Evolution vs. Creationism: TX State Board of Ed to Debate Public School Curriculum
- Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:05pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Barbara Cargill, TX State Board of Education (Credit: Caleb Bryant Miller/The Texas Tribune)
The debate over teaching evolution in public schools is resurfacing at the Texas State Board of Education. This morning the board convened a two-day meeting to consider supplemental science materials for the upcoming school year and beyond. At least six people on the 15-member school board are advocating that “creationism” and “intelligent design” be added to state’s science curriculum.
The Republican-dominated board drew national attention in 2009 when it adopted science standards encouraging schools to scrutinize “all sides” of scientific theory.
The board is under the new leadership of Chairwoman Barbara Cargill, a former biology teacher who disputes the theory of evolution. She is considered to be one of the panel’s more conservative members. She explains:
“Right now there are six true conservative Christians on the board, so we have to fight for two votes.”
Critics, though, believe that Cargill’s statements have been judgmental and that she is being divisive in an effort to force her personal beliefs and agenda on others. Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an organization that advocates for “religious freedom,” says:
“The right-wing faction of the State Board of Education will make every effort to put their personal and political beliefs in science instruction.”
TFN spokesman Dan Quinn continues:
“She questioned the faith of her colleagues and she point blank said that she will demand that publishers make changes in the science materials to meet her own personal objectives – not science objectives.”
Cargill, though, claims that she is not trying to be divisive. Others have come to her defense as well, explaining that she is merely seeking to level the playing field when it comes to discussions of evolution and life’s beginnings.
The public hearing will likely reignite debate about Charles Darwin‘s theories about life’s origins, while also examining new curriculum standards present in science e-books. Due to budget constraints, rather than producing new books, these electronic resources will be used alongside old text books. Following today’s public hearing, a final vote on materials the board wants to adopt will be cast on Friday. DallasNews.com reports:
Although science materials for several grades are up for consideration, most of the debate is expected to center on high school biology books and their coverage of evolution. The board’s social conservative bloc has been adamant that the e-books present both the evidence for and against key principles of Darwin — and a conservative think tank that has pushed for critical analysis of Darwin’s theories is arguing that the e-books generally fail to cover all sides of the various issues.
Mainstream science education groups have been generally supportive of the e-books and are warning the board against watering down the coverage of common ancestry, natural selection and other key Darwin principles.
The state’s school districts will not be required to buy the materials, but the majority are expected to use the board-adopted books, as they will be best suited to address the state’s curriculum requirements and achievement examinations. It will be interesting to see how much the board is willing to budge, if at all, in the direction of equalizing the books’ coverage of evolution and creationism.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 589 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 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 414 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 378 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? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 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 (619)
chips1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:13pmIf evolution was proven, then they are racist. It would mean that some plankton crawled out of the ocean in Africa instead of Palm Beach Florida.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:17pmInteresting
Report Post »TEA
better red than dead
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:26pm…what?
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:35pmWho is the “they” in your mind?
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:52pmInteresting… teaching theory as fact. Also, teaching evolution is a belief… I thought schools could not teach on beliefs?! As a Christian I am offended…. but that does not matter unless I am a minority, left wing, George Soros “Christian”. Which would mean I am not a Christian ….round and round it goes.
Teach the basics!!! Enough with the agenda… this is our da#n country!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:00pm@cessna
“Teach the basics!!! Enough with the agenda… this is our da#n country!”
Darwin and evolution are the basics, its you damn “christians” having a hissy fit about religon that have muddied up the water. Tell me why the Christian creation fairy tale is correct and not the Greek, Norse or Buddist, where is your proof that withstands the peer review and the scientific method?
Anamah
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:09pmWhat is your point? What doubts people have on this matter??? So many problems we already have and willing to add a new huge one? This is a nonsense to corrupt our exceptional country. This is pure confusion between to reason and to believe. Science can not explain everything but goes toward to investigate and learn. Religion believes discussion place is in churches not schools. This should be named by its name: IGNORANCE. The idea of teaching religious theories in schools is an stupid and very dangerous idea!!! You are going to wait and see it when fanatic Islamic ask to have the same crazy right to teach those lunatics religious theories in our Americans schools!!! Stop this madness please!
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:16pm((I think that he means, the Libbies are saying we Christians are somehow connected to “non-white” blood))
I think Negroid plankton are the same species as Caucasian plankton, and the spooky kind of plankton that phosphoresces in the wake of a ship at night, like a ghostly message to God.
TEA
Report Post »Ronko
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:29pmWho cares whether it’s evolution or creation, what matters is what we do in the present. Our actions now will determine the future, the past doesn’t mean anything other then what the previous group of people did, whether you agree or not with their line of thinking.
Report Post »KPEdwards
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:31pm@Cessna152
“Interesting… teaching theory as fact.”
Most of all science is theory based on unproven laws that only have empirical proof – like the theory of gravity. I mean, we teach high school student flawed science in physics: classical physics does not accurately describe the world. While we’re at it, nor does quantum. We, as humanity, don‘t have a perfect picture of what’s going on in this universe, but we teach the scientific look at the world where as it’s up to the parents and religious community to teach the religious outlook. Then you let each person come to their own decisions.
In practical terms, it is pretty impossible to teach each religions’ (plus all the different sects) outlook on every aspect of life. So, we teach our kids in public school what the scientific community has come up with as of now.
Report Post »B_Will_Derd
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:37pmThe ‘plankton’ would have continued the evolutionary process well before there was an ‘African’ continent. It would have been Pangea at that time when all land mass was connected. The evolutionary story of man came out of Africa, but the non- African humans mated with the existing Euro Neanderthals creating a divergence between the African and Non African versions of the early human species. That was recently revealed through a DNA study which found evidence of Neanderthal genes in all non African races. Just throwing in a little fact for giggles.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:44pmI don‘t know why they just can’t teach both and let the kids decide what THEY believe. I happen to think that evolution and creation kind of go hand in hand. After all, God created science, too.
Report Post »platitude
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:00pmCreationist assertions aside, there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution and of associated facts in geology and astronomy. Fossil evidence, molecular evidence, radioactive dating, etc. all converge on one common point: the earth is old (about 4.5 billion years) and life has evolved. Creationists, however, do not realize that the convergence of this amount of evidence is tantamount to certainty. They commonly take a smaller puzzle, a question or discussion of how a particular thing might have evolved, and claim the discussion as proof that evolutionary theory is “in crisis” (For example, the debate over punctuated equilibrium is commonly misrepresented in creationist literature.)
Report Post »IONNES
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:13pm@encinom
I’d wager I know more about the both creationism and evolution that you do. I also understand the difference between operational science and historical science. If you don‘t you’d do better not to speak on subjects you have no actual knowledge of.
Report Post »Ed Salazar
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:21pmYes Republicans (most) are very racist
Report Post »agameofthrones
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:32pmEvolution is also a theory taught as fact.
