Scientist Bill Nye Hammers Creationists: Evolution-Deniers ‘Hold Everybody Back,‘ Harm Children’s Education & Hold Views That Will Eventually Be Extinct
- Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:30pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Bill Nye was once beloved for being America’s brightest and most energetic “science guy.” However, the former children’s show host (“Bill Nye the Science Guy” aired from 1993 until 1998) is entering more contentious ground of late, as he recently jumped into the political realm to intensely support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
But, politics isn’t his only area of interest these days. Last week, the famed scientist lashed out against champions of creationism. In a new video for Big Think, an online educational forum, Nye claims that evolution deniers are damaging children and harming scientific progress.
Bill Nye (Photo Credit: Big Think)
The video, which was posted last Thursday, has already been viewed more than one million times. Entitled, “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children,” the clip holds little back when it comes to the scientist’s views on evolutionary denial. In the video, Nye takes particular issue with the fact that America is the only nation in which creationism is so widely embraced.
“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States,” he said. “People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science.”
His qualms with individuals who don’t embrace the notion that human beings evolved goes well beyond mere theological and scientific disagreement. Nye believes that those who tout creationism are actually doing damage to scientific progression.
Bill Nye (Photo Credit: Big Think)
“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really,” he said, going on to say that it’s difficult to make sense of life and to attain the proper answers if one denies the scientific theory. ”Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science — in all of biology.”
Nye went on to plead with parents — even those who “deny evolution” and live in a “world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe” — to properly educate their children.
“We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems,” he added.
“In another couple centuries that worldview, I’m sure…just won’t exist,” Nye concluded. “There’s no evidence for it.”
As noted, Nye has been speaking out fervently for President Obama’s re-election campaign and, as Inquisitr has noted, he’s been stumping for him.
(H/T: Inquisitr)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 584 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 411 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (649)
Bearfoot
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:05pmBill Nye, You are not as wise as you think you are.
1 Corinthians 3:18-20 helps us to get a perspective on things:
Report Post »“Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.””
Old Truckers
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:13pmYeah, and he wears a bow tie. That does not inspire confidence in his intellect..
Report Post »pickup1988
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:24pmUsing the Bible to refute Bill Nye. I think you’re proving his point that creationism as a movement will soon be an exinct.
Report Post »wboehmer
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:27pmPerson: I don’t believe in evolution.
Bill Nye: Why not?
Person: Because evolution is a THEORY for which there’s scant credible evidence – so scant, that supporters have fabricated much of what was thought to be evidence. Sorry, Science Guy, compared to creationism, evolution requires just too big a leap of faith to accept!
Report Post »pickup1988
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:33pmEvolution has an enormous amount of evidence to support. Hence why virtually all scientists, in all fields, universally, continue to make progress while creationists use the same discredited “arguments” to push their religious dogmas.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:34pmEvolution makes about as much sense as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and leaving behind a perfectly constructed 747 jumbo-jet.
Still waiting for those millions of transitional fossils…still waiting.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:36pmWBoehmer: So the “I Dream of Genie” solution is better….god folded his arms and blinked and it was all there as it is now,. yeah, much more believable….
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:41pm“Still waiting for those millions of transitional fossils…still waiting”
try going to a (non-creation) museum. they’re there, just “waiting” for you to see them.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:42pm“god folded his arms and blinked ”
i think you meant twitched his nose, lol.
Report Post »grimmster
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:47pm@pickup1988 aka encinom.
Report Post »Progress, really, how about posting links to some of that progress, other than wikipedia?! Moron….
edcoil
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:53pmIf the weather and climate change is evolution then nothing can be done about it so we do not need to increases taxes or have cap and trade or give any power to the government over it.
Report Post »GlennaBeckski
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:53pmBuying into evolution is tantamount to walking down the street, finding a Rolex and believing all the hundreds of different parts “just happened” to conveniently fall into place .. and then it is “miraculously” able to keep precise time.
I just don’t have the faith required to be an athiest.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:59pmEdcoil,
“If the weather and climate change is evolution…”
It’s not. Weather and climate have nothing to do with genetics or natural selection. Clearly you have no idea what evolution is.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:03pmFood for thought:
Report Post »Evolutionist- A person who believes that when you die the essence that makes you unique turns into worm food!
Creationist-A person who believes that when you die the essence that makes you unique moves on to a new plane of existence!
Which would you choose???
jhrusky
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:13pmWho’s to say that evolution was not what was created?
This nonsense argument is intriguing — God certainly could have set evolution into motion. Why people claim to know He did not is interesting.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:18pmGlennbeckski,
First of all, a watch is not an organism. We know and have observed that organisms change an adapt to their environment.
But OK–does it make more sense to come across a Rolex on the sidewalk and then assume, since you don’t immediately know where it came from, that the watch must have been created by some invisible omnipotent being and placed there according to some grand plan for the universe?
Your analogy is absurd for many reasons. For one, we know that watches are made by watchmakers, it happens every day and we can observe the process. The Creationists, on the other hand, are positing a process of divine creation that has never been observed and for which there is no hard evidence at all. That means it’s not science, plain and simple.
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:20pmSaid before and will continue to say…evolution is a wonderful way of how variety within a species occurs….it does not, nor has not been proven of how a new species come about having offspring with different matching pairs of chromosomes from the parents…. creationism is way things came about….
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:21pm“We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems,”
I am an engineer that builds things and solves problems. My belief that an supreme Intelligence designed the complex universe coincides perfectly with my field. The belief that a design will eventually occur by chance and natural selection is the antithesis of engineering.
Bill Nye will go extinct before Creationists will.
“Heaven and Earth shall pass away but, My Word shall never pass away”
Report Post »Danimal98367
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:26pmHeads = God wins.
Tails = You lose.
That is all y‘all’s argument for God.
If you pray to be protected from harm today and manage not to hurt yourself blogging, God kept you safe so you pray your thanks. If you got seriously injured by a freak accident, you pray to God that he will help you learn the lessons he has prepared for you… Heads = God wins. Tails = God wins. It is delusional and pathetic. You wouldn’t accept that gaming in any other aspect of life but the mysterious ways of God are super fine to defy logic. You beleive in God? Do him a favor and use the brain he supposedly gave you . . . reason is crying out to be heard!
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:26pm@PICKUP1988
“Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence to support”
I keep hearing evolutionists say this without providing said evidence. There is an enormous amount of evidence to support creationism. The evidence is only a variable and is dependant upon your world view as to how it happened. I can‘t prove my idea and you can’t prove yours.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:29pmPencilman,
Romans 1:18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them.
Report Post »20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty‐headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four‐footed creatures and creeping things.
MCDAVE
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:38pmIts just another side show for our confusion, to take focus away from Obama”s poor record on the economy, Where are The jobs Obama? What did you spend 5 trillion dollars on?,,Why is the whole world on the verge of war.? ….Why did all your green energy solutions Fail?…why do you attack our freedoms?… why do you want to spy on us? … where is your real birth certificate?..Why won’t you protect our borders?..Why does Holder still have a job? and Why do you eat Dogs????
Report Post »booger71
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:40pmSkinny Bill
Evolution is pretty much an excepted theory, but please show me the facts where you can prove that man and the great apes had a common ancestor. Didn’t think you could supply the proof.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:44pm“.it does not, nor has not been proven of how a new species come about having offspring with different matching pairs of chromosomes from the parents”
Yes it does. It’s called mutation. If you want to suggest that mutation is guided by the hand of God, then maybe you can call that “creation,” but don‘t pretend we don’t know what mutation is.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:49pmSquid – Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Little furry mammals evolved into apes and human ancestors. Aquatic creatures eventually left the sea to inhabit land. Take a look at the foot of a t-rex then the foot of a hawk. This is why we have the “kpcofgs” system for classification.
Report Post »============
So every species jump should be contained in the fossil record, right? What you are describing is a theory started by one scientist that convinced other scientists to believe him.
Drives Like Jehu
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:06pm“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really,”
Oh, really??? Well, I would argue that the vast majority of advancements for the betterment of livving conditions in the past 70+ years have been driven by ELECTRONICS; and, believe it or not, evolution and/or the belief in it has had zip, zero, nada to do with advancements in ELECTRONICS. Plus, nye has the hubris to champion comrade nero-bama and his discredited/failed economic idiology from the the late 1800′s/early 1900′s. Pathetic.
Report Post »jcldwl
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:07pmIf evolution THEORY was correct. Why are there still apes? Why are there still single cell organisms? why are there still humans? wouldn’t we all have evolved into something else? Or did evolution just magically decide to stop? And if it just magically stopped then when did it stop and why? Can’t explain that can you. Try explaining how there are so many prophecies in the old testament that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Try explaining why prophecies from Revelations ( that’s the final book of the bible) are coming to fruition right now. You know the push for one world government, the push for one world religion, What the all knowing scientists are calling global warming,( Oops sorry that one got debunked so they changed it to climate change.) is also prophecy from revelation as in, “You will not recognize the seasons” Many scientists over time have tried to debunk the bible but instead became Christians when they discovered the truth. Oh and all this anti christian stuff as in Bill Nye saying creationism is harmful to the children. It is also prophecy from the bible as in persecution of Christians. Christ said we will be persecuted because of our belief in Him. Looks to me like that is happening. I for one believe and will never give up that belief because once you believe and know in your heart God is real your life is changed in ways no scientist could ever fathom. I’ve never witnessed a scientific miracle. I have witnessed a miracle of God. Have you?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:09pmBearfoot,
Nothing there suggests that you can’t reconcile evolution with a belief in God–that’s your own interpretation. The bible is full of symbolic phrases that are not meant to be taken literally, and often contradict each other when they are.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:11pm@ PUBLIUS….”The Creationists, on the other hand, are positing a process of divine creation that has never been observed and for which there is no hard evidence at all. “…..this is true of evolution also. There is no hard evidence for evolution. It is a belief about what the evidence means but it cannot be observed or tested in any manner. Thank you…..
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:17pm“Well, I would argue that the vast majority of advancements for the betterment of livving conditions in the past 70+ years have been driven by ELECTRONICS”
Hmmm… apparently you have never heard of MEDICINE, a field that I would argue has quite a bit to do with your quality of life. Modern medicine would not be possible without our current understanding of DNA and genetics, genetic mutations and treatments that account for drug-resistant mutations. Without the theory of evolution, we would never have achieved our current understanding of genetics and adaptation.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:27pmYep, after more than 2000 years of human history and belief in the Bible, Bill Nye, the Progressive Socialist Guy is going to lead the charge to stamp out belief in the Bible in just a short couple of centuries.
Sounds plausible to me.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:28pmJCLDWL,
“If evolution THEORY was correct. Why are there still apes? Why are there still single cell organisms? why are there still humans? wouldn’t we all have evolved into something else?”
First of all, modern apes are not the ancestors of humans. Modern apes are the product of evolution and specialization as well. Both humans and modern apes come from a common ancestor that is long extinct. But anyway:
This is an easy one–because evolution doesn’t cause entire species to suddenly “level up” and become a new, better species. Evolution occurs within specific populations facing specific environmental pressures that may have no contact with other populations of the same species. For example, a species of ape living in broad, flat grasslands may evolve stronger legs and an upright stance to chase prey and escape from predators. At the same time, a population of the same species living in a dense forest may instead evolve strong arms for climbing because there would be no evolutionary advantage in that environment to walking upright. If these two populations never interbreed, then there is nothing stopping these two populations from eventually becoming two distinct species as they become more specialized in their environment.
Report Post »Treaty
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:33pmWe go to the same schools. We are exposed to the same curriculum. We serve in the same professions. Dear Leader is even supposed to be a Christian. Why is evolution so unconvincing to so many of us?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:41pm“There is no hard evidence for evolution.”
Very untrue. Scientists have collected mounds and mounds of evidence. For example:
Report Post »1) An enormous fossil record which includes millions of species that, while having features and skeletons in some way similar to modern animals, are extinct. Enough of these “transitional” fossils exists that we can trace the development of (for example) the modern horse’s hoof by examining older and older species of equus.
2) vestigial features in modern animals that serve no current purpose.
3) observed adaptations of populations of bacteria when subject to extreme environmental pressures (drug-resistant bacteria).
4) Just about everything we know about DNA, the way it replicates and the possibility of mutation in this process.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:44pmJaycen,
“Bill Nye, the Progressive Socialist Guy is going to lead the charge to stamp out belief in the Bible in just a short couple of centuries.”
“Believing” in the Bible does not necessarily mean taking every word literally. The Bible is full of symbols and contradictions that one must interpret. There are many many people, myself included, who see no reason why one can’t believe in God and acknowledge evolution.
Report Post »Danimal98367
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:44pm@JCLDWL-dummy – “If evolution THEORY was correct. Why are there still apes? Why are there still single cell organisms? why are there still humans? wouldn’t we all have evolved into something else? Or did evolution just magically decide to stop? And if it just magically stopped then when did it stop and why? Can’t explain that can you.”
Yes, we can.
There are still apes because modern apes have evolved from ancient apes and are still evolving, just as we too evolved from ancient apes and are still evolving. We evolved into humans due to certain mutations that were advantageous for certain changes in climate and diet restraints while other ape families evolved in different ways due to their environmental factors. It has taken millions of years. There are still single-celled organisms because those are the most robust life for the function they live and the environment the live in. Some are very very different than ancient ancestor single-cells while others are very very similar. Humans are still evolving. We have larger heads today by about 7% than we as a species did in the early-mid 1800s for example. We are also taller than our ancestors. Even with only a few hundred years (really) of written records we can trace evolution in our species. Evolution hasn‘t stopped and won’t.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:46pmFirst of all, modern apes are not the ancestors of humans. Modern apes are the product of evolution and specialization as well. Both humans and modern apes come from a common ancestor that is long extinct. But anyway:
Report Post »===========
Please show me that common ancestor in the fossil record or from an archeological dig please.
Danimal98367
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:53pm@SleazyHippo Kid “There is no hard evidence for evolution. It is a belief about what the evidence means but it cannot be observed or tested in any manner. Thank you…..”
Wrong. We have the evolutionary mutations within humans in our own written and observed records if you refuse to use fossil evidence. We have doctors and scientists of their days going back a few hundred years showing the norm for humans and can compare it to data of today. That alone shows a change in average height and skull size to name two changes. That shows an evolving over our short written history that cannot be denied except by wilfull ignorance.
How else can we prove it? Fossils haven’t done it for you (meaning you likely haven’t bothered reading a science magazine except for pictures of topless aboriginals), so what else besides actual human written data do you need?
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:55pmWatch this from beginning to end to educate yourselves on what “evolutionists” really believe since all of you creationists seem to be confused on the basics (probably due to not learning about it in biology). Then do some research into the concept of ring species.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&feature=plcp
Also I recommend articles like this to get you started in your research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/yeast-reveals-how-fast-a-cell-can-form-a-body.html
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:13pmLies, Propaganda, and misinformation with the phony science of evolution.
Report Post »http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Lotus4115
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:13pmWhen will beckTards stop with bible crap. Nye and Dawkins are correct, wake up!!!
Angel_light
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:27pmGoodStuff- that’s a good one :)
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:44pm@danimal “Why are there still apes? Why are there still single cell organisms? why are there still humans?” Man, I don’t even know how to start explaining to you how uneducated you are about evolution.. What you just said is what Bill Nye is talking about… You should read the book “Darwins Dangerous Idea” which provides great conceptual descriptions of evoultionary mechanisms which you clearly don’t understand. We never evolved from apes! who ever said that. we shared common ancestors that we all evolved from.. don’t know where you get your education.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:45pmsorry my last comment was ment for JCLD
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:00pmIf you quote the bible you have lost your argument.
