionists... that their belief in evolution is not based on science...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/767711/posts

BTW

I find you humorous as well.