Report Post »getalong
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:54pmDarwin and evolution are not the facts. Believe or not, there are a lot of people that believe the big bang theory is total fiction, and that man did not evolve from an ape. It seems to me there is room in the science curriculum to include both theories. Let the kids decide for themselves what they believe.
Report Post »ILConservative
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:01pm@Anamah, you’re too late. Those lunatic muslims you talk about, are already teaching their garbage in our schools. California spend 2 or 3 weeks per year teaching kids the wrong things about islam and feeding the religion of peace garbage. They are given muslim names and taught to make prayer rugs. A school dist by me has new books that teach muslim garbage this year too. Start to become more aware of what is going on.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:02pm@IONNES
If you are going to argue in support of creationism, I doubt your claims about you alledged knowledge.
Report Post »1proudAmerican
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:06pmI once asked my kid’s high school science teacher if both sides (creation and evolution) would be covered instead of just evolution. She laughed. I think evolution is laughable.
Report Post »The more I hear about Texas, the more I like it. Sure beats NY hands down!!!
katenga
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:09pmDon’t you guys realize that the good lord is trying to test us? Keep strong! Carry on! Us Christians gotta stick together right?
Report Post »fliteking
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:07pmENCINOM — The real point amongst those who stand behind intelligent design is 1. Darwinism is THE fairy tale and could not have happened 2. Someone greater than yourself (read “all men”) is responsible for your reality.
Nothing anyone writes here will convince you of otherwise, as evidenced by your text.
That said, a simple curiosity on your part and a reading of the OVERWHELMING evidence damning Darwinism and proving intelligent design would likely save your soul.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:22pm@fliteking
You keep your religion out of the classroom and I will keep logic, reason and science away from the Church.
The ID arguments against Darwin and evolution are laughable at best. The real shame is that you “christians” are proving that you are nothing more than america’s version of the taleban.
Report Post »SnowBun
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 8:03pmhaaaa HAAAA Hey that is funny as hell. FYI Discoveries in the past 1 to 2 years have totally obliterated the “out of africa” theory, which I always held was ******** anyway. no WAY some naked hut dwellers who stimulate cows sexually with their mouths and then allow the cow to piss on their head so their hair turns yellow – “EVOLVED” into effing Michelangelo in 10 or 20 thousand years. And then into CHINESE, and everything else. BULL !!! My god man, the aboriginals of Australia have lived there HOW LONG? So they just “walked over” huh? SUDDENLY the people who went no where for 2 million years, didn’t even make any sea worthy vessels, SUDDENLY they‘re like walking from Africa to ’THE ENTIRE WORLD” and just turned into Swedish and Japanese people and basically the entire WORLD. – NO ~~ EFFING ~~ WAY !!
AND for anybody who wants to bring up LUCY the Australopithecus Afarensis? The only blah blah and it’s a couple of million years old, and is basically human, but still had the bones in it’s hand that were for knuckle walking – the ‘missing link” forebear of all humans? They found 9 more of those skeletons in EUROPE – Georgia to be exact – close to 2million years old. (SEE europeans were ALREADY there) 2ndly? THE FOUND skeletal remains of AustraAfar on an SouthEast Asian ISLAND that exactly match Lucy’s bones to the point where the “lucy expert” can’t even tell the difference. our alleged ancestors were already in Europe and Asia MILLIONS of
Report Post »veruca salt
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:27pmKeep up the good work, Texas. You’re off to a remarkable start! Only 40% of your people don’t believe dinosaurs and people walked the Earth at the same time. No reason why that number can‘t be pushed lower if you get to them while they’re young!
texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texans-dinosaurs-humans-walked-the-earth-at-same/
Report Post »henryKnox
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:35pm@Ed Salazar Congratulations for actually knowing “most” Republicans. I think all but a few people that I know are Republicans, yet none of them are racists. I must know only those Republicans that are in the minority. What a coincidence? All of your friends that are Republicans are racists. I assume that includes your employer? I assume that includes your priest, reverend or pastor? It isn’t wise to judge a person simply because of an affiliation or trait. We should judge people by the content of their character.
Report Post »Pujols
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:58pmI believe in Evolution and Creationism.
Evolution is were all the Liberals come from. (MONKEYS)
Creationism is were Jews & Cristians come from. (MAN)
THE END __________REPENT NOW OR BURN LIKE STRAW.
Report Post »Chr1st14n
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 12:04amDarwin THEORY
Report Post »who himself criticized his own THEORY as becoming too hard to defend when saying that something so complex as the retina just magically came into being
joel228
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:26amPlatitude, about 15 years ago when my wife was expecting our first child I decided I wanted to know exactly what our daughter would be subjected to in schools for the teaching of evolution. I figured that because of the self assured rhetoric of evolutionists such as the constant use of the phrase “overwhelming evidence” there must be something that I will not be able to explain away when defending my believe that evolution did not occur.
I read dozens of books from both sides (pro and anti Darwin), had an extended email debate with a very well schooled and intelligent but agnostic brother in-law, took an on line class on how to become a better evolution teacher with about 20 science teachers and lovers of the Darwinian theory.
What I found was really quite surprising. There is not any one piece of evidence that can be called overwhelming. All they do is take little pieces from different fields of what they believe supports Darwinian evolution and add them up as if it all amounted to something overwhelming and insurmountable.
Truth is there is nothing overwhelming in the least. In fact there are equally strong or stronger counter arguments for essentially everything. I could add up all the counter arguments and say the weight of those negates all of Darwinism and it’s time to cast that idea aside like an old bacteria infested dish rag.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:37amP.S. Now that my daughter is 14 and extremely intelligent in my humble opinion, (she got an A- once and it ruined her whole year) I tell her she needs to know the arguments behind evolutionary theory better than her teachers. That’s the only way to know when they are throwing BS around and when the argument is not as overwheming as they try to make it sound.
Report Post »ying
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 9:43amEncinom, there is nothing to proove that evolution is taking place. Yet, there is evidence everywhere showing that devolution is happening, yet people refuse to see it.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:18pmHere are a couple of my thoughts.
Yes, evolution is a theory in the same sense Einstein’s theory of gravity is a theory. All science is a theory, which only means that a although a given hypothesis may explain all observed instances of a phenomenon, scientists no longer suppose that it will explain all future observations. The hypothesis may have to altered based on future experiments. In that sense, all science is theory.
Frankly, I don’t think religion and evolution are incompatible. If God could have created man from scratch, he could certainly had done it with evolution. In fact, if God exists, and life did not evolve, then God is the biggest practical joker in the universe. Because it sure looks like all life has evolved. And beside, if it seems impossible that life came from nothing, how do you feel about God coming from nothing?