Report Post »WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:05pmWBOEHMER and GOODSTUFF……. Those are some very good posts….. The fool has said in his heart, there is no GOD.
Report Post »WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:15pmIf man evolved FROM monkeys, WHY are there STILL MONKEYS???
Report Post »Lordcsmith
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:23pmAnd yet there are tons of scientists that disagree
Report Post »http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
because there are no transitional fossils. When complete organisms show up in the fossil record, they show up complete. Fully formed wings, fully formed eyes. No half-wings, no half eyes. In order for evolution to be true as it is proposed, it violates two laws that have been proven: The second law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis. How does new genetic material get introduced? How does bioluminescence evolve in plankton, and in the firefly, when they are not related in the least. Bioluminescence would have to have evolved twice. How do wings show up on reptiles, mammals, birds and insects, fully formed with no half attempts? They don’t know. Mr. Nye, the reason Americans are distinctly resistant to evolution is because we have a long history of being resistant to the BS of tyrants.
WATER-THE-TREE
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:25pmIf anyone hasn’t already, I would recommend a video by Illustra media or the book “ The Privilaged Planet”…. You have to be brain dead to not believe in intelligent design after watching this!….. http://www.theprivilegedplanet.com/
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:36pm@ PUBLIUS…..Mounds and mounds of evidence????? I think you mistake belief with science my friend. The fossils prove absolutely nothing. You cannot demonstrate one instance of any dead thing reproducing much less evolving into something else. You may believe it by inference but that is hardly hard evidence and more closely akin of “blind” faith. Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. —West, R. (Kansas State Univ.), Paleontology and Uniformitarianism, Compass 45:216, 1968. Vestigal features??? I don’t mean to be rude but that is funny. Give me your best example of a vestigal feature for me. The absolute best one you can. That old argument was debunked a while ago my friend. But give me your best one and I’ll show you why it is not proof of evolution in any way. “observed adaptations of populations of bacteria when subject to extreme environmental pressures (drug-resistant bacteria)”…This is not evolution in producing a new kind nor is it gaining genetic material it is the loss of genetic material the exact opposite of the theory of evolution my friend. So far 0 for 3. Just about everything we know about DNA actually stumps scientist in regard to evolution. They CANNOT explain chemical evolution a
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:43pm@ DANIMAL…”Wrong. We have the evolutionary mutations within humans in our own written and observed records if you refuse to use fossil evidence”…this is not evidence for evolution producing a new kind my friend. You need to understand what evolution actually states before you list supposed evidence. “That shows an evolving over our short written history that cannot be denied except by wilfull ignoranc”..This is an ironic statement given the fact that you just supported microevolution not Macro which is what we are discussing my friend. Not trying to be arrogant but I have trained for 8 years in the hard sciences and 7 in the medical arts. I have studied numerous evolution and biology courses I am VERY familiar with evolutionary teachings. You apparently do not understand the issues I am arguing. Please study some more to clear up your misgivings about what you have stated. I am not trying to brag at all I just want you to know my background and that I am not a simpleton arguing against evolution. Again, there is NO hard emperical evidence for evolution. It is all speculation based on inference and circular reasoning with a predetermined out come and the theory is conjectured to fit that outcome hence the developement of punctuated equilibrium. Do you know why SJG came up with that theory? Find that answer and you will understand my position better….Thank you….
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:44pm@LordC and Water: Please, just look at other places that actually base their views on science using the scientific method. Not people who quote scripture to validate your argument. All of the things you’ve talked about are mentioned earlier in this thread and are easily disproved.
The links I posted earlier are very good starting points to understand why you’re interpretation of this is incorrect. It doesn‘t mean God doesn’t exist. It doesn’t mean that your religion is under attack, nor that I’m attacking your religion.
What most “evolutionists” want is for people to understand the basics of the science that goes into this and acknowledge that it is just a function of nature. It is part of the way the universe works, just like air currents, electricity and other normal natural phenomenon. All of your arguments are completely and easily falsifiable and are disproved with just an ounce of effort.
Please just look into it for real with an open mind and open heart, because this isn’t about crushing spiritualism or indoctrination. This is about understanding how the universe works and what a wonder life is and how amazing it is that it exists in this vast void we call the universe.
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:47pm@Sleazy: watch this video and learn please…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:50pmI actually believe in the theory of religious evolution. The earliest civilizations had hundreds of gods, science and discovery proved they were not all needed and later civilizations had dozens of gods, eventually most contemporary civilizations reduced their beliefs to one god. Thankfully, evolution demonstrates we only have to subtract one more.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:51pmLordCSmith,
Actually, there are a lot of examples of “half-wings.” Take, for example, the wings on flightless birds such as the dodo and the ostrich. In the fossil record, a number of non-avian “feathered dinosaurs” have been found that may or may not have been able to actually fly. It is likely that for many of them had “half wings” that aided in jumping or flying short distances (as in the case of some modern chickens). It is currently unknown how many dinosaur species had feathers since it is comparatively rare that traces of feathers are preserved.
Those dinosaurs that did manage to develop functional wings became the ancestors of birds. Simple as that.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:52pm@ PUBLIUS….If you think that “all we know” about DNA supports evolution then please due tell in summary what that evidence is? There is none. Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, discusses the problem of pleiotropy, that is, one gene affecting a number of seemingly totally unrelated functions in living organisms. For example, changes in the coat color genes in mice also affect body size. The microbiologist Behe has also ably rebutted Dawkins in his book Darwin’s Black Box, where he has shown that behind the many words of this arch-defender of Darwin, there is no mechanism in Darwinian evolution to add new information to a species at the macro level by a meaningful set of changes to the DNA letters, because “forward information” as to what the changes are aimed at is needed. Otherwise the intervening mutations have no advantage. Indeed, to form the code to begin with, it is vital that the sender and the receiver part of the cell both have prior agreement as to the meaning of the code, else there can be no communication. But Darwinian evolution only has chance mutations at its disposal. Because no “advance thinking” can possibly be allowed, there is no way that the nucleotides can arrange themselves in a “pre-defined code,” since this assumes prior knowledge. Thus, the very existence of the DNA-coded language stalls evolution at the first hurdle…..Thank you ahead…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:55pm@ MONTAR…I‘m afriad I don’t need to learn anything my friend, I am very well educated in the disciplines of evolution, field biology, zoology, genetics and devleopmental biology. You may want to delve deeper and understand the problems with evolution and why no hard evidence exists. I don’t think you even understand the issues that many scientists acknowledge readily….But thank you anyway…Suppose you give me your best, absolute best evidence for macroevolution or chemical evolution. That would be great thank you for your time….
Report Post »GreatDayITM
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:07pmPeople will and do believe whatever they choose. I choose to believe in a creator of all things. Really,, what would be the sense in all of “this” without a creator?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:11pmLordCSmith,
Furthermore, in terms of bioluminescence, is there any reason to expect that this typical adaptation couldn’t evolve many times? Given that this is a chemical reaction possible in even relatively basic organism like plankton and algae, why would you expect that the evolutionary formula would be so exclusive?
In terms of eyes, there are many “Half Eyes.” Given, for example, the some types of Eagles have a visual acuity 3.6x better than humans, you might consider us as having “Half Eyes.” Other animals, such as snails, have only extremely primitive eyes that are more-or-less simply photosensitive cells. Other animals cannot see color, and for others with simple eyes they can only really see motion. If you take human eyes as “Full Eyes,” we can see just in the species still alive today and enormous diversity in eye development and visual acuity.
Just take a look at cave dwelling animals and animals that live underground and have nonfunctioning vestigial eyes. There are some moles that are effectively blind, but still actually have vestigial eyes covered in layers of skin.
So, lots of “Half Eyes” out there.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:13pm@ DANIMAL…..let me clarify further. All you provided evidence for was variation within a kind of animal. In this case humans. Of course, adaptation or variations within a kind is observable and undisputed, however, that does NOT in any way support macroevolution or the generation of a “new” kind of animal. Please lQQk into the differences and you will be on more solid footing when you agrue your point. Thank again…
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:43pmSleazyHippos,
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. —West, R”
Ah, an oldy but a goody. We don’t just interpret the fossil record by evolution, it’s proven again and again to be the best fit theory. New fossils have repeatedly confirmed the narrative of evolution, while no competing theory has been nearly as effective. The only reason we would stop interpreting the fossil record by evolution is if we discover a better fit theory that uses fewer assumptions. The assumption that an omnipotent invisible being simply created everything using his infinite power does not fit the bill because of the obvious enormous assumption being made.
“This is not evolution in producing a new kind nor is it gaining genetic material it is the loss of genetic material the exact opposite of the theory of evolution my friend.”
Actually, natural selection is all about the “loss” of genetic material. Resistance to a disease/poison/etc. is “new” in the sense that it doesn’t appear in the population at large. When this adaptation provides an advantage, segments of the pop. without this adaptation die off. Those with the adaptation become dominant. So you see, your objection makes no sense.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:03pm“You cannot demonstrate one instance of any dead thing reproducing much less evolving into something else.”
Are you looking for a sex tape here? You’re right–dead things don‘t reproduce when they’re dead. What I think you are talking about is observed speciation, which can take thousands and thousands of generations to occur. Now, given the long odds on actually finding preserved skeletons that are thousands of years old, you can understand how unlikely it would be to find a series of even a hundred of them within the same genetic line. That said, scientists have observed the simple organisms acquiring new traits and abilities.
Report Post »http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
But, of course, to be observed, this process could only include animals with extremely short lifespans and very quick reproductive lives.
reality_check
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:05pmDarwin’s Failed Predictions and much more.
http://www.judgingpbs.com/index.html
Report Post »Komponist-ZAH
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:07pm“‘When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in [capitalism], it holds everybody back, really,’ he said, going on to say that it’s difficult to make sense of life and to attain the proper answers if one denies [economic] theory.
“[ZAH] went on to plead with parents — even those who ‘deny [capitalism]‘ and live in a ’world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in [human history]‘ — to properly educate their children.
“‘We need [logically] literate voters and taxpayers for the future.’ he added.
“‘In another couple centuries that worldview [of leftism/totalitarianism], I’m sure…just won’t exist,’ [ZAH] concluded. ‘There’s no evidence for it.’”
There, that’s better, no?
————————————————–
PS-The Blaze—
Not such a fan of the new look, nor is my browser. :(
Report Post »jonnydoe
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:16pmCheck out http://www.reasons.org/explore/type/todays-new-reason
Report Post »Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:22pmBill Nye – You now seem to think that if someone believes in God, they aren’t smart enough to become engineers or scientists. Well, in that respect, you are just plain stupid. As for your comments, you have now completely trashed the respect that I had for you. Since you obviously think I am a knuckle-dragging troglodyte because I believe in God, then you certainly don’t want my money to fund your position in the Planetary Society. Carl Sagan didn’t believe, but he sure never put down anyone that did (that I ever heard). Nice that you have joined Obama and dividing the country instead of bringing people together. You have received the last penny that you will ever get from me. Have a nice day, Professor Atheist.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:40pmSleazy,
You keep going on and on about the lack of “new” genetic material, but how about this:
Let me start with a premise that I think we can both agree on. Dogs were bred from wolves. We agree? To be specific, a simple wikipedia search will tell us that a dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf. So dogs are not a distinct species, which is why dogs and wolves can interbreed; that’s how close they are genetically. OK?
So wolves obviously have a great sense of smell, yet bloodhounds have a much better sense of smell. Now, if adaptation were not possible, then you could breed wolves together for generations and generations and never get an offspring with a better sense of smell than its parents. And yet this must have happened numerous times, since we now have bloodhounds. You might say the same with speed and greyhounds.
Now, this is a case of “unnatural selection,” but it’s not fundamentally different from natural selection. In the case of a dog, humans made a conscious decision to breed together dogs with the best sense of smell. In the wild, individual animals with a better sense of smell might have an advantage over other members of their species, and therefore have a better chance of surviving and producing many offspring. Simple simple.
Report Post »FNGRNFAN
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:48pm“Bill Nye the atheist Science Guy”
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:52pm@ PUBLIUS…to better understand why bacteria gaining resistence to drugs is NOT evidence for evolution (macro) you might want to read more from Dr. Spetner. He points out that gaining resistence still involves information loss. This is actually an argument against macroevolution my friend. Check it out. You will see I am correct on my facts…For example when a bacteria has a mishapen ribosome from the loss of genetic material an antibiotic may not be able to attatch and destroy the bacteria. Even though it is a beneficial mutation it still contains a loss of genetic material or information. In fact, in normal environments without the artificial selective pressure of the antibiotic the bacterium would be weaker than its normal cousins with normal ribosomes. This in no way provides a mechanism for the evolution of a new kind of organism. It is still the same only with less genetic information, not more….Thank you….
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:03pm@Sleazy: What do you mean no hard evidence? There is a ton of evidence to support it. It is the best description of how species develop. It isn’t that difficult of a concept to understand. You are approaching this with your mind already made up and it shows.
I was doing a really long winded response explaining what I want to talk about but you‘re just going to say I’m wrong and there’s no evidence without providing anything of substance. So I’m just going to conclude with this:
Evolution isn’t like what you see in PokeMon. Animals don’t just level up into whatever their next form is. They pass on their genes to their children and the children that are best suited to survival due to some unique genetic trait are more likely to be able to breed than the rest of their species so they pass on those traits. As those traits become more and more concentrated you start to see a change in their basic DNA structure. The changes only take place once a generation so the change can be handled by the structure of DNA and that is why it takes a long time for new species to develop.
We have reproduceable evidence in laboratory settings showing us how Multi-cellular creatures could arise in a natural setting. We have the fossil record, we have ring species, we have tons of evidence that points to speiciation by means of natural selection. Why are there so many species that are close enough genetically that they can breed sterile offspring? Evolution can answer that, creationis
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:05pmI mentioned this so here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/yeast-reveals-how-fast-a-cell-can-form-a-body.html
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:10pm@ PUBLIUS….I agree with everything you stated in your last post. You gave an absolutely superb example of microeveolution at work. Adaptation within a “kind” of animal is very active and aparent. However, this does NOT prove the developemment of a new “kind” of animal in the slightest. Actually that is why you have to use that example because there is NO evidence for one “kind” of organism giving rise to another “kind” of organism. You see you are confusing 2 very different subjects, that of micro and macroevolution. I have been arguing against macroevolution or the developement of new “kinds” of animals from other “kinds”. If we take your dog and wolf example we can see that we can get all sorts of different dogs, big, little, tall, short, long hair, short hair, fast, slow, aggressive, docile. However, we still simply have an organism from the dog family. They are not somehting different. Again, you keep pointing to microevolution and argue it supports macroevolution and that is simply illogical my friend. Thank you….
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:13pm5 seconds, found a thorough essay refuting the claims of Dr. Spetner:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm
If I spend a little bit more time and effort I bet I can find an entire library’s worth of information disproving his hypothesis.
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:21pm@Sleazy: Arg! You didn’t watch that video I posted did you?
Here it is again so you don’t have to scroll back up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ
Watch it, it talks about exactly what you’re talking about right there with “kinds” you are explaining the very concept of what evolution is. You show your willful ignorance of the subject. We are only talking about a difference of terminology and lengths of time.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:32pm@ MONTAR…..”They pass on their genes to their children and the children that are best suited to survival due to some unique genetic trait are more likely to be able to breed than the rest of their species so they pass on those traits. As those traits become more and more concentrated you start to see a change in their basic DNA structure. The changes only take place once a generation so the change can be handled by the structure of DNA and that is why it takes a long time for new species to develop.” you stated all that to make a fine argument for microevolution not macroevolution which is what we are debating…That proves nothing of an organism giving rise to a “new kind” of organism whatsoever. You can believe it if you want to, but you may NOT call it science. Speciation is NOT proof of macroevolution. I don’t know why people supposedly so scientific cannot understand this concept. There are different species of dogs but they are all dogs. The better nomenclature is kind. We are talking new kinds of organisms which has never been observed in a lab or found in the fossil record period. You think you know more than you do and it is obvious in the way you are trying to argue your point. You really need to become more familiar with what you are trying to prove because it is obvious you do not understand the issue were are discussing. I apology if that sounds arrogant, it is not meant to, but you really have proved nothing except your lack of understanding…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:57pm@ MONTAR…Your video has been watched and it changes nothing of our discussion my friend. Certainly it is possible that certain species within a kind may not be able to interbreed any longer, but contrary to the voice over this is not the “very definition” of macro evolution because it does not demonstarte that either of those organisms give rise to new organisms. It just simply ends up right back where we left off. I give you an “A” for effort but you really still have proven noithing my friend. I’ll await your best strongest evidence. Thank you…..
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:02pm@Sleazy, you are not arguing any type of description of Natural Selection that I’ve ever heard of. Everything you call micro-evolution is exactly how evolution by means of natural selection works as stated by the current scientific definition of it. Macro-evolution, as you call it, just describes what happens when species over a long enough timeline no longer are able to breed together and look different enough to be considered something different under our form of classification of animals. That’s it, I can‘t argue more than that because that’s all there is to it. You pointing out micro-evolution is describing exactly how the process works. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution it’s just different stages of the same process over a long enough timeline.
I don’t know how to describe it any clearer than that.
Again, it is clear you didn‘t watch the video because it describes the EXACT argument you’re using and shows you what you are actually saying along with how evolution is actually defined compared to the theory of speciation and the “kinds” you describe. It hits every point you’re talking about.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:02pm@ MONTAR….That site did not repudiate bacteria lossing genetic information to gain antibitotic resistence????? All you did was a google and found what you THOUGHT repudiated it. For goodness sake I am a physician and know how bacteria and drug resistance work. I was not arguing anything else he has stated just that one simple FACT my friend. Again, you think you know more than you really do. Please study the science not google information. Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:24am@MONTAR…you Still don’t understand. You are arguing for the development of a new kind of organism by citing changes within the same kind of animal and then presto give it time and bing new kind of animal all together. There is simply no evidence for this you cannot point to any which is why you keep pointing to adaptation within the same kind of animal. My statement of macroevolution is exactly correct and you think that because we observe variation within a kind of organism it must given enough time result in all the different kinds of animals on earth. However this has never been observed no fossil ever demonstrates this, and no evidence for this exists chemically on the level of DNA. That has been my point all along. Your position is one of assumption and inference based on what we do see and you have labeled it scientific fact which could not be farther from science. There is simply no evidence for your position that is credible, empiric, hard, or incontrovertible. However, many such as yourself argue it as fact not truly understanding what assumptions the theory rests upon and believe the fossils support their theory as fact which is guilty of circular reasoning. You cannot know what those fossils represent in evolutionary terms any more than I can say complete strangers are related in photographs I find because they look similar. Yet you try to argue as though you can demonstrating that you don’t understand the science, the theory, or the problems with it .. Ty
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:47am@GOODSTUFF
Amazing someone who says that evolution “doesn’t make sense”
Can also think it that 2 of every species got onto a single boat
Report Post »That people can walk on water
That people can come back to life
That snakes could talk
That people could live to be 900 years old
BloodSweatandTears
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:08am@BINGETHINKER
Not only the points made in the article are fascinating, but here’s a thought; Having the pure accident of mutation occurring to create a perfect advancement (you hope,) each time, you also have to have that accidental advancement occur simultaneously in a male, as well as a female…during their lifetime, at the same rate, individually. What are the odds of of a perfect accidental advancement and completion in a male AND a female? (It’s as though you really have two distinct species…male versus female). Now multiply that by every species…..? What are the odds of that?
Report Post »And if anyone can help out here…..A plant flowers. It goes to seed. The seed falls to the earth and
germinates. The frost comes, the plant dies. If the seed is not successful the cycles stops. Therefore how much evolution can you fit into four seasons? Because that‘s all you’ve got to perfect it….Do we have to eliminate seasons to make evolution work?
Wolf
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:18amHey, Bill- where’d all the stuff come from to go BANG and become a monkey life you?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:06amSleazyhippos,
So you entirely agree with the mechanisms of microevolution, but you reject the idea of macroevolution? Yet, macroevolution is just microevolution over a much much much longer period of time and on a larger scale. Given the significant changes that can occur in, say, the body of beagle in a relatively short span of selective breeding, what reason would you have to doubt the possibility of speciation and further divergence over an exponentially longer period of time?
There is no fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution occurs over a very large period of time, which is why our best evidence of it is in the fossil record.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:24am@ PUBLIUS….”So you entirely agree with the mechanisms of microevolution, but you reject the idea of macroevolution? Yet, macroevolution is just microevolution over a much much much longer period of time and on a larger scale”….Please tell me you don’t really believe this? That is not accurate my friend. MACRO states that “new” kinds of animals are produced over time and this is simply not observed in the fossil record, in the lab, or in the DNA of animals. It is an assumption based on an observation within the same kind of organism. Now you can believe it if you choose, but you CANNOT call that science or fact as so many do. It simply is not science in any way. For a summary of why it is not please refer to my last post to MONTAR please.
“what reason would you have to doubt the possibility of speciation and further divergence over an exponentially longer period of time?”….because there is no evidence for it…If you want to believe it that is OK with me but it is not science which is what I have been arguing all along. You infer that since micro happens and is observable, that MACRO must be true, but that is not science and it is illogical to believe, in my opinion, because there is no evidence for one kind of organism giving rise to another kind of organism. It is really just a belief based on assumptions and presuppositions, but it is not a scientific explanation based on hard or direct evidence because we have none. Thank you….
Report Post »sensibleadult
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:43amBet Skinny Bill supports abortion, which has been harmful to 50,000,000 children.
Report Post »lmojoml
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:32amMutations are a loss of information! How does that produce more complex molecules to man evolution?
Answer = It can not!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/check-this-out/evolution-refuted
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:37am@ PUBLIUS…let’s take bacteria for example. They are simple structures when compared with ourselves or other complex organisms, which would logically seem to evolve much easier into other organisms. They reproduce very quickly giving you thousands and thousands of generations within a very short span of time. Also, we can easily manipulate their environment to place all sorts of selective criteria on them therefore selecting for different characteristics. However, NEVER has a bacteria been anything but a bacteria. It does not become a fungi or some other type of organism. It always remains a bacteria, ALWAYS. It may be listed as a new species but it is still a bacteria. Now a virus, which is genetic information, can infect the bacteria, but that bacteria NEVER becomes anything but a bacterial cell despite being able to rapidly multiple and thus decrease the need for long periods of time to observe a “new” kind of organism. If you studied that same bacteria for a year you would have 25,500 generations (staph) to observe and if you studied it for 20 years you would have over half a million generations and guess what? No new organism EVER always just a bacteria. Everything that would classify that organism as a bacteria would still classify that organism as a bacteria. Thank you….
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:11amSleazy,
” You infer that since micro happens and is observable, that MACRO must be true, but that is not science and it is illogical to believe, in my opinion, because there is no evidence for one kind of organism giving rise to another kind of organism.”
Again, you are making an arbitrary distinction between macro and micro evolution. These processes are not fundamentally different. When you keep mentioning new “kinds” of animals, I can only assume you are referring to speciation, despite your deliberately vague terminology. Speciation itself has certainly been observed in a laboratory setting. For example:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/creation_of_new_species
But really, your argument covers up the fact that you are the one making the big leap of faith. Given the observable and tangible effects of selective breeding, we know that populations can change and mutate dramatically. Yet you make the assumption that somehow there is some arbitrary barrier that exists as the outer border of a species that is impossible to cross. There is nothing reasonable or logical about that assumption, even if scientists had not observed speciation in a lab setting (which they have).
But OK–if you are asserting that evolution is not the best fit theory to describe the fossil record and modern day genetic diversity, what is? What are those alternative theories?
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:11amBelieving we are all just one big accident is a sick twisted lie straight out of the pits of h-e-l-l.
Tell your child he or she is a mistake, an accident, unplanned, not intended and watch them self destruct before your eyes. The universe came from something not nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. What came before the big bang? No one can answer that except to say it does not matter. Genesis tells us simply that God spoke the Universe into existence. He is the force behind all life and creation.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:29am@ MONTAR…I did watch the video and what you fail to understand is that the process described in the video accountsd for microevolution, ie the dog family and all the different dogs that may exist with wolves etc. And yes some rabbits cannot interbreed but those rabbits do not produce other types of organisms. MACRO evolution would suggest that what was at one time a rabbit eventually with enough time becomes something entirely different from the rabbit family in any meaningful way and this is what there is absolutely no evidence for. I don’t know why you cannot grasp this concept. You are making an assumption and blind leap. The bird chart shown in the video is NOT the evolutionary tree for all organisms. It was still a chart of all BIRDS. You cannot scientifically extrapolate what happens within a kind of animal and demonstrate with evidence that this has happened to produce different kinds of animals. The fossils don’t support it, DNA doesn’t support it, lab observations in bacteria don’t support it. What do you not understand about that concept? Of course your video does not want to draw a distinction between micro and macro evolution because the only evidence you possess is for micro, however, to scientifically conclude that MACRO therefore happens is not plausible. MACRO is an entirely different concept than micro. You might believe it, but it is not scientific in any manner. Thank you….
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:42amSleazy,
Two points regarding your bacteria example:
1) So you are arguing that because something can’t be observed within a 20 year span, it is necessarily impossible for it to happen in a 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000,000 year span? Sorry, but that’s not a logical argument.
2) But anyway, your bacteria example is incredibly deceptive. According to current scientific classifications, “Bacteria” is one of three domains, which are the largest divisions of life on Earth. In comparison, “Family” is five divisions below domain, and “Species” is seven. So when you say that no one has ever observed a Bacteria “becoming something else,” you are complaining that in the incredibly amazingly ridiculously short amount of time humans have been observing microorganisms (roughly 450 years), we haven’t observed a genetic divergence so radical that it has only happened twice in 3.5 to 3.8 billion years? That seems a bit silly if you ask me.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:44am” It was still a chart of all BIRDS. You cannot scientifically extrapolate what happens within a kind of animal and demonstrate with evidence that this has happened to produce different kinds of animals.”
So you are specifically denying any evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds?
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:45am@JHRUSKY
It is out of arrogance that “believers” place limitations on God and claim He/She/It could not possibly have created beings that adapt to an ever-changing environment in order to survive. Next, they will claim that He/She/It could not possibly have created an environment that changes. It adds to, not takes away, from the miracle of life to observe that it is self-perpetuating, and that is by design.
Report Post »Zac
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:45amCan anyone tell me this evolution is a theory. So was the Siberian Land bridge. The argument was that there was no way for any one to build a ship that could travel the oceans prior to when it took place around Columbus’s time frame. in the mid to late 1800′s the scientists clung so tight to this theory that they destroyed any evidence that departed from this theory. Now that theory has been dis proven with the Aborigines in Australia. How much historical evidence was lost because someone was clinging to a stupid theory. how much was overlooked and re-written? Scholars who had differing opinions were barred from the scientific community. Just because my opinion is different does not make me wrong. our job as humans is to objectively look at both sides and make an informed opinion on the evidence provided. I do not believe in evolution. However I respect someones freedom to believe in it. Is it too much to ask for the same.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:38pmSleazy,
I appreciate that you are adopting a position of extreme skepticism. Skepticism is, of course, absolutely necessary for scientific inquiry. Yet, your skepticism is so extreme that you’ve essentially said that unless scientists can directly observe in an unbroken line the hundreds of thousands of generations it would take to create a genetic divergence on the level of order or family, then you refuse to accept evolution as a credible theory. This is an impossible standard.
But, in the end, skepticism in and of itself can’t unseat a dominant scientific theory. Only a better-fit theory can do that. So please–what is the better theory? What theory makes fewer assumptions and is more directly observable and verifiable than evolution? What theory stands up to your extreme standard of skepticism?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:40pmZac,
“Just because my opinion is different does not make me wrong.”
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean your “opinion” is more scientific than the dominant theory. That doesn’t mean your opinion should be taught in a science class.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:49pm@ PUBLIUS…While I understand your reluctance to acknowledge the difference between Micro and Macro evolution because of the difficulties it presents to your position and still calling it scientific fact, the distinction is anything as arbitrary. One argues that variations occur within a kind of organsim while the other seeks to explain how different kinds of organsims come into existence. Big big difference and the distinction is within the conclusions themselves, not because I arbitrarlity assign it. Speciation is not new what I am referring to. Dogs have many species but still belong to the canine family. Dogs, wolves, pitbulls, labs are all the same kind of animal with variations among them. But a dog is not a horse, which is not a cat. They are different kinds of animals. They have no common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence of their common ancestor. The belief is just that a belief based on inference and assumption based on observed phenomenon within a specific kind of organism. You are free to believe it once again, but don’t call that science it is not science in any meaningful way, it is a belief based on many assumptions.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:56pm@ PUBLIUS…”There is nothing reasonable or logical about that assumption, even if scientists had not observed speciation in a lab setting” Except the lack of evidence that this occurs. Again, you can believe it to be but you cannot argue from inference and call it scientific fact. Your conclusion is based on your assumption that it is somehow possible therefore it must have happened or is happening. That is not science my friend. The alterantive is that there is an intelligent designer that has created organisms that reproduce after their own kind which much more clearly fits the evidence from a cosmological perspective, chemical perspective, & bilogical perspective. It addresses the laws of entropy and many of the other big problems with macroevolution that currently exists, but many scientists because of a presupposition does not allow them to explain the evidence form this perspective. Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:11pm@ PUBLIUS…your fallacy in addressing the bacteria example is your disregard for the artifical manipulation of researches that dramatically speeds up the selective process. Finally, your assertion exposes the very weakness of your position. Essentially you state, no one has observed it, no lab has produced it, but it must be true because there it is. Your presupposition does not allow you to entertain any other explanation. There is absolutely no evidence that these simple organisms evolved from a common ancestor or into other organsims. You believe it, which one more time is fine, but don‘t call that science and certainly don’t call it fact because you cannot and remain intellectually honest.
Dinosaurs and birds? That came from left field. I don’t think you understand what I was commenting on regarding the video posted. I’ll assume you simply misunderstood given your inquiry.
Thank you for all your time and input…..
Report Post »Deezin
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:32pmYeah. Bill says the USA is the most innovative and advanced country. And “National Geographic” agrees that “Deep Time” and Evolution are rejected in U.S. more than any other country. So – how has it hurt us again?
Report Post »Most innovative! Most advanced – His words.
Sounds like he just made the case for LESS evolutionary education. Ha.
Taquoshi
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:38pm“In another couple centuries that worldview, I’m sure…just won’t exist,” Nye concluded. “There’s no evidence for it.”
Well, isn’t that nice? Neither you, Bill, nor I will be there to see whether you are right or wrong. However, God will. I‘m sure He’ll clue you in.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:52pm” The alterantive is that there is an intelligent designer that has created organisms that reproduce after their own kind which much more clearly fits the evidence from a cosmological perspective, chemical perspective, & bilogical perspective.”