Why do whales and snakes have “vestigial” leg bones? Why do you have an appendix which serves no function for the human body (did God throw that into for fun?). Why are some babies born with tails? Why do you get goosebumps, which serve absolutely no purpose for humans (although they do for animals, puffing up their body hair when it’s cold). How is it that bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, and insects resistant to pesticide? Does God take care of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Report Post »6thgenerationamerican
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:55pmVery passive.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 3:45pmEvolution is a theory and more false then true. Yes Man does evolve, or better put adapts, changing over a time period in accordance to man’s environment. This aspect is true and it doesn’t make man a new evolved creature.
Did man evolve from another animal or plankton etc, NO. If we had wouldn’t we have the same DNA? We don’t therefore we did not. If we had Science could PROVE it, not guess at it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin
It is quite difficult for most to think of God as he is. God is dimensional, the beginning and the end. What I find odd is most can equate infinite in mathematics but cannot equate God being just that, infinite.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is proof enough God is real. It demonstrates and proves the Universe had a beginning and is winding down. Give it a look yourself.
Report Post »Opinionmonger
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 4:50pmI want The creation according the Flying Spaghetty Monster tought also , since pastafarian is an acknoledged rireligion too.
Report Post »Nobody should be able to ignore the creative creations of His Noodlyness is the competition is heard too.
OleSailorBob
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:20pmIn general, evolution is an absolute fact. Even a cursory study of the environment will show you that plants, animals, and insects are constantly evolving. Creationism is a religious theory, not a scientific one. I have no problem with it being taught in a religion class…where it belongs.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:48pm@JZS
Howdy. I sure hope your not a Darwinist. Goose bumps make my hair stand on end. You must be hairless. Do you support eugenics and one race superior to another? Darwinism does.
Define evolve
Define adaptation
Then show me a new evolve creature from man. If evolution stopped, why?
@OlesailorBob
Plants and animals adapt, not evolve. Evolve would create a new creature. Adapting is the simple changing in accordance to the environment.
Evolution also condones eugenics and supports racism, the thought one race is superior to another assuming blacks and Jews to be the least intelligent. You support this thought as fact fact? I don’t.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:11pmThis is why we need private schools. One for children of parents like me. The other school would be for parents that believe the world is six thousand years old – in which any science or literature that suggests otherwise would not be taught. We would quickly develop two classes – much more clearly defined than we have now. Resentment towards the educated class would grow even more – Universities would be mocked even more – but we’d have an even greater competitive advantage. Ironically, this uneducated class would be the neanderthals of our society.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:19pmI need to retract my prior post. Having read through many of the posts here, I see we already have the two clearly defined classes. Spend some time alone with God and quit listening to what other men tell you – independence, self-reliance, reason, inquiry . . . its a fascinating and fulfilling way to live. Challenging, yes. But well worth it. It’s an awesome spiritual journey for those with the courage and personal strength to undertake. For those who don’t, I talk to one of you, I’ve talked to all of you . . . rather boring.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:20pmHi Okie. Thanks for the post and I will engage you on the subject. I happen to think you’re a reasonable person by the way based on your posts.
The theory of evolution is completely neutral on issues of morality, like any scientific theory. Biology, for example, doesn’t have a moral, ethicial or religious component, it is simple the study of living things. The study of evolution is the same. You have projected your own ethics and morality on the theory of evolution, but evolution is not concerned with those issues, the the theory of evolution only tries to explain the diversity of life our planet in a logical way.
Seriously Okie, I think you are confusing science and religion. Science doesn’t “advocate” anything, it only tries to expalin. Many, perhaps most educated Christians embrace the theory of evolution. Evolution is not incompatible with religion.
Here’s a couple of things to think about. You said in a post, “Did man evolve from another animal or plankton etc, NO. If we had wouldn’t we have the same DNA?” Actually, you’re uninformed on that issue. Humans share 95% of DNA with the great apes, a little less with monkeys, and far less with other mammalian species such as mice.
Here’s another thought for you. You imagine that humans are completely unrelated to bats right? We sure look different! Do you realize that every bone in the human body has a corresponding bone in a bat, including the eight bones in the skull? Oops, out o
Report Post »RCScrolls
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:34pmIf Evolution was a closed case and proven right why the heck are they still looking into other means of our existence. In the History of evolution even Darwin said they would find interlink species before He dies and that it they didnt it would rule out His teory. To this day Ther have been no interlinkspecies ever found.
Report Post »Allthe Evidence dosent even fill the bottom of a caufin becuase its so scarce. You would think out of this whole eart that they would have hoards of evdence but nope.
Because we were created.
jzs
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:52pmYou imagine that humans are completely unrelated to bats right? We sure look different! Do you realize that every bone in the human body has a corresponding bone in a bat, including the eight bones in the skull? Same radius, same ulna, same phalanges (finger and foot bones – the finger bones support a membrane for flight with a bat), same femur, same vertebrae, same three bones in the ear that conduct sound. In fact if you had a bat skeleton, constructed of some infinitely flexible material, some material that could stretch and shrink bones at will, you could, without adding or subtracting bones, duplicate the human body in every respect. Actually, you could do that with any mammal (whales and dophins have vestigial leg bones if you didn’t know that, betraying their ancestors history on land). There is no doubt we are related in a deep fundamental way to all life on Earth, in particular mammels. Something, evolution or God (although I don’t see God would tinker at every point) pushed, shaped, shrank, grew, reshaped all those bones common to all mammals in resonse to environemental pressures.
Evolution is a beautiful theory. Many or most educated religious people, and virtually all scientists and marvel at that beauty.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:31pmJZS is hip. Read him and learn. I do.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:46pm@JZS
Come on now, you can’t possibly think what your saying is true.
Because bats skulls are in same form as ours you believe we came from bats…Is this what your advocating? You’ve watched to many vampire movies buddy.
I know evolutionists don’t like talking about it but Darwinism is racist. It believes one race dominant over another. Eugenics was influenced by Darwinism. Truth has no agenda.
You also said 95%. Last time I checked 95%<100%, not equal.
Morality? I find science to prove God's existence and His work much more then the contrary.
I ask you respectfully again, define adaptation and define evolve. I also ask you if you still believe in evolution to explain why another man form has evolved. Why did non man to man stop happening?
I do not believe the statement many or lots of religious leaders believe in Evolution to be true.
Second law of thermodynamics??? Give it a look…
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 12:19amTell that to the “Olmecs”. lol Every Atheist is a racist. Who do you all think they will exterminate in their effort to make the population “more manageable”, in their quest to lesson the burdens of resource depletion. Well, (hehe, Reagen) they will rationalize the need to decide who is less evolved, and I guarantee you all, not 1 Atheist will qualify to be exterminated. But at least they will need America out of the way to achieve that. Democrats love America, they wouldn’t be spending us into oblivion on purpose, would they? Wake up folks.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 12:41amJoel,
Its great you told your daughter what to think about evolution. Keep the tradition alive of not allowing the next generation think for themselves. I’m sure she agrees with you on the issue 100% because you told her that’s how it is . . . just like the church elders do on so many subjects. Another robot.