And this is the theory to which you apply your extreme skepticism? This intelligent design theory doesn’t hold up to any of the standards for a scientific theory:
1) It posits a one time event of creation that could not possibly be replicated in a lab (and therefore can never be verified)
2) It posits the intervention of an outside actor/force for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, making this a colossal assumption.
3) Intelligent design does nothing to explain the fossil record and entirely ignores the implication of geological time spans.
4) The basic premise behind the “theory” is that it is beyond our grasp to actually understand how different species came to be beyond the basic idea of creation. Can you think of one single other scientific theory in all of science that works this way?
I find it hard to believe that the same person who is so skeptical that he insists on witnessing the actual creation of a new family of species will somehow overlook these enormous flaws in intelligent design theory.
You can believe whatever theology you like, but don‘t pretend it’s science.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:59pmSleazy,
” One argues that variations occur within a kind of organsim while the other seeks to explain how different kinds of organsims come into existence.”
These are the same processes. Again, there is no actual difference between micro and macro evolution. You’re getting hung up on your own non-scientific terminology–you have to at least acknowledge that your use of the word “kind” is vague and not technically precise. Well, then how can you expect there to be some kind of impenetrable genetic wall separating “kinds” if it’s a category you are using imprecisely in the first place?
Let’s be clear here–it’s you not me making the leap. You repeatedly assert that micro and macro evolution are two distinct things, and yet there is no evidence to suggest this since the difference is only in spans of time. Please, explain to me the principles of genetics and heredity that states unequivocally that the one organism can’t evolve past a certain limit?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:13pm“Dinosaurs and birds? That came from left field. I don’t think you understand what I was commenting on regarding the video posted. I’ll assume you simply misunderstood given your inquiry.”
No it didn’t. It’s a well recorded and studied example of what you would call one “kind” of animal becoming another “kind” of animal.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:21pmLost some respect for Bill. So If I don‘t believe in what you do then basically I’m a fool and just dumb. Oh ok. So all the intelligent people (many smarter than Bill) that have walked the earth who haven’t held they believe in this are just dumb? Or somehow haven’t looked at the evidence. Thanks for the insult Billy. Sorry we can’t all be as smart as you.
Report Post »Strong Father Restored
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:34pmContrary to BO, I guess we are a Christian Nation!
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:37pmSleazy,
So another question for you on Intelligent Design. Now, the Theory of Evolution has multiple ways in which it can be confirmed and verified. Any theory needs to be verifiable, otherwise it’s of little use as a theory. So, explain to me exactly how the Theory of Intelligent Design can be verified?
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:58pm@ PUBLIUS….” It posits a one time event of creation that could not possibly be replicated in a lab (and therefore can never be verified)”…Neither does cosmic ex nihlo but this doesn’t stop “scientists” like Hawking or Krauss, yet I believe you except their expansion theory as scientific, do you not?
Report Post »“It posits the intervention of an outside actor/force for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, making this a colossal assumption”…the only colossal assumption is that there is no evidence for this creator. There is much evidence. All people agree that the universe had a beginning the question is what started it all? How did something come from nothing? And you assert that spontaneous generation is more logical than an ID?
“Intelligent design does nothing to explain the fossil record and entirely ignores the implication of geological time spans.” …Of course it explains the fossil record. Living things eventually die some even go extinct. There are many similarities in organisms as function and morphology are typically closely related that does not mean they had a common ancestor. CONT….
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 4:01pm@ PUBLIUS….Many secular scientists (nonreligious in nature) favor ID over cosmic, chemical & biological evolution because of the greater problems with the latter. While no theory answers every little detailed question about how, why, when, or what this is hardly cause to reject an explanation. You stated a theory is replaced when a stronger more comprehensive theory can replace it and explain difficulties in a more logical fashion. Well, many secular scientists have espoused the theory of ID because of the many varied issues with evolution from the cosmos and origins of life to evolution. So I will stand in agreement with you that a stronger more plausible theory has emerged. Biochemists, biologists, mathematicians, astronomers, zoologists, chemists, and geneticists have all started questioning the old sacred cow of evolution and many have found it wanting. Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 4:51pm@ PUBLIUS…the use of the term “kind” is no more less precise or arbitrary than the man made terms you ascribe to such as species. Many scientist have had to redefine what species even means because of some anomolies within organisms. So whats your point. You fully understand when I say kinds what I am referring to. Dogs are dogs (wolves are a kind of dog), cats are cats(lions and tigers are kinds of cats), horses are horse (zebras are a type of horse). Micro and Macro are 2 different things as is taught by evolutionists for decades my friend. Micro by definition does NOT give rise to a new kind of animal. Macro by definition is how new kinds of animals arise. micro happens within the population of dogs but dogs will never give rise to a non-dog organism. Macro thus seeks to explain how a dog organism would then give rise to a nondog organism. They are different in their explanation of observed evidence. That is not my definition but that of the evolutionary theory. So by that we should see many many transition forms within the fossil record, but when SJG did not see that, he espoused punctuated equilibrium to try and explain the “lack” of evidence. The “tranisitional” forms are surprisingly absent given the abundance of divergent life on Earth creating large gaps within the fossil record. You have a theory now based on lack of evidence. That is not science it is fitting a round peg into a square hole. Or do you hold neo or traditional evolution? Thank
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:05pm“Micro and Macro are 2 different things as is taught by evolutionists for decades my friend.”
They are different words describing different time frames and distinguished by what happens below and above the level of species, but the actual processes are no different, and there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that there is any kind of barrier between them. You have done nothing to prove that there is any limitation to the processes common to both, so what you have their is a distinction without a fundamental difference.
Ernst Mayr, one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century and one time curator of the American Museum of Natural History:
Report Post »“transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species…it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”
RWCT
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:08pmBill Nye, the stupid Guy. No true knowledge, and NO WISDOM. We KNOW, by the CREATION around us, there is GOD, and so we stand without EXCUSE. I pray Nyes EYES will be opened!!
Report Post »Osaka
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:11pm@Sleazy, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the conversation on evolution and intelligent design you engaged in. Whether you made any difference in the individual’s life you were debating with, I wanted to say I found your respectful attitude and sticking to the facts refreshing. I doubt I have even an inkling of the knowledge you have, but I’m still studying up on the subject matter and it was encouraging to see a scientific-minded individual answer both kindly and firmly. God bless!
Report Post »OSU Cowboy
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:11pmthe Bible has been around longer than Bill Nye and will still be here when he is answering for his pride and arrogance.
Report Post »RWCT
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:14pmBill Nye a guys girl, coming out, HAS to deny Gods’ existence, to be able to justify, in his mind, that his lifestyle is acceptable.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:26pm@ PUBLIUS….What is it that atheists always tell me? Ah yes, since I am making a positive assertion that God exists the burden of evidence lands upon my assertion. So if you are making the assertion that MACRO can in fact create “new” kinds of animals it is you my friend who must provide the evidence, not me. You are making a positive assertion and inferring it from observed scientific events within a given population. You then say this “must” be the case for the existence of such diversity among all organisms. Then if I say where is your proof? You say it is I who must prove it does not happen. Again, my friend you keep trying to flip and flop on terms and what I must prove when I am not the one asserting that MACRO explains the diversity of organisms, that is your psoition. At the risk of beating a dead horse, you may believe that, but it is not science it is simply a belief that it must be the answer. As far as my proof, all I need to do is show you have none for the theory you espouse, and I still have not seen you provide any for MACRO….”it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”…He is right and I have not made a distinction between the CAUSES, I have made a distinction about which one actually has evidence for its occurance and which one does not. It is NOT scietific to infer that because MICRO happens MACRO must happen, there simply is no credible evidence that it does. If you possess it please state
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:06pm@ PUBLIUS..when you lQQk at microevolution and the variations that occur within a population you, by way of extrapolation, predict this can then happen within MACRO evolution to produce transpeciation (different kinds). While extrapolation can be useful in some instances it can have serious limits. For example, if we lQQk at the population growth for humans we could extrapolate what the population would be in 10 years let’s say, but in 100 years we would reject that figure knowing that other factors, namely that the Earth could not support that many people, would come into play. So the question you must ask is, can evolution from “molecules to man” (or any kind into another kind of organism) be extrapolated from microevolution within a population? Are there boundary conditions and logical limits to the amount of change that time, chance, and natural selection can produce? As it turns out, there are several factors that sharply limit the amount of change that can be produced by time, chance, and Darwinian natural selection. Perhaps the biggest problem for evolutionists is “the marvelous fit of organisms to their environment.” Many adaptations involve whole groups of traits working together, and none of the individual pieces have any survival value (Darwinian fitness) until the whole set is functioning together. This alone would prove to be a difficult hurdle for transpeciation to account for given your psoition of MACRO being the greater form of MICRO. Thank y
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:16pm@ OSAKA….thank you for the encouragement. God bless and keep diggin’ and studying.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:00pmSleazy,
As I have already pointed out twice, the widely accepted theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a clear example of macroevolution.
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs
Even the very few dissenters on this point argue that birds instead evolved from an earlier type of reptile, not that birds were suddenly created. That said, the dinosaur theory is supported an overwhelming consensus within the field of paleontology.
Another clear example is the evolution of whales from land mammals:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
This example in particular includes quite a few of those “transitional fossils” that you claim don’t exist.
So there are a few supports for my positive claim. I‘ve noticed that you haven’t actually bothered to address my questions about ID. Still waiting for you to explain how ID could be verified scientifically.
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:05pm@PubliusPencilman or really anyone else:
You said that mutation is what causes one species to change into another. That might be true. However there are two problems.
First, the position was poorly presented (not your fault). The question is really if new kinds can evolve since creationists would argue that dogs (common) and wolves are the same kind but different species.
Secondly, while a mutation my give a survival value, they are subtractive in nature. They don’t add new genetic code; they mess up existing genetic code. For example antibiotic resistance is a mutation that helps the bacteria, but doesn’t add any new code to the DNA. It has actually lost the ability to do something because some of the code is messed up which leads to the resistance. For evolution from kind to kind to happen you have to add code to the DNA. I am not aware of any observed mutations that added new code.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:09pm@ PUBLIUS….The notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds has become one of the most widely accepted “facts” of evolution. Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins. Now, a new paper in the Journal of Morphology presents the research of two Oregon State University scientists who don’t agree with the evolutionary dogma on bird origins. Doctoral student Devon Quick conducted the investigation into bird breathing and its connection with dinosaur-to-bird evolution as part of her dissertation. The research hinges—almost literally—on the femur (upper leg bone) of birds. Unlike other walking creatures, a bird’s femur does not move significantly, and birds instead articulate the lower portion of their leg to walk or run. Quick’s surprising discovery is that this “knee running” anatomy, with nearly fixed femur bones and musculature, is crucial in preventing a bird’s air-sac lung from collapsing whenever the bird takes a breath. Quick explained, “This is fundamental to bird physiology. It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.” CONTINUED….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:11pm@ PUBLIUS….Dinosaurs lack this fixed femur, however, and that includes the theropod dinosaurs from which birds supposedly evolved. Oregon State zoologist John Ruben, a coauthor on the paper, commented, “Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.” He continued, “It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology.” Ruben added that the appearance of birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record is a “serious problem” that is ignored by those who advocate dinosaur-to-bird evolution. This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed,” Ruben noted.—-Taken from the Journal on Morphology….Thank you….
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:13pmSleazy,
” if we lQQk at the population growth for humans we could extrapolate what the population would be in 10 years let’s say, but in 100 years we would reject that figure knowing that other factors, namely that the Earth could not support that many people, would come into play.”
Estimating population growth is an entirely different issue with entirely different factors. Please try to stay on topic.
And that whole “marvelous fit” thing? That misquote was from Richard Lewontin, who explains how he was misquoted here:
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/misquote.htm
But please do give an example of a “fit” that is so marvelous it could disprove evolution entirely.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:23pm@ PUBLIUS….The trends cited in whale evolution are rather superficial in nature, and little different from those that become apparent by lining up wheeled vehicles within a cladogram. A close examination of whale evolution in general, and whale-ear evolution in particular, demonstrates that most anatomical traits do not change in a consistent whale-like direction. Recently discovered pakicetids consist of cetacean ‘modules’ within otherwise non-cetacean bodies. These extinct creatures are examples of chimeric creatures. The cetaceans, mesonychids, and artiodactyls share a number of anatomical traits in a pattern that is inconsistent with any type of evolutionary nested hierarchy. To what extent are pakicetids intermediate in structure between the ‘generic’ artiodactyls on one hand and true cetaceans on the other? Gingerich has surveyed changes in four anatomical features (body mass, tooth length, bullar length, and femur length), over the supposed time interval of 37–50 million years ago, for fossil mammals which include six of the reputed cetacean genera. With the exception of the inferred change in femur length (especially when body sizes are normalized), none of the remaining three features show even a self-consistent, unidirectional change with time!
Report Post »What about the recently described pakicetid genera? The vast majority of the skeletal traits found in the complete skeletons are consistently unlike those of true cetaceans (ancient or modern..CONT
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:26pm@ PUBLIUS….By no stretch of the imagination do we observe anything resembling a gradational trend of changes to true cetaceans:
Report Post »‘Aquatic postcranial adaptations are pronounced in late Eocene basilosaurids and dorudontids, the oldest obligate aquatic cetaceans for which the entire skeleton is known, and therefore can be used to evaluate pakicetid morphology. Aquatic adaptations of basilosaurids and dorudontids include . . . [nine features are listed]. Pakicetids display none of these features.’ —-Taken from Thewissen et al., Ref. 11, p. 277……Thank you….I will address the evidence for ID in a bit. I have been spending time with my son while debating you occassionally. I assure you I will make my case shortly. Thank you for your time…
PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:26pmSleazy,
Yes, I’ve read about the OSU study just as you have. That study has been jumped on quite a bit by creationists, but the study itself acknowledges and reinforces the idea of macroevolution, just in a differently direction from how it was previously though:
“The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.”
The study itself makes no claim to disproving evolution–it is merely makes a claim to a different line of descent. Whether you chose to believe this one study over many other, that’s fine, but it doesn’t run counter to the idea of macroevolution.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:45pmIn terms of your whale data, can I get the source from which you are getting this information?
Interestingly, your information cites two particular researchers: Philip D. Gingerich and J.G.M. Hans Thewissen. It only takes a quick google search to realize that neither of these scientists have drawn the conclusion from their own research that whales did not evolve from land mammals:
Gingerich’s personal page
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
Hans Thewissen’s research summary
http://www.neomed.edu/academics/medicine/departments/anatomyneurobiology/faculty-research-laboratories/j.-thewissen-1
You seem to be confusing disagreements over the details of evolution with a refutation of evolution itself.
Report Post »Bikkiboo
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:16pmGiving children a “proper education” means exposing them to ALL theories AND the Scientific Method. Theories are NOT facts, that‘s why they’re called “theories”. Discuss the “theories” of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, big bang, etc. I have no problem with that. Why keep things “secret” from kids? We should even teach them more about “theories” of good government and economics: like capitalism, communism, socialism, etc., etc. Maybe we‘d be more aware of what’s going on right now in OUR government, and people would be more able to make good decisions.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:22pm@ PUBLIUS….I am completely on track my friend. I was demonstrating through an illustration the principle that extrapolation, which is what you use to infer MACRO as occurring to produce new kinds of animals, has its limitations. That was it, population growth was only used to illustarte the point not because it has anything to do with our current topic per se. “But please do give an example of a “fit” that is so marvelous it could disprove evolution entirely.” Woodpeckers skull, cleaning symbiosis with small shrimp and fish mouth, bombardier beetle to name a couple.
Darwin himself was acutely aware of this evidence of creation and the problem it posed for his theory. His chapter in Origin of Species on adaptations was not titled “Evidence for the Theory” but “Difficulties With the Theory.” In it, he discussed traits that depend on separately meaningless parts. Consider the human eye with the different features required to focus at different distances, to accommodate different amounts of light, and to correct for the “rainbow effect.” Regarding the origin of the eye, Darwin wrote these words:
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:34pm@ PUBLIUS….”but the study itself acknowledges and reinforces the idea of macroevolution, just in a differently direction from how it was previously though:” The point is not what they believe in relation to MACRO, but that it simply shows the evidence you offered in the bird and dinosaurian example really is not evidence at all, which is the point of it being listed since you relied upon it. If you “believe” their research it sure does show an astounding proclivity for the majority of scientists and “settled” science to be wrong in some instances when the evidence is more closely scrutinized, does it not? In fact, the researchers act astounded that it was not discovered before now. You see I have been involved in medical research for quite some time and I know how the game is played. How many assumptions go into studies and how often important things are overlQQked or assumed within peer reviewed studies. They are not the flawless logical works the general public assume them to be. Some much worse than others, some just plain ridiculous in design and methodology. Nevertheless this one example is a glaring example of how scientific dogma and majority opinion in the science community really means nothing to me in any way because it is really a fallacious appeal to popularity and authority. Thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:49pm@ PUBLIUS…while their purpose was not to argue against macroevolution per se, I am demonstarting that their is disagreement among evolutionary scientists that the whale “transitions” you were infering are not a solid piece of evidence for the process of transpeciation. The refernece I listed was to the last paragraph in quotes (I don’t know if that was clear). Thewissen, J.G.M., Williams, E.M., Roe, L.J. and Hussain, S.T., Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413:277–281, 2001. Gingerich et al., Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan, Science 293:2241, 2001. The protocetids are generally believed to be ancestral to later basilosaurid whales, and hence to be on the direct line of cetacean evolution. I would liken your whale example to be very similar to the now debunked and unaccepted horse evolution portrayal….Thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:57pm@ PUBLIUS…In one of Romer’s concluding statements in his discussion of the sub-ungulates (conies, elephants, sea cows), he says, “conies, proboscideans, and sirenians were already distinct groups at the time when they first appear in the fossil record.” Olson states that if we seek the ancestries of the marine mammals we run into a blank wall as far as intermediate stages between land and sea are concerned. His remark included the seals, dolphins, and whales.
Report Post »Speaking of whales, Colbert said, “These mammals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are apparent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous placentals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. Indeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the bats; they stand quite alone.”…. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd. Edition….E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life,…..E. H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates….. D. T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fo
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:03pm@ PULIUS….I’m afraid I have to be going to bed my friend. I didn’t want you to think I was not responding back and I will get to evidence tomorrow for ID if that is OK with you as long as the thread is up, but I think you have read enough of my posts on other threads to know I have much to say in regard to the evidence for this topic. Thank you for all your time and I appreciate your efforts. You have a restful night out there on the east coast and sleep well…..night night.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:17pmWe are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor . . .Michael Hammer University of Arizona US News & WR , 12/4/95.
. . . regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve” . . . the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people . . . lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that’s the case. . . .Ann Gibbons “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock” Science , v. 279, pp. 28,29 January 2, 1998
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
Report Post »1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites. Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside….thank you…
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:24pm@ PUBLIUS…last quick point….. one evidence I will go into tomorrow for ID is the linear chromosomes and telomeres. Science finds this structure completely “mysterious” and unexplainable as its existence via evolution seems to violate many physical and chemical laws. Thank you…
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:07pmThis does it. I am no longer referring to myself as a Tea Party member. The most of you are religious zealots who cannot even accept the fact that things change. For Christ’s sake, we have domesticated animals not for several thousand years and they are now noticeably different from the wild animals that they were derived from. Take your dog for example. Sure, a dog can breed with a wolf, granted; however, the point is that the form of these animals is variable and changing. Now we have everything from tea cup chihuahuas to irish wolfhounds. It is not hard to conceive that if these two breeds were left separated for several thousand years, that they might become two distinct species incapable of producing fertile offspring. BUT, I’d like to point out that this can take an enormous amount of time. Case in point being the polar bear. For the most part, all of humanity would make a species distinction between a polar bear and a brown bear. In fact, these two “species” can and do breed viable and fertile offspring on a somewhat regular basis. This should give you some sort of idea of the timescale us “evolutionists” are referring to when we talk about evolution taking time. Of course, to people like y’all who think that the earth has only existed for 40 human lifetimes (40*100=4000), I can see where you get conflustered when someone says something takes tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.
Report Post »v15
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:38pmIf you actually read Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, then maybe you would realize a lot of it makes sense. I think Christians are under the belief that Evolution = No God. That is definitely not what Darwin’s theory suggested. I know Atheists love to put their own spin on evolution which explains why Christians have abandoned critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and rational thought. At least look at the evidence that the Theory of Evolution lays out for those who want to study it and decide for themselves if it makes sense or if it is total nonsense. I think it makes sense. And embracing evolution doesn‘t mean there isn’t a God. It’s very possible it is a process through which God works. Darwin really struggled whether to publish his theory or not for over 20 years. He knew it wouldn’t be received well by most of the religious close-minded people of his day just as it remains a controversy today. Look up Christian Science on YouTube or Google and hopefully you’ll realize how absurd and outlandish their ideas are. Quit running from science. Science isn’t your enemy.
Report Post »Oldtimer2
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:31amBill Nye is a washed up ACTOR who couldn’t get a better job than a KIDS show!!! He‘s an ACTOR who played a scientist He’s an ACTOR who’s new gig is doing propaganda films for the Obama administration.
Report Post »Liberals Are Pseudo Enlightened Social Intellectuals
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 4:26am@all
Report Post »This argument is tedious and pointless. The real question is much more important and deeply philosophical. “If God did not create man, why did man create God; don’t we still need God today as much as we did at the time we created him?”For you highly evolved amoeba, all I can say is feel sorry for you; for you don’t know the true meanings of hope, faith and love. You should be grateful that society as a whole believes in God and more importantly, his laws. For mans’ laws alone are not enough to contain the sometimes irrational emotions of fellow man. That being said, it is respect for a superior, not an equal, that prevents the mass execution of those whom irritate the hell out of us. While many wars have been fought in the name of competing Gods and religion, it pales in comparison to my theory that without a supreme deity our world would know violence on a much larger scale. There is no fear of another man that can be killed. One just has to be a sociopath intent on ridding the world of the weak, call it…natural selection.
KickinBack
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:15amThere is a difference between apes and humans…The first sign, is that apes are Democrats…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:40am@ SGTB…I‘m afarid you don’t understand the theory of evoution or the many many problems with it. I find this to be the case with most people who have been indictrinated rather than educated. The difficulties are conspicuously left out of any discussion. Evidence is often manufactured or at least embellished only to later be quietly dispatched when the final nail has been put in it’s coffin, such as the old horse evolution scenario that is junk science not accpeted by any real scientist, secular or otherwise. You just gave evidence for microevolution not transpeciation or MACRO..The fact is we have all kinds of dog organisms as you mentioned but no matter how varied they will only always remain in the dog family. Same with bears or rabbits or whatever. There is absolutely NO evidence for one kind of animal giving rise to another kind of animal in the fossils, in DNA, or in the lab. Thank you…
Report Post »jhitchcock3
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:29amWell if you want to get down to it there is a lot that screams a grand designer in nature. Take water for example. Do you have any clue how it moves from the roots of a tree to the leaves hundreds of miles up? Water, when in a tube as small as the veins in a plant/tree actually climb by itself. This is a side effect of the hydrogen bond (look it up and verify it for yourself). Also, consider the fact that there is NO EXAMPLES OF MACRO EVOLUTION in nature ANYWHERE. Micro is overly abundant and widely accepted but no Macro. Evolutionists say creationism takes too much faith, well seems to me that so does evolution.
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 2:38pmSgtB
You’ve fallen for the strawman argument that creationist believe that everything was created exactly the way we see it today. That is not the case. I know why it’s an attractive case to make against creationist, because it’s so easy to refute. However it is not the actual position of creationists. The question isn’t “Do things change?” it is, “Can small variations in a kind of animal, for example the canine kind, change it into another kind of animal?” You’re assuming that the slight variations can lead to new kinds. It has never been, nor could it ever be, observed to happen.
Again, I realize the attractiveness of the strawman argument. It does appear you’ve proved your case but really you’re refuting a point no one tries to make so it only serves to make one feel better while making everyone less informed in the process.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:07amSleazy,
I don’t know if you still check this conversation since it left the front page of the site, but I wanted to mention that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate, despite the fact that you never did get around to answering my simple question of how ID could be verified, or offering concrete evidence for ID.
But anyway, in terms of the dinosaurs/birds example, you latch onto one dissenting paper and insist that it outweighs the entirety of of scientific consensus just because it reaffirms what you already think. That OSU paper may in fact be right, but your willingness to immediately assume that this dissenting paper must necessarily be true goes agains the extreme skepticism that you have already exhibited.
But again, even if it is right, the paper nevertheless actually reaffirms the alreaqdy established theory of an evolutionary link between birds and certain dinosaurs (raptors in particular). The paper reaffirms that these species have a direct evolutionary relationship with each other (which is exactly what you are claiming it disproves), but it merely adjusts the timeframe and directionality of that relationship.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:20amSleazy,
in terms of the whale example, this case too reinforces the evolutionary narrative precisely because scientists have uncovered in the fossil record exactly what natural selection predicts that they will find: an array of ancient species, predating modern whales, that share many similar traceable attributes. Now, within that fossil record there might be disagreement over the exact identity of the whale’s ancestor (aftr all, some species will be evolutionary dead-ends), but that disagreement doesn’t trump the fact that those fossils were there when we looked for them.
In contrast, the ID explanation would have to say that a designer created a particular species with certain attributes, let it die out, and then created a new species with some of those same attributes, let it die out, and then repeated this process many times until the creator decided to make whales. This explanation is neither verifiable nor elegant in any way. It makes assumptions that are huge leaps and which can never be tested. Therefore, it is not a viable scientific theory. Done and dusted.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on September 1, 2012 at 1:10pmPublius- try responding earlier next time. I know sleazy likes to continue going and only didn’t bring up ID evidence because you stopped responding. Next time even if you can‘t make a long winded paragraph at least tell him you will respond later and be expecting but now he can’t. Trust me I’ve seen him bring up Id evidence before.
Report Post »Ty Coon
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:05pmJust another mollycoddled milksop heathen who cannot explain why single celled bacteria found in ice-packs in Antarctica,that is 3 MILLION years old is EXACTLY, like the single celled bacteria we have around today !? In other words NO EVOLUTION IN THE SIMPLEST LIVING THINGS !!! So, how can it happen to humans ?!
Report Post »Funkee911
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:29pmCome on now… You have something like 50 TRILLION living cells in your body. Just because someone found a one celled organism that is the same as one currently in existance doesn‘t mean that a machine as complex as the human body hasn’t come to be so through constant change and evolution. What’s the difference between that one celled bacteria and the one celled bacteria that are thriving right now in your digestive system? Or a brain cell? Believe in God as I do, but don’t ignore common sense. And you shouldn’t call people names either – that’s just not Christian
Report Post ».
davecorkery
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:43pmDepending on the environment, some things changed and some didn’t. Ever heard of alligators and crocodiles? They haven’t changed at all for 4 million years. As for things like “missing links” in the fossil record, we have found 11 in Canada alone, in the past 15 years. As early humans roamed to areas where the conditions (food, temperature, availability of shelter, etc) were different from where they came from, they changed too. Taller, less hair, higher intelligence due to better nutrition, etc. Conditions must be negative in america. I.Q. seems to be lowering. Remember. folks, you are repeating and believing the particular religious stories THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. Who wrote those stories? Not god. Not one word. They are all from men, about 300 of them. And they changed the stories over 9 centuries to suit their politics of the day. You never questioned them, due to loyalty to your group. Science is challenged every day, which leads to more understanding and knowledge. Like it or not, non-belief is growing, your side is looking more quaint everyday.
Report Post »mattmo79
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:43pmOh I get it, the 50+ Trillion cells with no ability for abstract thought got together and a devised and executed for making people with all our complexity and intelligence. Yep seems like a winner!
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:19pm@ ty coon
You apparently do not understand what evolution claims (and I am NOT saying it is definitely what happened, just pointing out your apparent non-understanding); evolution does not mean that ALL of one species evolved into something else, just that one here and there changed. If it were the former, there would be no one-celled anythings.
It is pretty factual that life changes over time. I believe as a whole we are taller now than we used to be 10s of thousands of years ago. Something caused that be it evolution or happenstance. Some species have either changed or just simply died out … I guess we don’t know for 100% certainty, but I believe it’s highly probable that species have changed over time.
Again, this is not to say beyond all doubt that evolution occurred, but it scientifically it appears that some form of evolution did (and does) happen (unless you’re of the ilk that believe the earth is only 6000 years old and all the bones and fossils we find is trickery).
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:29pm“I believe as a whole we are taller now than we used to be 10s of thousands of years ago”
Factually untrue. We have found ancient skeletons of extremely tall people.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:52pm@ squidvetohio
“I believe as a whole we are taller now than we used to be 10s of thousands of years ago”
‘Factually untrue. We have found ancient skeletons of extremely tall people.’
Finding a few skeletons does not prove a trend. I am sure we also found skeletons of extremely small people.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:18pmYou look at some very basic evolutionary occurrences where creatures may or may not have adapted to their environment, and look at how certain characteristics may have been culled out while others may have been encouraged — and from there you extrapolate single-celled organisms “evolving” into man, and you fail to see the miracle of balance required just to sustain life on the planet, and you pass off the miraculous complexity of proteins and DNA. The leaps of logic from those secular soft-science adherents who think they’re the logical ones is almost obscene in the level of absurdity.
Report Post »Deb C
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:03amHow many times I gotta tell ya….its to keep us in submission to our masters ( who happen to be living on and watching us from – the moon ( Neil tried to tell us )
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 3:43pm@davecorkery
“Depending on the environment, some things changed and some didn’t.”
No one argues that point.
“They haven’t changed at all for 4 million years.”
And how do you arrive at that time frame?
“As for things like “missing links”…”
Missing links are a misnomer. I think what you’re looking for is transitional fossil. However to my knowledge there are no true transitional forms. What are the 11 found in the last 15 months you spoke of?
“Taller, less hair, higher intelligence due to better nutrition, etc.”
Those are all examples of micro evolution not macro. You must assume they would cause macro.
“ folks, you are repeating and believing the particular religious stories THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.“
I could say the same thing for you.
“They are all from men, about 300 of them. And they changed the stories over 9 centuries”
Report Post »300? How did you come to that number? And what centuries are you speaking of?
AnAmericanToo
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:05pmSo I guess that others who do not embrace the THEORY of evolution as a FACT or scientific principle is what held Nye back from being very successful in his education as a mechanical engineer? (See his bio on the Internet — nothing much achieved in science/engineering…switched to comedy and education).