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 12:53amJZS, If evolution is fact, then they wouldn’t be “trying” to explain how it works. You see, observation is a must with science. However they “try” to say it is unobservable because it is too slow to observe. Well that isn’t the creationists fault. We observe variation. They “try” to expel that word from their vocabulary. But the FACT is, the science we observe is variation not evolution. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying they can’t KNOW if they are right either. As for all your things to ponder have answers that benefit a creationist that you can’t PROVE wrong, yet. So we must give creationists the “trying to explain” platform. Now, God had to begin too argument you make. The quantum dimension is timeless, only we of material form are tied to time. You heard an atom here on earth is tied to an atom at the far reaches of the universe. So think of the universe as a giant globe. Somewhere in that globe is a line segment, it represents time as we know it. it has a beginning and unfortunately for we humans, an end. That end, that will come for matter, has already ended in that,(higher dimension). We here, need to wait for that time to come. If a being existed there, he would be timeless and not bound to 3rd dimension laws. Seems to me the only scientific way to think is agnostic. Everything else is opinion, only Atheist want to bypass real science and call their opinions facts. Creationist only want their opinions heard. And Atheist want to call that evil. lo
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 1:17amAlso AZS, those things you report in evolution’s favor, may favor creation. You see, the reason immunities arise is not that they are evolving, it could be because the immune brothers and sisters hehe, are very few in the population, when the non immune majority get exterminated by antibiotics the population will eventually become all immune. Especially the ones that lose information from the dna. You guys want evolution to slide up, back and forth more evolved can become less evolved, all willy nilly. I don’t know why you laugh at creationists putting up pictures of chickens with horses heads. lol That is what you would get when these evolutionists are “trying” to explain evolution. Even nylonase. They said wow it eats nylon, see it must have evolved, and that’s PROOF. Well, what if they eat nylon too? What if the thing they ate before is extinct? Maybe the nylon caused whatever they ate to go extinct? What if that which has gone extinct was as important to us as the honey bee? They just assume and call it science, pity. God people, do you folks realize how little we really know? The scientists can act knowingly, but we are pathetically slow in our advancement in knowledge. i really scares me. Disease is running rampant and evolution isn’t doing it, we are. :(
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:02amOkie, I see our discussion isn’t converging toward a common ground. But I’ll respond at least one more time to you. You say, “Come on now, you can’t possibly think what your saying is true.” Yes, of course I believe what I’ve said. That’s why I said it. Why else would I say something?
Honestly Okie, I don‘t think you’re able to make the distinction between science and religion. Science isn’t a threat religion. Science only tries to understand to world in a way that explains, current events and past events in a way that is predictive of future events. Science is neutral on issues of religion, politics and opinion.
You may want to try to bring those issues into scientifc research, like those who argue that the Earth is only 6000 years old based on your interpretation of the Bible. But science is neutral on the issues that color your understanding of the world.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:45amBLEEDING BRAIN, I’m not sure we disagree. But I can’t tell. You’re kind of rambling.
Report Post »ying
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 4:43amGod created humans, and He created animals. Anything between is the result of DEvolution. Humans who race-mix with those who are half animal are DEvolving, and are NOT helping those half-animal people to evolve; they are already DEvolved. You cannot e-volve unless you marry an angel and have his children. Go ahead and hate me for saying something that makes sense. Even Beck has said not to be afraid of speaking the truth, so here it is, this is what I believe, and after much deep thought and reading, I can never believe otherwise.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 5:00am@JZS
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
- the world of science and technology
I do not find science a threat to my faith but quite the opposite. I find science agrees with my faith.
Science shows something needed to wind the clock before the clock began. I agree, God did.
So I believe God created everything, he started the clock. You believe big bang correct? You believe science shows a random act that somehow structured so that it complexes into life. What started the clock in your theory’s view?
I find Darwinism equivalent to Global Warming in the essence yes man adapts and yes the world warms/cools but the motive behind both is unethical nor true. To me, my opinion, that is false science and abusing science.
Where do you say politics, another science, is coming in by me?
Report Post »Steven63
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:12pmAtheists would have you believe there is no God or greater being. They would rather believe that no level of intelligence is behind everything that ever was/is. To hint at such would invite the possibility of a ‘God.’
So I ask of these Atheists, since there is no God and ergo no intelligence behind design (evolutionary or otherwise); since there can be no chance of harmony anywhere, anytime; no laws of physics, no law of gravity. No laws whatsoever without an intellectual basis: please explain how everything seems to have an intertwined purpose that largely, follow a pre-established set of laws? You insist evolution is the answer yet you exclude the fact that even evolution implies intelligence. Some species on this planet live a symbiotic relationship – one could not survive without the other. You claim this the result of chaos?
Chaos could not, CANNOT reproduce the same exact events repeatedly, without end, over the course of billions of years yet Galaxies continue to be born, yeilding stars in the same repeatable way right down to the planets orbiting them (chaos would not allow orbits on a repeatable basis, much less ALL the planets in one solar system such as ours).
Intersting that you are so keen to claim chaos as your father while dissavowing any chance of a greater intelligence involved in that which exists all around you. Frankly, I am troubled by your lack of depth and understanding about everything around you. You are so one-dimensional.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:21pmThanks for the multi-faceted digression.
(from the reader dimension) Lots of great questions for us to consider.
(from the edit dimension) Lets say three misspellings and one word omitted.
TEA
Report Post »onlinecasino
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:23pmIndeed is very normal i suppose.
Report Post »onlinecasino
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:28pmYes for sure is like this.
Jenny at, http://online-casino.eu.com/
Report Post »The Voice of Libertarian Reason
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:59pm@steven63
“pre-established set of laws” – you mean the ‘laws’ (conservation of mass, momentum, etc) that man has written to describe what they have observed of their surroundings?
“Simbiotic relationships” – Example? I‘ll take a stab at it without knowing exactly what you’re refering to… Lichens consist of fungal and photosynthetic symbionts which can not live independently. This does not prove or disprove evolution. One would argue that these organisms evolved at the same time to depend on each other for certain things they could not provide for theirself. While becoming better at what the other could not do. A human example of this is an auto manufacturer does not make seats and steering wheels, etc, they depend on a simbiotic relationship with many suppliers in order to build vehicles.
Chaos? I would liken it more to a free market; there was an abundence of solar energy so micro organisms evolved to use the energy to thrive. They grew, some evolved to them eat the other micro organisms instead of getting energy from the sun. Theory continues until you have many many layers of the food chain and eventually humans.
Furthermore even with, as you call it, chaos you will see the same result more than once. Its called statistics I suggest you read up on it.
As for you calling Atheists one dimensional; thats just childish.
The fact of the matter is there is much more evidence of evolution being the reason we exist than creationism.