Please, tell us Mr. Science Guy, Bill Nye, when did the THEORY of EVOLUTION become confirmed scientifically as the source of all life on earth? What the statistical probabilities on life just randomly developing from non life? And then to survive from cell to cell to cell to create cell diversity? And on to plants and mobile mammals? Surely you had enough mathematics in your engineering program to do some rough estimates of the probabilities of all this magical thinking about evolution being the soul process for complex life and ecosystems on earth. And when you put all those calculations together — the Theory of Evolution just doesn’t hold water.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:21pmexcept that the theory of evolution does not describe what you are stating it does. you are talking about Abiogenesis. evolution describes how life has changed since it emerged. i guess this is a nice way of me saying you simply are misinformed on the subject. surprise surprise.
Report Post »Funkee911
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:41pmJust a thought… try to crunch out the numbers on a Diety creating a modern planet in 7 days, all the while creating two perfect forms that proceed to go against the will of said Diety aided by the anti-diety in the form of a snake rendering them imperfect via a forbidden fruit that by all intents and purposes would have taken at least 7 days to ripen – who just happen to be the two genetic parents of every single one of the soon to be 9 billion people on the earth today. I think you’ll find this scenario to be a little more statistically implausible. I’d avoid confusing faith with statistical data. Chances in data’s favor.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:50pmYes and maybe he could explain the shears absence of the trillion upon trillions of subcreature that it woluld take to simple create half of the know species that currently inhabit the earth. They find one skull and claim to have the answer for human evolution. It would literally take over hundred billion sub spieces ancestor to walk up plain ape to man. That’s one creature just one there are thousands of different creature walking the planet. Each requiring those same numbers to get to where the are in evolution. Then there are creatures like roaches,ants,scorpions,centipede,gators,sharks and a llist as long as my arm that never evolved. If evolution is the nature of life why aren’t these creature evolving.
Report Post »And of course there‘s the huge factor that just can’t be explained accept by a divine touch be it god or a race from another world. And that is human intellect and our ability control our baser instincts nd survival instincts as well. No other creature on the planet can match it. Although in darwin’s evolutionary theory he saw blacks as a lower **** sapiens species from with modern man evolved. But he still failed to show where blacks evolved from.
ckokkola
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:52pmPhillyAtheist. Fact is what is the definition of evolution. As a creationist I do believe in evolution. There are variations with in different kinds. Look at dogs we go from Bull Mastiff to Chihuahua. With birds we go from vulture to humming bird. In fish we go from whale shark to Paedocypris. There is a variety but strange enough they are still all dogs, birds, fish and etc. I agree with micro-evolution as it has been observed.
However, the issue I have is macro-evolution where one species becomes another. This has never been observed and is very complex to happe i.e. the woodpecker needs 3 independent things to evolve to peck wood. 1. Thicker skull 2. Thicker beak 3. Interlocking neck muscles. All 3 are needed for its survival. If the skull was not extra thick it wood peck wood and its beak wood enter its brain and die, end of species. If the beak was not thicker its beak would crush as it pecked wood and it would die, end of species, if the neck muscles did not interlock keeping the neck straight it would peck wood and its neck would break, end of species.
Life is too complex to evolve slowly as there would be problems with incomplete wings, legs, lungs and etc. for the species to continue.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:04pmCKOKOLLA – speciation has been observed. please, if you are interested in the subject read a book on speciation. islands offer amazing examples of animals that look identical and yet are completely different species. sometimes a very small change can lead to a whole new species. over time, they can become very different.
also, islands don’t have to be actual islands. a mountain range can be an island. a small pond or lake can be an island. and the effects on creating new species is magnificent. it’s all really cool and i hope you check it out.
Report Post »Funkee911
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:18pmJohnJamison – You make no sense. You obviously don’t know how the theory of evolution works. They have found hundreds of skulls various species of human ancestors, some of which diversified and died off and one of which that didn’t, and that’s us. And evolution is still happenning today, my friend. The proof is when a species goes extinct (which continues to happen all the time) and when more blond blue eyed people are born in one area as opposed to your “blacks” in another. Genetic heredity leads to evolution and it is proof that did and does exist. Common sense, man. Please don‘t argue about things when you don’t know about them…. you’re wasting your life typing about nonsense. Then again, so am I trying to convince you that the world is round.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:23pmSpecies are not kinds. It is still micro-evolution. Different types of birds are still a bird. When the bird becomes a cat or anything other than a bird, call me.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:34pmAnAmericanToo,
You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a “Theory” in a scientific sense, since you keep emphasizing that word as if it places the concept of evolution in doubt.
Evolution is a theory, and it would continue to be a theory even if everyone in the universe was absolutely convinced of the truth of it. Why? Because:
1) Evolution deals with processes, not with rules. The laws of gravity, for example, have absolute rules for which we have never found exceptions. In contrast, “natural selection” is a process but not a rule. There are no set parameters in which this process produces the exact same result every single time.
2) Evolution is descriptive rather than predictive. According to the laws of gravity, you can predict 100% of the time what will happen when you drop a ball. With evolution, we can describe processes that have happened, but we can only guess at what will happen in any given future situation.
In other words, a theory and a law are completely different things, and a theory does not “graduate” into a law when it is proven. A scientific theory will always be a theory. This is why the idea that germs cause disease is still called “The Germ Theory,” regardless of the amount of proof we have.
Report Post »Funkee911
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:35pmSquid – Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Little furry mammals evolved into apes and human ancestors. Aquatic creatures eventually left the sea to inhabit land. Take a look at the foot of a t-rex then the foot of a hawk. This is why we have the “kpcofgs” system for classification.
Report Post »Lakewoodbob
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:59pmIn simple terms, without creation there would be no science! Science is ONLY about DISCOVERY! There is, however, evolution in science; just look at what has been discovered in electronics, medicine,and in everyother field of science. Man is not an extension and refinement of the ape; he is a totally separate and independent species! For interesting insight, read “The Everlasting Man” by G.K Chesterton! Cheers!
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:26pmThe secularist fairy-tale of Darwinism, trying to pass off the obvious miracle of Creation as a random event of statistical trial-and-error, is so statistically impossible that by contrast it makes almost credible the concept of “a billion chimpanzees typing the complete works of Shakespeare in a billion years– which is also abjectly impossible from the standpoint of statistics, probability, logic, or any other mathematical approach you care to apply.
All true scientists recognize that the question of the origin of the species has competing theories which have not yet settled into scientific law, and that the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of species contains serious flaws and many problems.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:49pm@PHILLYATHEIST.. They’ll never get it man, this is what Bill Nye is talking about.. so many Blazers are so uneducated about evolution that they don’t remotely understand the definition of the theory. They have not seen the evidence, and cannot even understand much of the evidence anyway because it involves molecular and cell biology. Too bad we can’t exchange info on here.. I’m close by you CC..
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:21amfunkee,
Report Post »It‘s you that doesn’t understand Darwin’s theory. More over you don’t understand the amount of times a numbers it would take to evolve a species one link on the evolutionary chain. We haven’t evolved in over 10,000 years and hundreds of billions of humans. In that time nothing else has evolved as well. Kind of unsual or are you saying every species evolves on that exact same generation.
The biggest nail in darwin‘s theory is the fact we aren’t the fittiest for survival. We breed really slowly,most our off spring are weak and defenseless for it entire juvenile years 0-15 years old,we have no claws,fangs,or shell to defend or protect us from true apex . We have no hair,no great hides or great body fats to keep us warm. Fact is when compared to all other creatures on the planet we’re alien in nature when it comes to survival in that we are defenseless against it.
Almost like someone or something placed us here among the animal…..
phillyatheist
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:26amCESIUM – i hear ya. i met a high school kid the other day who told me that they spent about a week on Evolution in 9th grade, and that was about it. and that’s here in the Northeast US! the teacher even told him that the students didn’t have to believe what he was teaching. amazing!
you live in center city?
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:14amHi Cesium,
I would be honored if you would read my reply to you about Jesus not being fitting Jewish cultural expectations.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist-richard-dawkins-tells-playboy-we-are-apes-evidence-for-jesus-existence-is-surprisingly-shaky-christ-dying-for-humanitys-sins-is-a-truly-disgusting-idea/#
It is my sincere belief that He fit the description of prophecy perfectly, whether or not he fit the expectation. In some ways, that substantiates prophecy even more. Say we were told to expect a certain event, and everyone had their own idea of what that event would look like (this happens among Christians now, awaiting the return of Christ, where a multitude of different ideas about what it will look like are floating around.)
So, say the event the Jews were expecting happened, but in a surprising way- which is what happened. Then, they find scripture which describes the actual occurrence with more detail than what they thought they had, for it to have happened their way. And the more they read the scriptures, the more Jesus Christ fit the bill- to the point that they were surprised that they had expected anything else.
They wanted Jesus to bring judgement, not realising that they themselves needed a saviour before they could survive judgement themselves. But this is taught throughout scriptures, in some places which may surprise you.
Report Post »JohnLarson
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:04pmBill Nye is used to teaching science to kids, and now he’s teaching it to conservatives… not much difference.
It will be okay though, all you Flat Earthers will be dead in due time.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:16pmYet it‘s you Marxists who can’t figure out how to pay for your own bills in life.
Haven’t you been saying the same thing about Christians for the past 2000 years? Yet we’re still around.
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:19pmAnd when all of we “flat earthers” are “dead” to this earth, there will be a “New Heaven and a New Earth” where we will spend Eternity with our Saviour, The Son, under the watchful eye of the Father, in communion with the Spirit of God. (Source: Book of Revelation)
Where will you be?
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:21pmThat‘s what you’re hoping For Right ? John
Report Post »But Us NON evolutionist are Teaching our
Children an Grandchildren to Think for themselves.
on How to disprove Evolution an Global Warming.
So Your Brainwashing is not working as Well as You Thought.
pickup1988
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:27pmWhat does Marxism have to do with anything here?
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:29pmJohn,
Report Post »Colombus was Catholic and yet he figured out what the eggheads atheist of his day could not. Fact is science and christian have been strange bed fellows for centuries. Louie pasture Christian,Walter Reed christian,fact is if you list the greatest thinkers and inventers for the last 1000 years you’ld find that 90% believed in an eternal spirit and heavenly father. More over if you believe to Darwin’s theory than you most certainly considered africans a subspecies of modern man as he did. So now you’re racist a well as an anti-christian bigot
Just_Us2
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:29pmThe problem with flat earth theory is that it was popular in the scientific community…as were many other theories until they were proven with the scientific method. Please show me where the scientific method was applied to evolution converting it from theory to fact.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:34pmFlipper – thats fine – and your children and grandchildren will be many, many steps behind others who are taught based on fact and evidence, rather than 2000 year old myths. Your the one thats hurting your family….but your one of the many people on the far right that are actually proud of their willfull ignorance. There is a poison infecting the far right where you are actually proud of being uneducated and having beliefs that are more in line with the 1000‘s other than the 2000’s. Its actually sort of fascinating to watch……
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:39pmPickup: Marxism will be brought up becasue people like Git-R-Done are very, very stupid and simple people. They dont comprehend that someone can accept evolution (notice I didnt say believe) and also believe in small government. he has been so brainwashed (probably didnt have much upstairs to begin with) that hes all or nothing, no room for differences of opinions.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:41pm“all you Flat Earthers will be dead in due time.”
Actually it was the “scientists” of the day who said the Earth was flat. They should have simply read the Bible which said the Earth was a sphere (Isaiah 40.22) Nice try though. It was cute attempt.
Also athiest parents have on average 1 child, Christian parents have on average 2.5 kids. The numbers are in our favor.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:43pm“What does Marxism have to do with anything here?”
with GIT R DONE everything that he disagrees with is Marxist. it’s a mental disorder.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:56pmI wonder if Claudius Ptolemaeus chastised people who didn’t believe his “science”?
How about Copernicus? Just one star?
I had a biology professor tell me in college that every scientist should keep asking the question “why?”. But at the end of that line, wherever or whenever that is, lies the stark presupposition that God exists. What makes a good scientist is humility. I LOVE science. My boys want to be engineers. I love fact and reason but I have faith in God. Man is too fallible, too arrogant, too small to have it all figured out. History is littered with countless examples of things that were “known” that are now a joke. The arrogance that because now it is us and it is today that things are different this time is just vanity and pride. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive unless mankind tries to make it so.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:12pm@Dose
“Pickup: Marxism will be brought up becasue people like Git-R-Done are very, very stupid and simple people.”
Don’t insult simple people. Git is a troll, end of story. Calling him “simple” is an insult to people who actually are simple.
Report Post »budzy1911
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:34pmAmazing how liberals always think of themselves as smarter than everyone else. Yet they curl up in the corner if their coffee shop is out of mint lavender flavoring for their frappuccino girly drink or they don’t have 3 bars on their phone. Ask them to actually work or produce something and they stare at you in disbelief like you just said the government is out of money. A concept they don’t grasp.
I would rather spend my time with real men and woman that know what a hard day’s work means then to spend 10 minutes with a bunch of castrated liberal men whining about the government not doing enough for them.
Report Post »Melika
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:10pmFor ****’s sake, do some real research on the “flat earth” theory so you can get your head out of you *ss. You sound like a public high school student who just learned this little factoid from the low grade moron the politicians hired and who now thinks he is a genius. The “flat earth” theory is not relegated to the realm of the religious. It was not embraced by the religions at large and was in fact a competing theory with the “round earth” theory that was mostly a political ploy to discourage exploration by other nations. I am so tired of hearing this retarded “insult’ thrown around by people who have no idea of its origins, usage, or development. Oh, and Wikipedia doesn’t count as research.
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:03pmCreationists have no capacity for thought.
Report Post »It’s like the last 2,000 years of knowledge never happened anf the
fantasies of men in the Bronze Age are the truth.
binge_thinker
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:33pmThe Flat Earth Society was founded by atheists. HaHA! Good to know that even with all the anti-God propaganda being spewed out of institutions of “higher learning” these days by the self-professed wizards of smart that the percentage of atheists has remained dormant for decades while belief in God still remains very strong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
Report Post »Just_Us2
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:02pmThe problem with evolution is that there are fundamental gaps in the progression of life that this THEORY simply is not equipped to address or explain. So to resolve the gaps, you just have to take it on faith that some things happened that man is not able to replicate even when controlled in perfect conditions. Oh, you also have no scientific proof either which is why the scientific method goes out the window. It comes down to faith in science. Because a scientist said it, then it MUST be true…like the world being flat and spontaneous generation and the expanding earth and canals on Mars…etc. Yes, science is ALWAYS right, even when it’s a matter of faith. So as a Christian, I am supposed to deny my faith for the sake of another faith because someone doesn’t believe in a creator? How many lives must be ruined because men demand to be followed and not questioned? Sorry scientist, I am not going to buy in to your hair brained theories and wild assumptions like so many have done in the past, only to be proven wrong time and again.
Bill Nye is upset because his church is under funded because people do not share his religion. He feels that all people should be forced to follow his religion….because…it’s for the, “children”. Gimme a break.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:10pmTo say the gaps disprove the theory is using negative evidence as evidence, but the preponderence of negative evidence supports the theory. The negative evidence tells us that at one time there was life in the sea but not on the land. Later there was more complex life including vertebrates in the sea, but only insects on the land. After that there was a period when amphibians were the only vertebrates on the land, then only amphibians and reptiles, then there were mammals, but only small mouse-like creatures, then a multitude of complex and specialized mammals. Since you believe that a lack of evidence is evidence, there is a n undeniable narrative of animals that once didn’t exist coming to be long after the beginning of life on Earth. How did they get here if not by evolution? What is your theory?