Live and L
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:28pmSo I ask of these Atheists, since there is no God and ergo no intelligence behind design (evolutionary or otherwise); since there can be no chance of harmony anywhere, anytime; no laws of physics, no law of gravity. No laws whatsoever without an intellectual basis: please explain how everything seems to have an intertwined purpose that largely, follow a pre-established set of laws? You insist evolution is the answer yet you exclude the fact that even evolution implies intelligence. Some species on this planet live a symbiotic relationship – one could not survive without the other. You claim this the result of chaos?
Report Post »___________________________
This argument is basically 1+1=cherry pie. There does not need to be a god for the laws of physics. These law deal with the interaction between matter/energy. There is no need for a god to stir the chemical stew that first produced DNA and RNA. And yes order does come from chaos, the Chaos theory is bulit on that premise, see Sierpinski triangle.
Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:47pmTranslation: Steven: “I don‘t know squat about evolution but I know it’s wrong.”
Report Post »KPEdwards
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:49pmOk, I am an atheist and I will try and unpack all of what you were asking of me.
When you say there is no intelligence behind design it comes across a little vague. So, I will try to nail down the semantics as I see them. I personally believe that the metaphysical boundaries of our shared reality fundamentally stops at the physical laws which we, humanity, are trying to understand. The rules that define this world just are. They are the axioms of reality, and, to me, do not imply a higher power that put them in place. If this sounds like I am just not following through with what you would say is a logical progression to a belief in a higher power who set up these rules – could I not ask the same question of who created God, or who created God’s creator?
Both of our beliefs rely on an illogical notion. One of the most beautiful aspects of God, in my opinion, is that He is a being that is completely outside of logic. He can create a stone so large that He himself cannot lift it, and He can lift it. It is the reason, I thought, it was a sin to claim to know what God thinks/how God works. Yet, my illogical belief that these are the fundamentals of reality and there is just no further is somehow different?
Now, as an amateur mathematician I would highly recommend reading up on chaos theory. There are some truly beautiful results, and might make you change your opinion on what chaos can and cannot do.
Report Post »ktowers
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:04pmYou say that atheists believe that there is no God. The “A” means “without”, not “anti”. Atheists, by definition, simply possess no belief that God is necessary to explain the natural world. Being anti-God, an emotional response, would be just as illogical to atheists as believing in God.
You use terms like intelligence, design, harmony, and intertwined purpose without defining them. You suggest that natural laws must have an intellectual basis for them to exist at all. I take that to mean that a higher intelligence must have created these laws. Why should that be?
The fact that natural phenomena seem to obey a set of understandable principles does not imply the existence of supernatural beings. Evidence continues to build in support of evolution, which says nothing of life origins, by the way.
You seem to be saying that chaos means a world completely without rules. Clearly there are rules we can observe with our own eyes. Newton didn’t have much to go on compared with what we have today, but he managed to work out some amazing stuff by applying his genius to what he had available.
Which requires more depth and understanding, figuring out scientific models that best describe the universe we see, or simply saying that God is responsible for it all?
Finally, I’m not even an atheist. I identify strongly with S.E. Cupp who IS, and she speaks and writes in defense of Christianity against illogical attacks. I owe her and myself the return favor.
Report Post »mutslie
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 8:47pmWho the heck created God then? ‘maybe God is a woman…….I‘d really like to meet her’
THE RICH INVENTED RELIGION TO CONFUSE THE POOR
‘ anyways mooshall obummer looks close to an ape’……….. I reck‘n Ireck’n
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:06pmit’s both. it has always been both. NATURE is a “programming language” designed by God.
the universe started as a seed, created and planted by God. It is ever growing. God creates seeds…
All living things start as seed. that is how things evolve. WHY did that seed change SO dramatically? maybe God had a play.. maybe nature and it’s evironment has a play.. we can speculate on that all we want… it the end, it still can be both. but answer me this… where did the first SEED come from?
Report Post »thelonious
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:49pmSteven, its pretty simple. There is an intelligence in matter, visible in pine cones, sunflowers, cauliflower, the symmetry of the mammalian face, but these all have to do with the specific gravity, composition, amt of light, etc. unique to Earth. Atheists or anti-theists believe that under the same laws of physics but with different outcomes life could evolve on another exotic world. Atheists DON’T believe, at least the ones I know, that this intelligent design found in nature is proof of an anthropomorphic being, of which we were made to look like, who watches us, again “eyes”, hears our prayers “ears” and judges our actions. Nature is beautiful and mysterious I don‘t see why we have to continue to believe there’s some warden accounting for us all. It is a relic from man’s past when s/he was afraid of the dark because he thought the sun wouldn’t return, or afraid that his neighbors would steal his resources. IF there is such a being, don‘t you think he’d have an interest in us equivocal to the total percentage of mass we take up out of the whole universe which is a fraction so small I don’t even want to think about it? He’s busy making supernovas and stuff.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:15pmAtheists
The short lived theory of Darwin has been proven incorrect many times over being correct. While aspects of Darwin thinking are in fact true, adaptation, evolving from one being to a total new being is completely false. If we did evolve from another creature, why has this not happened again? Darwin’s thought of a simple selective process is dramatically proven wrong by science in the second law of thermodynamics.
For those questioning God and who created him I ask you to ration God to infinity. While you can pinpoint a start and end of infinity for your reference there is not true beginning or end. If one can understand infinity, one can very easily understand God. The dimension of God has no time. God is infinite.
The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning — the moment at which it was at “zero entropy” (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock? God.
Science is the study of how God works, not the study proving his nonexistence.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:35pmIn evolutionary theory, the survival advantage factor is the chief explanation for the existence of most differences. Because these differences result from the survival advantage that they confer upon an organism, an evolutionist must assume differences between or within a group likely exist because they provide some inherent survival advantage for the animal. Since the key survival advantage of humankind over ‘lower animals’ is intelligence, consequently differences in this trait likely also exist between the races. This is exactly what has been assumed by many eugenicists, evolutionists, sociologists, and psychologists, both before and since the time of Darwin. This conclusion has justified a wide variety of governmental and scientific policies, not the least infamous were racial genocide programs.
The biological concept of race as we know it had its modern roots when social Darwinism was embraced by many scientists.32, 33 The works of Darwin ‘s cousin, Francis Galton, the founder of the eugenics movement, were of a major influence.34 Cohen concluded that:
‘The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution [by applying eugenics to governmental policies].
If you believe in Darwin’s theory, you support eugenics started by his cousin. You also support racism as Darwins believe one race is superior to others with blacks being less intelligent.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 5:41pmHow do evolutionists reconcile evolution from simple organisms to more complex organisms with the second law of thermo-dynamics? My guess is most of them are unaware of this principle but I would love to hear the explanation.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:00pmFor Atheists/Evolutionists ignorant of Thermodynamics
Second Law of Thermodynamics – The Laws of Heat Power
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. The term “thermodynamics” comes from two root words: “thermo,” meaning heat, and “dynamic,” meaning power. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the Laws of “Heat Power.” As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The First Law of Thermodynamics, commonly known as the Law of Conservation of Matter, states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:02pmSecond Law of Thermodynamics – Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
“Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 9:14pmTHe second law of thermodyamics applies to a closed system. The earth, and the universe, are not closed systems. Your refridgerator, for example, is.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:24pm@Bids
Isolated or closed system yes. Is the universe not isolated and closed within itself?
Just as infinity is isolated and closed within infinity, the universe is equivalent and closed and isolated within itself.
What outside factor effects the universe? With no outside factor effecting our universe the universe must be closed or isolated within itself.
Report Post »bleedingbrain
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 1:42amSome good points brother. But they know these things. It is the rules in that little black book that evolution is saving them from. You know what I mean? Vern. lol If they admit their agnosticism, than Pascal’s wager binds them to the good book. Therefore, evolution must be PUSHED in order to deny the rules of their possible maker. Me, I believe Enki’s story as a true diary of the history of man. The Bible may have been brought to us through he, The one that claims to be our creator first hand. The one who believed he was created than we he created. If everyone followed the laws in that book, war would indeed end imho. All Atheists are frauds, for if they weren’t, they would follow the laws anyway. Because with or without a creator, humans should abide by them. But atheist want to throw away laws and adopt the ones they want to abide by. God must die for them to really be free. Sounds like the enemies of God. Really, there would be no Atheists if no one believed, right? You know, how can you feel happiness if you never felt sad? They are nailing their own coffins shut with every utterance of the word fact. To them fact = atheist opinion.
Report Post »mlcblog
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 1:42amSix conservative Christians on the panel of this very important national discussion is proof that God exists.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:04pmThanks for all the connections! Also, if we cut & paste enough, someone might read it and their life be changed.
TEA
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:15pm((The Editors deleted a comprehensive set of unique web links to biblical references that proved without a doubt there was no evolution, and proved that all species were carried in the ARC 4,000 years ago, so that all Humans are related, black, white, yellow and red, and there are NO races but Human))
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:09pmEvolution needs to explain a few things before I jump on this wagon…1st esthetics,why so much beauty in nature…Where are the animals with two eyes on 1 side of their head?Where is all of natures failures?Eyes on the soles of the foot,for example…How did nature get each creature right first time around?How do animals think their way into camoflage skin to blend in to their surroundings,when they don’t even have mirrors to look in?How does evolution explain its garden of eden moment,when a fully functioning female meets a fully functioning male and has babies?It’s a big world with a lot of different animals that have had to find their respective mates..Who cared for the first male and female when they would have frozen or starved to death as infants?How can I train my offspring to spin themselves into a cacoon and then come out months later with gills,wings,and a different color…How does evolution explain complex eco systems…Do we really need bees for pollenation?Why do I have tears that are hard-wired to my emotions?Why do I have adrenalin glands?Do I really need the sense of taste?Shouldn’t the sense of smell be enough?Why don’t teachers want students asking these questions?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:19pmWhere are the animals with two eyes on 1 side of their head? They are called fluke and flounders (fish)
Where is all of natures failures?Eyes on the soles of the foot,for example…Dead
How did nature get each creature right first time around? Who said it did, 90% of all animals that ever were are extinct
How do animals think their way into camoflage skin to blend in to their surroundings,when they don’t even have mirrors to look in? Animals that looked like their backgounds weren’t eaten, the bright pink ones were, natural selection
How does evolution explain its garden of eden moment,when a fully functioning female meets a fully functioning male and has babies? huh? as speicies change so do and mutations are passed along changes occur in both sexes.
The rest of your “questions” only a kindergarten drop-out would ask. They have no basis in science and are designed to mock something your tiny christian brian can’t understand.
Explain to me why Christian creation myth is correct and the Buddist one is wrong or the Apache creation myth, why is the Norse myth not taught?
Report Post »ShyLow
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 8:25pmTears are hard-wired to the emotion sadness…Adrenaline is hard-wired to the emotion fear..and both are by design…Intelligent design fits into any religion that has an inteligent being designing the universe and things in it.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 6:40pm@Encinom
Did one human evolve or did two evolve at the same time? if only one evolved did it wait around for the second to form.
Which evolved first, female or male?
Do you support eugenics and one race more superior to another? Do you believe blacks least intelligent as supported by Darwinists?
Why hasn’t man evolved into a new being by now? Why did evolution stop?
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 7:08pm@Encinom
Did one human evolve or did two evolve at the same time? if only one evolved did it wait around for the second to form.
Which evolved first, female or male?
Do you support eugenics and one race more superior to another? Do you believe blacks least intelligent as supported by Darwinists?
Why hasn’t man evolved into a new being by now? Why did evolution stop?
Report Post »fastfacts
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:03pmMORE POWER TO CHRIS CHRISTIE FOR WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO WITH SCHOOLS…
The fact that democrats push for less checks on public schools and don’t want to give the lower class a chance of vouchers for private schools, that is hypocrisy that they pay for their kids to attend schools
Chris Christie is very different because he is fighting to support private schools and poor students to attend. Remember this chastisement from Christie to a teacher complaining about his kids school: http://url2it.com/gand
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:16pmChristie has Huge Gravitas. I am a Big, Big fan. He is so, heavy duty.
Report Post »TEA
encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:29pm@MONICNE
Report Post »Would you not say he is the BIG man on campus, REALLY LARGER than life.
Firebrand
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:37pm@joe
I wanted to address the eye evolution statement. There have been arguments among scientists about how the eye evolved because it is very complex. The question isn’t whether the eye resulted from evolution, but the path it took to get to where it is, and why.
My theory:
Since the sun has been around since the beginning, those organisms that could differentiate between light and dark could detect other organisms friend or foe. Light sensing probably came first, followed by focus, then by color. So, the nerves would have been there. Can you name one mammal (though this can be expanded past mammals) on the planet that doesn‘t have eyes near it’s brain relative to every other appendage (I won’t even get into the number of appendages and their placement, a.k.a. physiological design)? The light sensing cells would have grouped together, followed by tissue formation. The eye would have become rounded (concave) as it would be advantageous to have contrast. The iris would have formed next to control the contrast. Then the lens for focus, and then the fluid to keep the eye from collapsing in on itself. Color probably last as rods turned to cones.
Just how I think it happened. There are still arguments among geneticists about the steps.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:50pmI’m a democrat, I like Christie, I like what he’s doing with the schools. What’s your point?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:24pmThis posting contains materials from OTHER sections of The Blaze, proving there is a Black Hole of Calcutta run by CHAOS – but Max Smart has intelligently designated that we read the big bang of materials here, where they chaotically converged and created a missing link.