Report Post »Listen_then_think
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:00pmWell, I don‘t like and won’t support anything that Bill Nye does or promotes. And uhmmm Bill, they already found the “lucy” skeleton frozen that pre-dates neandertals. AND there are no intermediate developed species which would be required for your theory to be true. So your theory is already shot down. Idiot.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:58pmLucy was not frozen. She was found in Africa. She predates Neanderthals and she is further from us on the evolutionary ladder. And we have found some of the intermediate species.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:26pm@ listen_then_think
Actually, you should change your name to “think_then_speak”. Simply not being able to find something in no way disproves its existence; e.g. the coelecanth off the coast of Africa in the 1st half of the 20th century.
Report Post »commoncents5
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:00pmNow does what he says make any common sense to any body? If evolution is correct then all things will evolve with or without 100% approval. Life will go on past his stupidity. Just another reason to believe that I was created from above, born of woman to prove my love for my Creator with free will, and then will shed this flesh body that God repented making because we are soddish children, & to live eternally without the son of perdition to mess things up in that eternity. Amen.
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:59pmBill Nye is an over-rated educator (i.e. – book reader to children). He’s no more NASA than lead conversion to gold. If it weren’t for Faith in God, we would be nowhere NEAR what we are today (or rather, what we were before the Left began dominating education and the media).
Faith in God is what brought us here in the first place. Everything else is a result of it – REAL hope, REAL change; and all because they were forced to find a home far and away from where faith in God had become faith in MAN. The Bill Nye’s of America are just the tail catching up to the head, and bringing all the krap they dragged from the rear with them.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:04pmIt was science and invention, the search for answers to the mysteries of the Universe that put Armstrong on the moon, harness the atom and let us map the human genome. Its science, not religion that led us towards the discovery of truths.
The religious right’s rejection of science is holding us back, not advancing us forward.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:18pmEncinom – Actually it’s you Marxists who are holding society back. You expect those of us who are capable of taking care of ourselves to take care of losers like you b/c you don’t want to have to take care of yourselves in life.
And you Marxists don’t have science on your side. Your side makes up crap such as global warming, born this way, global cooling, etc.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:25pm@ENCILOON
You do know that Einstein believed in a greater being?
“There are two ways to live you life. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle.” – Einstein
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:26pm@ Encinom
We don’t “rule out” science. However, the science has to be PROVEN to be more than a THEORY (as evolution still is a theory!).
We believe in proving the things in this world and its environs. We just don‘t believe in jumping a ship that isn’t sinking and that makes at a minimum as much sense as other “stories” that are told by those who study but make great leaps of “faith” for the parts for which they don’t have proof.
So much of what is included in the Books that have been codified as The Bible over thousands of years, can be proven, that I don’t think believing the parts that cannot be proven yet are worth junking for some latter-day alternate theory!
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:35pm@ ENCINOM…Just a quick list of scientists that were bible believing Christians
Antiseptic Surgery …..Joseph Lister
Bacteriology ……Louis Pasteur
Calculus…… Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics …….Johannes Kepler
Chemistry …….Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy ……Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis …..Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics …….Isaac Newton
Electronics ……..John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics …….James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics …….Michael Faraday
Energetics ……Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects ……Henri Fabre
Field Theory ……James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics …….George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy …….Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics ……Robert Boyle
Genetics ……Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology …….Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology ……James Simpson
Hydrography …..Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics ……Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology ……. Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry ……William Ramsey
Model Analysis …..Lord Rayleigh
Natural History …..John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry ……Bernard Riemann
Oceanography ……Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy …….David Brewster
Truly modern day science was originally rooted in men of deep faith …Thank you
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:42pmHillBilly -please, stop using the tired old “theory” reason as to why evolution not true. You simply dont understand what a theory is, and make yourself appear uneducated
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:43pm@ANONYMOUS T. IRRELEVANT
Report Post »Your comment really highlights the misunderstanding on this subject. I accept the basic scientific premise of evolution, but I also accept the possibility of a god, not a god of religion, but something that could be considered to have had a hand in what we see today. The problem with the gods of religions is that they come with all this baggage that tells you ‘this must be wrong’ and ‘that must be wrong’ and ‘there’s no point in investigating that, because I did it’. Realistically whether it be the god I can imagine or the god you believe in it always comes back to the same question……Who or what created them?
GoodStuff
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:48pm@Encinom
“It was science and invention, the search for answers to the mysteries of the Universe that put Armstrong on the moon”
Most of the early NASA scientists were Christians.
“Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth’s orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis One: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” As he later explained, “I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning.”
“The late James Irwin, who walked on the moon in 1971, later became an evangelical minister. He often described the lunar mission as a revelation. In his words, “I felt the power of God as I’d never felt it before.”
“To look out at this kind of creation and
not believe in God is to me impossible.”
– Astronaut John Glenn
Nice try…let’s play again…
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:00pm@ dose. . .
But, that’s what evolution teaching is, a THEORY. It has not been proven in a linear fashion, it will never be proven, and much of what has been used as “proof” in the past has been debunked, reduced to lies and stories.
So, just to make you happy, I WILL NOT stop talking of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!!
Report Post »JACKTHETOAD
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:02pmSLEAZY, that post is truly God’s Hammer. Wow!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:21pm@Hillbilly
“But, that’s what evolution teaching is, a THEORY. It has not been proven in a linear fashion, it will never be proven, and much of what has been used as “proof” in the past has been debunked, reduced to lies and stories.”
A scientific theory has a different definition than a layman’s use of theory. A scientific theory means “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Put another way, a scientific theory cannot have evidence that disproves it. If there is contrary evidence, the theory will be rejected or altered to incorporate the new evidence.
Evolution is scientific theory because it’s the best explanation and has never been disproven. All available evidence supports and confirms the theory.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:45pmlocked- You keep saying you’re a christian but then go out of your way to only hit against Christians it seems. Rarely do I ever see you hit against an atheist or whatnot. I mean granted, calling out Git R Done’s name calling is one thing but I only see you attack Christians while atheists have provided more than their fair share of ignorant statements. I mean yes, you‘re argument has merit here but you can educate Christians and also point out atheist’s ignorance. I’d like to see you do more of the second. For instance, when Dawkins says he probably knows the bible better than most fundamental Christians even though he hasn’t read the whole thing once. That is a good thing to call out on, statements that, I swear, make me stupider when I read them.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:48pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Report Post »What does your list have to do with the subject. It’s not about the religiosity of scientists, particularly not scientists who were largely born in an era when religion was an unquestioned given. It‘s about the point at which religion encroaches on science with an attitude of ’that can’t be right, god did that‘ or ’why bother examining that? obviously god did that’. It doesn‘t matter what a scientist does or doesn’t believe theologically, as long as they can remain objective and honest in their work…………THANK YOU
Locked
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:59pm@DLV
“You keep saying you’re a christian but then go out of your way to only hit against Christians it seems. Rarely do I ever see you hit against an atheist or whatnot.”
I believe I explained this to you the last time you made this comment, but my issue is when people supposedly “on the same side” either blatantly lie or completely misunderstand an issue… it weakens the view people hold of Christians. If others on these forums don’t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, or the difference between a layman’s “theory” and “scientific theory,” it makes us, as a whole, look foolish. That’s why I go out of my way to correct the worst mistakes that “we” make.
“For instance, when Dawkins says he probably knows the bible better than most fundamental Christians even though he hasn’t read the whole thing once. That is a good thing to call out on, statements that, I swear, make me stupider when I read them.”
I agree: quotes like the one you mentioned are as idiotic as any you can find. Dawkins is a showman. I have no doubt that most of his quotations are to sell his own ideas and make money. He gets rich by being controversial, and leaves the hard science to others.
The reason I wouldn‘t normally call out Dawkins is because he’s not a poster here on The Blaze. He’s not going to respond or learn from my criticism (and again, I don’t think he has anything to “learn”: he’s saying this stuff BECAUSE it brings controversy).
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:19pm“I believe I explained this to you the last time you made this comment, but my issue is when people supposedly “on the same side” either blatantly lie or completely misunderstand an issue… it weakens the view people hold of Christians. If others on these forums don’t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, or the difference between a layman’s “theory” and “scientific theory,” it makes us, as a whole, look foolish. That’s why I go out of my way to correct the worst mistakes that “we” make.”
Yeah, I have asked you this before. Sorry. What happened was when I commented before, it was an old article and I probably just forgot to look again to see if you responded. Like I said, I agree with trying to educate Christians, but you can do both. That’s what I do. For instance, I‘ve called out Git R Done’s silly responses to BruceP before and that he is not helping his side by calling everyone marxists but then debate Philly, Foxhole, Mod, Guz, and the rest as long as they are willing to actually debate and not just name call.
As for the Dawkins thing, I was making a point to call out atheists here on the Blaze who make statements similar to Dawkins. For instance, people who call god a “sky fairy” really get under my skin. A. He doesn’t live in the sky. B. He isn’t a fairy. Fairys have the implication of granting wishes to an extent. God answers prayers big difference. Atheists who continue to name call instead of address the issue a
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:20pm@ GUZ…perhaps you should direct your comment to ENCINOM which was who I was addressing with my response. I was asserting the very thing you accused me of not asserting. I did not commit the fallacy they did and I simply demonstrated why it was so. Secondly, I don’t think you understand the issue or science since you stated, “It‘s about the point at which religion encroaches on science with an attitude of ’that can’t be right,” all science is by its nature skeptical and always testing to see whether a theory holds up. Science by its very essence is questioning and skeptical funny thing is that seems to be true in most areas except where evolution is concerned. Ask yourself this, why was punctuated equilibrium espoused and then later accepted as the preeminant evolutionary theory and you may have your answer. Thank you…
Report Post »QuoteMaster
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:29pmEvolution is a theory that is asserted as a fact. Do you know other theories asserted as facts? Geo-centric universe, flat-Earth, eugenics, the expanding universe, and spontanious generation. All of these were back by enormous amounts of ‘evidence’. However, the only one of those still being embraced is spontanious generation, which scientists use to explain how a chemical soup can generate life. Contrary to what most people believe, it has NOT been proven that life can be formed from a ‘chemical soup’. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven .
One hundred years from now, our descenants will scoff at how we believed in such a shaky theory as evolution, just as we scoff at our ancestors for believing in the above theories. Evolution will be disproven, and in its place will be a different theory, one with enormous ‘evidence’ behind it, and the cycle will continue.
“How came the bodies of animals to be contrived with so much art, and for what ends were their several parts? Was the eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the ear without knowledge of sounds?…and these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent…?” Sir Isaac Newton
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” Albert Einstein
Report Post »reality_check
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:47pmEvolutionary theory is an intellectual black hole.
Why are the so called scientists so afraid of the intelligent design theory?
Report Post »http://www.discovery.org/a/19141
Locked
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:57am@DLV
“Yeah, I have asked you this before. Sorry. What happened was when I commented before, it was an old article and I probably just forgot to look again to see if you responded. Like I said, I agree with trying to educate Christians, but you can do both. That’s what I do. For instance, I‘ve called out Git R Done’s silly responses to BruceP before and that he is not helping his side by calling everyone marxists but then debate Philly, Foxhole, Mod, Guz, and the rest as long as they are willing to actually debate and not just name call.”
Sorry if my response sounded snappish. I agree with your points here.
“As for the Dawkins thing, I was making a point to call out atheists here on the Blaze who make statements similar to Dawkins. For instance, people who call god a “sky fairy” really get under my skin. A. He doesn’t live in the sky. B. He isn’t a fairy. Fairys have the implication of granting wishes to an extent. God answers prayers; big difference.”
And agreed again :-)
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 9:27amdoes of reality,
Report Post »You need to understand that science that a theory is a guess sometimes based on all current data and sometimes based on rigged data and ideology. The easiest example is th recent theory of man made global warming later changed to man made climate change as the data had to be rigged to create the desirte scientific results. Results that after publication weren’t open for debate. As Al Gore stated in 2008 the debate is over. Yet 2009 and 2010 had record breaking cold winters(AL GORE VANISHED)and blizzards, the pacific cooled down in 2011,and co2 levels have dropped between 2011 and now yet we had record breaking heat. That‘s a theory with more hole than swiss cheese that science can’t explain so they run on ideology.
Theory isn’t fact scientist is just scientist covering their a55es but not calling scientific fact. Kind of like how when federal laws are deemed unjustice THEY DON’T REPEAL THE LAW THEY SIMPLY WRITE ANOTHER LAWS AND THE OLD LAWS STAYS ON THE BOOKS BUT IS CONSIDERED SUPERCEDED BY THE NEW LAW SO THE OLD LAWS IS NEVER TRUELY CONDEMNED.
MBridOKC
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:53pmUh hem…. I belive I see the word “theory” and “idea” as he refers to evolution….
Report Post »IT”S A THEORY!!!
This is very disturbing … he is basically calling for everyone to just agree on one idea and one theory…. weather you are in favor of creationism or evolution… Doesn’t this fly in the face of science to say that everyone should just adopt the same “THEORY”?? This man is a joke!
Sounds like something out of “1984” to me.
phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:58pmyour understanding of Scientific Theory is about as good as your understanding of the word “weather”. you meant “whether”. i won‘t bother you with information as it seems you’ve spent your life avoiding it.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:01pmRight its a theory, the definition of a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
Nye is calling for people to realize that the myths are fairy tales of creationism and the rejection of science by those that deny climate change are true dangers. The conservative Christians have rejected truth and science and trust in myths and lies.
Report Post »JohnLarson
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:07pmGravity is a theory too, just like evolution. Both are observed scientifically.
Are you not going to believe in gravity?
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:20pmYet humans are closer genetically related to mice than they are to apes, LOL.
Liberals promote junk science such as global warming or born this way.
Report Post »shoulda coulda woulda
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:22pmjohnlarson
Very curious how do we observe evolution?
Report Post »pickup1988
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:29pmEXACTLY ITS A THEORY JUST LIKE THE THEORY OF GRAVITY!!! Wait, let me guess, you believe in “Intelligent Falling?”
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:29pmI’ll try, Philly. The word “Theory” is science talk means “fact”. Ever heard of the Theory of Gravity? It does not need to be proven. It is simply a string of evidence put together to show how gravity must work. The theory is consistent and works every time. Your definition of theory is “hunch”, not backed up by evidence. “I have a theory that Obama is a martian”. Bill is right. Not only is creationism waning, worldwide, so are the numbers of religious believers. Muslims have a completely different story of creation, and there are more muslims now than christians. Does that make them right? But when they send their kids to school, they demand top notch education, unfettered by fear from religious zealots. 8 year old Saudis can explain evolution to you. American kids can’t spell their names right. There are more genius kids in Indian schools than there are american students. They may be Hindu or Sikh but their kids are studying the scientific method, not watching Jersey Shore. Wake up. You’ll soon be buying cancer treatments from foreign countries, because we won’t have the critical mass of educated scientists. Checked out how many empty seats there are in the pews lately? Don’t worry about that, however. For every christian church closing, 2 Islamic ones open. Lots of religion to go around.
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:34pmSorry John, Newton’s LAW of Gravity is Proven.
Report Post »Darwins Theory of Evolution is Very much UNproven.
Just because lot’s of people say they believe Does not
Make it at Fact Right ?John
Doesn‘t make a difference if it’s Scientists or Christians. RIGHT ?
PROVE IT. Then you can call it a Law.
Just_Us2
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:37pmEnc: the definition of a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”
In spite of numerous attempts to create life from nothing in a laboratory under perfect conditions, man has failed again, and again and again to come close to creating even the simplest life form. So based on this body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, scientists embrace the theory of evolution which would deny the results of their experimentation and insist things stilled happened the way THEY said it did and you gotta just have faith. meh!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:50pm“PROVE IT. Then you can call it a Law.”