TEA
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:41pm@firebrand….uh huh…why ‘evolve’ sight at all? bacteria survives quite well without it. as far as a ‘light sensitive cell’ thats nothing more than a ‘just so’ story….
eyesight is ENORMOUSLY complex…and to think that all those pieces could just ‘evolve’ and they would have to ‘evolve’ at the same time, or else they would be useless and discarded…is mind-boggling…proving once again that evolution is faith.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 12:46pm“and to think that all those pieces could just ‘evolve’ and they would have to ‘evolve’ at the same time”
Report Post »This is perfect proof of how the lay to biology and genetics fail constantly when making assumptions about evolution. There is no understanding here of homology, orthology, or what it means to conserve traits at a genetic level. With assumptions made about evolution like this, education in this country is doomed!
HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:42pmAfter reading the posts here I’m convinced we need private schools. Various scientific theories can be taught in one branch and whatever JOEL1234 and the like want in their school. Let’s kick start the evolutionary process.
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmjoe1234: EXACTLY! You can’t disprove faith. That’s why Creationism and Intelligent Design should NOT be part of a science program! Thanks for making my point…
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:05pmRight On!
Report Post »TEA
joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:05pmevolution is nothing more than a racist atheist fairy tale…here I will prove it…list the mutations that led to male and female……but you cannot…yet you believe it…its called faith…
that evolution sho is clever to evolve male and female at the same time…shazam.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:25pmObviously, some of us acted like D**ks, and others were C***s. Seems pretty clear, especially around here.
Troll Appreciation Day
Report Post »TEA
Firebrand
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:40pm@joe
We’re all female until stem cell differentiation, segregation, and polarization in utero leads to formation of genitalia. Those processes are signaled by proteins that are encoded in the DNA. Specifically, the signals to stay female are missing because of missing DNA in the male or “Y” chromosome, which has a shortened chromatid.
On evolution, the bible never states how everything was created, just that it was. The only creation that is described in brief detail is that of man and woman. Why would something intelligent neglect to give you the ability to adapt to your environment? Why is it that every single animal on the planet passes it’s genes onto the next generation by being the best, fastest, sneakiest, brightest, most colorful, best gatherer, etc… and yet so many don’t believe that if that was the case over years and years that at some point there would be fewer or none of the animals that have the opposite traits. Are there any farmers on this forum? Want corn with bigger kernels? What do you do? Want bigger more fruitful tomato plants? What do you do? C’mon, use your head.
On teaching creationism, which religion do we pick? Native American? Hindu? Islam? All of them? How can you prove which is right? You can’t prove or disprove any of them. Which means you can’t take a scientific/empirical approach to teaching it. Religion and science can have a place together, but it breaks down around faith…
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:48pmWe aren’t all female, we just haven‘t taken on male characteristics yet because the proteins aren’t active yet, unless something abnormal happens and prevents the proteins from being produced, either way it will still be male, just a deformed one. Who ever started spreading this misstatement in the public schools in the last 30 years should have been drawn and quartered.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:52pm@Firebrand yeah so? that has nothing to do with how it evolved…sorry.
we do adapt to our environment…thats not evolution….come on use your head. you think bigger corn is evolution?? LOL oh please…you really don’t understand the theory of evolution at all…
oh I get it….to people like you evolution is all in all….it makes giraffes tall and pygmys small….praise Darwin!!!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:53pmI thought this all ended with the Scopes Monkey Trial. Nothing like ignorant Christians confusing religion with science. So which theory of creation is correct, Shintisms, the buddist or how about the hindu and “christians” tell me why does are incorrect and the fairy tale in the bible is right.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:54pm@fire…oh evolution is nothing more than racist atheist FAITH…its not science…it can’t be disproven….no matter how many failed predictions…‘junk dna’ ‘vestigial organs’ ‘tree of life’…the fossil record does not support it, nor does the lab….
why don’t you list the mutations that led to the eye…in order…oh thats right you can’t…yet you believe the eye evolved….its called faith…..
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:20pmI like the Great Turtle theory, it reminds me of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Tennessee).
TEA
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:23pm@joe
The question at hand is not whether or not evolution is faith, but whether faith is science. I would argue that it isn’t. Evolution can be proven, but it is almost impossible observe because of the complexity of multi-cellular organisms and the time it takes to follow the data. Lack of immediate observable evidence is the issue that people of faith have. Which is kind of ironic if you think about it.
@Swampy
Report Post »Physiologically we are androgynous. That’s true, and most likely the idea that we are female is because of the lack of discernible male genitalia. I’ll try to clarify next time. The fact is that until differentiation the embryo is exactly the same in form and function, with the only difference being the signals it will receive via sex determining chromosomal DNA in the form of proteins (or small molecules, since not all the signals are known and I don’t want to paint myself into a corner =o) ).
C. Schwehr
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:02pmIntelligent design is based on a non-provable belief…thinly veiled christian creationism. Therefore it is not a quantifiable science that should be taught as factual to students in a public school. Evolution is a quantifiable, observable and repeatable scientific theory ( a theory is always the starting point for experimentation which either does, or does not prove the theory. Experiments have validated the theory numerous times).
Report Post »If one were to wish to teach creationism to their children then do it in the appropriate setting….a church or synagog….
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:08pmMONICNE
I like the Great Turtle theory, it reminds me of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Tennessee).
—————————————————————————————————-
R-Kentucky
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:27pmThanks – You are right it’s KY.
BTW I love their Jelly.
TEA
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:50pm@fire…where has evolution been proven? you can’t seeit in the fossil record..or the lab….you can’t list the mutations that led to the eye, for example…its nothing more than a racist atheist fairy tale…its faith…not science..
and with people like you its rather obvious that nothing will disprove it…and if you can’t disprove it, its faith…not science…
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 1:06pm@fire.. You’re really wasting your efforts with this Joe guy… trust me. He has decided darwin is a racist and that evolution is racist and has convinced himself there is proof of god. and even if god did exist and evolution was god’s mechanism for creating life, this would still not sway someone who refuses to accept real possibilities.. Either two things happen when you die. Either there is something more or there is not. Joe feeds his ego in great hope that when we all die, he will be able to say “see I told ya.“ People who actually respect the word ”truth” consider the other very real possibility that you die and there is nothing and no one gets to satisfy their opinions on that. My first experience with general anesthesia supports the later…but I still wouldn’t say I know. The second I was sedated I woke up.. over 30 minutes went by during my upper endoscopy. No dream, no consciousness. Where was I? This is what real unconsciousness is like for those who never experienced it. I was not dreaming and I did not find myself on another plane of existence.. It was like it was before I was born. Until I was revived I just didn’t exist. Depending on how the brain functions depends on whether there is a dream or not. No one will ever know so why do we as humans claim to have truth on things we cannot. Evidence for evolution exists plentifully! Evidence for supernatural exists 0! But, it makes Joe happy to assume it so let him be
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:40pmJoel1234,
I’ve seen some reasonable posts from you before, but you’ve lost your mind on this thread. Look for a large group of educated people who don’t share your faith – well, mormons have a different creation story than Christians – so, just look for someone who is not mormon. Look for an educated group of Christians and see what they have to say about evolution. You won’t get it from mormon scientists – you need to go outside your loop.