FLIPPER – you have it backwards. Scientific Theory is the highest level of confidence afforded in Science. Scientific Theories may contain a number of Scientific Laws. Theory in Science is the best you can do.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:36pmLet me try to explain why Evolution is called a theory:
Evolution is a theory, and it would continue to be a theory even if everyone in the universe was absolutely convinced of the truth of it. Why? Because:
1) Evolution deals with processes, not with rules. The laws of gravity, for example, have absolute rules for which we have never found exceptions. In contrast, “natural selection” is a process but not a rule. There are no set parameters in which this process produces the exact same result every single time.
2) Evolution is descriptive rather than predictive. According to the laws of gravity, you can predict 100% of the time what will happen when you drop a ball. With evolution, we can describe processes that have happened, but we can only guess at what will happen in any given future situation.
In other words, a theory and a law are completely different things, and a theory does not “graduate” into a law when it is proven. A scientific theory will always be a theory. This is why the idea that germs cause disease is still called “The Germ Theory,” regardless of the amount of proof we have.
Report Post »UnsilentMajority
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:42pmHow about this version?
“An idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.”
Look it up! Ass!
Report Post »jonnydoe
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:19pmhttp://www.reasons.org/explore/type/todays-new-reason
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:14amUnsilentmajority,
That is not the scientific definition of “theory.” I think you will agree with me that modern science has proven decisively that germs cause disease, right? It is fairly difficult to find dissenters on this point.
And yet, it is still called the “Germ Theory” in the same way that Evolution is called a theory.
Report Post »jayarbee
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 5:09pmWhat Phillyathiest said! He doesn’t indicate his political affiliation but I am hoping it leans conservative. I am embarrassed to say I hold conservative viewpoints when I see most of these posts denying evolution coming from obvious Christian people. I believe that science proves without a doubt that we and everything alive or having lived evolved by natural selection. I also believe there is no evidence whatsoever of a God or magic or supernatural events now or in the past. I cannot stand where Obama wants to take this nation and will fight to relieve him of his presidency. I am also fearful that people who are posting the majority of opinions on this subject want us all to deny all the evidence we scientific types have so laboriously collected which leads us to our beliefs. May all the thousands of Gods help us if the creationists manage to become a significant influence on the leaders of this country!
Report Post »tothepoint
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:53pmGod love Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Report Post »His views will eventually be extinct.
We like him anyway. :-)
goodpart1
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:53pmCreationism is a faith based concept introduced by the evolution denier religious right. They tried to come up with a science sounding name to substitute for the religious belief but as we know they were thoroughly discredited in the Dover trial. Though one can hold any faith they may want to they cannot make up a mythical science and a suprnatural explanation based just on the fact that life in all it’s diversity is hard to comprehend. And yes to introduce it into the schools as a legitimate theory despite all the overwhelming evidence for evolution ( yes there is except when distorted by anti evolution believers) not only teaches us the wrong thing but undermines the methodical scientific approach to problem solving…why not teach then the Myan belief of the universe or the Eskimo belief or native american beliefs or ancient Rome and have multiple g-ds ….it is true that with the anti science right wing critical thinking goes out the window
Report Post »shoulda coulda woulda
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:18pmGoodpart1 why is it still called a theory if they have proven it true. Doesn’t it became a fact when the scientific community comes to some understanding. Let’s see, have they done that since 1860(when Origin of Species was written). If that were to happen, I am sure the only headline we would see that week is Darwin is right and God died.
One remaining point why do continue to teach a Newtonian world in public schools when everyone “knows” that this is more of a “Relativity” Einstein world. Things that make you go Hmmm.
Report Post »pickup1988
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:31pmShoulda Woulda Coulda, have you ever read a science textbook? If you had, you might understand what a theory is. Have you ever heard of the “theory of gravity?” Do you doubt the evidence that gravity exists because scientists also call this a theory too?
Report Post »hoogness
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:51pmIf the so called views of Intelligent Design are going to become extinct eventually, why have they persisited for over thousands and thousands of years? And on top of that, over those millennia many have predicted these views would become extinct, only to be wrong. I actually feel kind of sorry for the man…
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:02pm” why have they persisited for over thousands and thousands of years?”
because you can’t fix stupid, or in this case, willful ignorance. there is ZERO science in creationism. evolution, on the other hand, makes Biology work. it’s been called the greatest idea man has ever had. creationism clings to religious invention of how man got here, ignoring modern science. i’m quite certain that Mr. Nye would feel sad for you.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:21pmPhillyatheist – No need for your side’s fake sadness. And if anybody is stupid, it’s your side. Your side is dumb enough to believe in global warming, born this way, socialism, etc.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:06pmPA,
Report Post »Not a single scientist can explain the vast difference between the human brain and the brains of every other think on the planet. That can’t explain how a man creature can ignore his baser instincts when every single other creature most obey the chemical signals of their sexual counters part even if it means dead or serious risk of bodily harm. More over it can’t explain the trillion upon trillions of fossils that should exist in order for all these species to evolve. Fact is evolution is just another faith based religion the only difference is you put your faith in science theory(fiction).There are thousand sof holes that you fill with faith though out it. I put my faith in Jesus and his teaching as much as I can.
And for the record if a main stream group started a religion base on alien creationism your atheist party would be cut by 2/3 see it‘s not about the science they believe it’s about the possibility of consequences of the actions they fear.
phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:15pmJOHNJAMISON – i wish i knew what to tell you. for some reason (religion) Americans just won’t accept Scientific fact. Turkey is the only non-3rd world country that has fewer believers in evolution than the US. the “holes” that you find in evolution have largely been filled, but you haven’t noticed. the evidence is case closed for evolution, but since it goes against our deepest religious beliefs we simply refuse to acknowledge it. it really is sad, and it’s sad that you are part of the problem.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:07pmAlmost every religious view and god has been made extinct by science, as the polytheistic ancient Romans and Greeks. Science is quickly slaughtering the last of the gods, and the theists know it, so they scream and stick their fingers in their ears. Modern monotheist god is next on the hit list, the history of religion and science ahs proven just that.
Report Post »Thank goodness.
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:51pmAnother smoldering career-evolutionist. Just go make some potions and baking soda rockets, Bill. You’re over. Enjoy your meeting with God someday. Should be very enlightening to you.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:15pmObviously Bill Nye is blind.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fI8834iCgo
00100111
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:51pmTranslated: “Look, we have a narrative. We’re trying to get everyone to mindlessly believe that narrative, and we can’t do that so long as people can believe what they want to believe. We must force them to believe in evolution, for the good for the Fatherland.”
There is much evidence to support evolution, but until that gaping hole that is the leap from ape to man is filled, excuse us for being skeptical and not embracing it as gospel.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:05pmIsn’t this what Marxist/Communists want – to do away with God! Its part of their agenda and poor Bill has bought the Obama NWO agenda hook, line, and sinker. He is to be pitied.
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:51pmHey Billy, remember when the big thinkers of the time thought the world was flat?
Report Post »Do you know that the great scientific minds of the world do not – let me repeat do not know what is keeping your arrogant arse in your chair. – They do not Know what gravity is – some think because it is the weakest of the four forces of the universe that we must be sharing it with an other dimension.
Point being Man’s wisdom is temporal – and it is the thing that is evolving not Gods wisdom which is eternal!
Baikonur
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:50pmI hope Bill Nye is right and the ignorant will simply die out in the next few decades.
But this doesn’t fill me with confidence:
Report Post »http://wonkette.com/481985/things-you-can-learn-in-a-christian-high-school-textbook-for-real-part-ii
JACKTHETOAD
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:58pmIt fills me with confidence, BAIKEY-BABY. You’ll be gone too. See ya round, like a donut.
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:50pmRead “Darwin’s Black Box” written by a biochemist. Evolution is not the last word.
Report Post »haveimissedsomething
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:32pmJean, you beat me to it! I would recommend “Darwin’s Black Box” by Micheal J. Behe to anyone interested in Darwin’s theory or just simply “where do we come from?” The book does not appear to push creationism, intelligent design or any other belief system (I’m still reading it). The author simply explains biology from the perspective of molecular biology and irreducibly complex systems – such as the human eye, or swimming systems of microorganisms such as cilia and flagella. Systems such as these cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution simply because if even one component, like a single protein among hundreds, is changed or eliminated the entire system becomes ineffective. In other words it simply does not work! I would suggest to Mr. Nye that he stick to science demonstrations for children. Something for which he is eminently qualified.
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:48pmhe looks like a lip smacker for real.
Report Post »SocialistSlayer
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:48pmWhat an Idiot – This clown believes in the Big Bang – One of the greatest hoaxes in mankind’s history.
By the way – Other than minor adaptations by species – Science does not support Evolution either !
Report Post »Sol Invictus
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:21pmMethinks you have been laying with socialists for too long.
Report Post »repairsea
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:22pmBig Bang Theory was written by a Catholic priest and mathematician. Einstein said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened”.
Report Post »Mrflannery
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:44amActually the Big Bang is now irrefutable scientific fact. CERN just proved it by confirming the Higgs-Boson particle. Universe in seven days…NOT!
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:47pm“We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems,”
This statement proves Bill Nye is not a scientist. Why?
Because if he did a little research he would find out that Obama doesn’t want “scientifically literate voters”. All he would have to do is look into the Dept of Education and the Union progressive teachers in schools.
But no, he’s closed his eyes and is supporting Obama. Not very scientific….. : (
Report Post »NewLife56
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:47pmWell, Bill, For years you yelled about the big bang theroy, hmmm.. I supoose now that they are changing that one to the big chill theory you’ll swear by the new theory and say it was correct all along.
I admit is is possible that “ your” brain evolved from a monkeys though
Report Post »gbfreak
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:46pmBill Nye the Science Atheist Dick!
Report Post »JACKTHETOAD
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:27pmBill Nye, the Science Guy, curl up and dye.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:44pmone side is the cornerstone for all of Biology, the other side has the banana. i call it a tie.
Report Post »john vincent
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:48pmbut phil-
Report Post »God is the tie-breaker….
phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:56pmi’d like to hear him weigh in on the subject. Lord, what say you? (crickets)
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:02pm@phillyatheist
“i’d like to hear him weigh in on the subject. Lord, what say you?”
Well, I’d say they both are partially right and also partially wrong.
Neither side knows what happened or what is happening. You’d have to ask a Monk.
Report Post »john vincent
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:46pmphil-
the evidence you require can only come from He who said, ‘let there be light.’
I cannot convince you by reason, logic, or by the testimony of millions who have died because of this proof. Ask, seek, knock.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:42pmJohn Vincent,
Nor does having this “proof” help you cure diseases, build an IPhone or produce even a single watt of electricity. That’s what science does, and I‘d prefer America’s youth to learn that in school.
Report Post »john vincent
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:09pmpencil
I would concur as long as science was handled correctly. Usually, it is not, it is presented with all the baggage of contradiction, deceit and outright lies.
A friend who is a scientist says his atheistic colleagues (with whom he engages in meaningful banter) choose to stay with evolution not because of tangible proof, but because they refuse to accept the alternative; ie, GOD. Wheras my scientist friend/believer chose his views based on input from both sides, and said (with the help of the microscope) that design requires a designer. He is in fact a threat to his university, for he is like a pelican in the wilderness. Nobody supposedly of letters, can possibly believe in a Creator, with whom man is accountable.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:41pmYawn – just another bitter, hate-filled obama supporter trying to sell his anti-America, angry world view.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:48pm” anti-America, angry world view.”
that’s what you think of Science? Nye’s right, we should be concerned for our children with people like you running around.
Report Post »00100111
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:53pmPhilly, I worry more about our children with organizations like the US Dept of Education running around. With people who think like you in charge of it, no wonder American children are near the bottom of the totem pole these days.
Report Post »GodFearingMama
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:01pmPhilly
Report Post »You should concern yourself with staying out of my children’s business.. We’re just fine being free and faithful
phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:25pm“We’re just fine being free and faithful”
that’s certainly your prerogative. willful ignorance isn’t a sin, although it should be. might smarten some of you up.
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:31pm@ Philly. . .
I’m was born a Philadelphian. I always thought my fellow citizens of the City of Brotherly Love were wiser and more insightful than an atheist would need to be. But at least you have the nastiness to go with the title!
Report Post »GodFearingMama
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:45pmPhilly
Report Post »How about you go argue this in a public square in say…. I dunno… Egypt?
phillyatheist
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:46pm“I’m was born a Philadelphian.”
i’m glad you left. i hope all the stupid people leave the city.
Report Post »DoseofReality
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:49pmGodfearing…haha…I love that argument you people always make. Its basically saying….”yeah, we are crazy and deluded…but not as bad as those crazy and deluded people over there.”
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:58pmIf God is loving why should we fear him?
Report Post »quovadis
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:10pmGee Philly, calm down…don’t get your shorts in a wad….
Report Post »Bill was funnier when he did “The Science Guy”. Now, he needs to say something provacative once in a while to get attention. Sad what happens to someone who limits himeself to a “one theory mindset” and cannot accept that there might be a greater and more profound TRUTH.
He apparently has educated himself beyond his intelligence level and now sits in the mighty mirrored hall of “intelligencia”, Theories come and go; scientists come and go… but God remains eternal.
We’ll all find out in the end, won’t we?
GodFearingMama
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:19pmSovereignSoul
Report Post »I sure don’t fear you
GodFearingMama
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:24pmDoseofReality
Report Post »Haha.. It‘s because it’s true.. You can say whatever you please here.. But over there, notsomuch… See how you want to speak and try to make anyone else who disagrees silenced.. Kinda like over there huh?
SovereignSoul
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:21pmGodfearingmama…there is no reason that you should fear me. I’m not clear, however, how your response relates to the original question.
Report Post »GodFearingMama
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:03pmSovsoul
Report Post »Are you incapable of being humble? Do you see yourself as being so intelligent with an ability to explain everything? The only one that can defy the laws of science is the one who created this. That ties up pretty much every loose end science has been trying to explain. The one who created all of this you see around you is pretty powerful. You might want to stop thinking so highly of yourself and looking down on others that are able to accept this and live their lives as best they can with faith in something beautiful.. Beautiful yet powerful
woodyee
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:39pmBill Nye socks azz – a Catholic president put a man on the Moon.
‘Nuff said…
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:21pmUmmm…LBJ was not catholic.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:30pmSOVEREIGNSOUL, WOODYEE refers to the promise made by JFK, and the landing occurred during Nixon’s first administration.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:38pmYeah, but did any president do the calculations and invent the tools necessary to put a man on the moon? No–the presidents just gave money to the people who actually knew what they were doing.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:20pm►Teach both theories… Let the kids decide.
http://i50.tinypic.com/x2jxpx.jpg
►Science vs Faith
Report Post »http://i50.tinypic.com/b964nc.jpg
PubliusPencilman
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:17amPontiac,
Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design actually fit the bill as viable scientific “theories.” Both make assumptions that are wildly greater than the dominant theory of evolution. That would be like saying that we should teach both the Germ Theory and the Theory of the Four Humors, and let children decide. That’s not how science works.
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:32pm@PubliusPencilman
I’m pretty sure that the moon landing used operational science (things you can test, observe, and repeat. You can’t do any of those things with evolution (in a macro sense).
And evolution makes enormous assumptions. For example, that life can come from non-life or that minor variations can lead to major changes. Neither one has been observed; they are assumed. Without those assumptions there is no evolution at all.
Report Post »