Report Post »Aequitas
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmCreationism is like a history class without the facts.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:04pmKind of like evolutionism?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:06pmyou mean like the fossil record that shows animals fully formed…no evolution…no gradual states?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:10pmInteresting comparison – kind of a simile without metaphor.
ICE TEA
Report Post »Aequitas
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:22pmI suppose the 700 different types of dinosaurs that have been identified stood two by two on Noah’s Ark.
Report Post »onlinecasino
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:26pmYour absolutely right on this subject.
Jenny and Mike
Report Post »http://online-casino.eu.com/
becauseitmatters
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:54pmto aequitas:
Maybe you should do some research before you write your ill formed questions/statements down. Noah took 2 of each kind of animal. That mearns 2 dinosaurs, and not all 700 species of dinosaurs. 2 of a kind: 2 birds, 2 dogs (not every breed). Get it. How we got all the different kinds of breeds of dogs/dinosuars came from natural selection. Not evolution. To believe in evolution, one must believe that one type of animal can change into another type of animal. As there is no evidence of this, one must make a huge leap of faith to believe evolution. Get educated. Read a bible.It could help you.
Report Post »Aequitas
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:32pm@Becauseitmatters
I have read it. It’s wordy, silly and poorly written. But than again most fiction is these days. As for your explaination of how all the little creatures came to be. It’s equally silly and poor. But on the bright side it’s not too wordy
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:41pm@becauseitmatters
“Noah took 2 of each kind of animal. That mearns 2 dinosaurs, and not all 700 species of dinosaurs. 2 of a kind: 2 birds, 2 dogs (not every breed). Get it. How we got all the different kinds of breeds of dogs/dinosuars came from natural selection.”
Did you drop out or were you kicked out of your home school after kindergarten? That answer only proves that while there are no stupid questions, there are stupid people giving stupid answers. So, there two of each kind, how did they migrate to the Americas and the Pacific Islands after the flood, were there two zebras, and two horse or because horses and zebras are similar only two horses were needed, and if that is the case why are there no unicorns?
I needed a good laugh.
Report Post »Greenwood
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:15pm@becauseitmatters…………..maybe you should do some research yourself………..
Report Post »Genesis 7: 2, 3 Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and it’s mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and it’s mate; 3 also the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth.
Arcangel Michael
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmJesus, I trust in You
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:58pmWE ARE NOT DESCENDED FROM APES! How many times do you people have to be told that? The large number of people here who think that‘s what evolutionary science says PROVES that you people have no idea what you’re even criticizing!
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:02pmwe didn’t descend from anything…evolution is nothing more than a racist atheist fairy tale..nothing in the fossil record, nothing in the lab…no ‘junk dna’ no ‘vestigial organs’ how many failed predictions does evolution have to have before you realize its false?
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:03pm@SPQR1
I believe you are a direct descent of Apes and evolution hasn’t caught up with you yet… But that is only my THEORY…
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:07pmI hear ya. People need to learn what they are talking about.
Report Post »The best way I was able to nail Marxism to the floor in debate was taking a sociology class. It was painful, and I felt dirty, but I came out armed and ready to fight the growing Anti-Americanism going on.
Education is so powerful.
MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:08pmIt is quite obvious that some folks believe that you are right, others say not, some are undecided.
Do you think that a poll can decide this? By respectfully answering the population? That is one solution… what should Texas do?
TEA
Report Post »ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:09pmwhat do you mean “no vestigial organs”? i think you need to be a bit more studious. and how exactly is evolution racist?
Report Post »Curator_JDR
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:10pmHasn’t anybody every heard of Dr, Gerald Schroeder and his book “The Science of God”? Science and religion don’t have to be in conflict. The universe if 14 billion years old and creation happened in six days. If you know Einstein, its all the frame of reference.
Being religious (believing in a creator) does not mean you have to “check your brain” at the door, and evolutionists don’t have to be tendentious in their argument that creation created itself.
The fact we share so much DNA with apes (and other creatures) is only evidence of God’s genius. The minutea of DNA that makes us human, was inserted into us by the Watchers (or ancient aliens or whatever you want to call them), whom we called God. The Hebrew bible is quite clear about this.
These creators seed life in planets which are called paradise (in the Zohar), of which earth is one. Not even the Watchers know “Elohim”, another word for God in the Bible, which means the “unending neverending”. He is outside creation.
Besides, if we’re descended from apes, how come there are still apes?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:11pm@ArgumentumAdAbsurdum just what I said…list all those ‘vestigial organs’ then…as far as being racist…list the lower races your savior refers to:
The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:12pmMy, it appears that some of us feel very strongly – I cannot see any way to discuss this with some shouters.
TEA
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:17pmI’m not sure what Texas should do. There is a lot of great history in theories of origin. The problem is that it all seems to get corrupted by politics and the whole lesson behind it is lost. Origins of evolution has a basis of practical use.
Report Post »Creation theory also has roots, but naturally causes even more of a stir among people. Truth is that Creation theories are taught in Literature. What more of a beautiful way to teach about life than through some of history’s greatest writers? Hasn’t anyone made that connection who at least had the privledge of being taught literature?
better red than dead
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:25pm@JOE1234
Uh… what – of any – of those things are lacking in scientific evidence?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:36pm@better red than dead fossils show animals fully formed not gradualistic sequences….the lab hasn’t shown evolution….the predictions of evolution have failed….there are no ‘vestigial organs’ no ‘junk dna’ the tree of life has been thrown out…evolution is faith, not science.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:38pmSPQR is right on his first point: we are not descended from apes.
Apes are still around today, so that would make more sense. The correct statement would be “**** sapiens and apes evolved from a common ancestor many years ago.”
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:48pmTexas should do what’s right for Texas.
Teach the evolution of all life on earth–except in Texas, which is under God’s special-creationist dispensation.
That would settle the matter, since nobody messes with Texas.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:07pm@joe
Vestigial organs: appendix, tail bone.
Can you explain why we have to have eye lash mites to survive? Doesn’t mention it anywhere in the bible.
I’m not anti-creationism. I am anti-critical thinking though. Evolution is observed, did you read or hear about the recent E.coli outbreak? Have you ever wondered why people get colds every year? If mothers pass antibodies to children through breastmilk, shouldn’t all the viruses be gone by now? Like smallpox? Eradicated because it couldn’t adapt. Why do you need a Flu shot every year? If the influenza virus didn’t evolve, why would you need the shot? Viruses and bacteria multiply faster and in much greater number than just about any other organism, so evolution can be observed in a smaller time frame. The more complex the organism, the longer evolution takes. Would you say a greater or fewer percentage of people have bad eye site now or in the time of Jesus? I’m not trying to change your mind about anything. In fact, many of my questions are just to get you to think outside of your comfort zone.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:55pmSPQR and your post proves you know nothing about evolution!
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:58pmCurator: if we’re descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Why do people continually ask a question that has been answered thousands of times? Why do they continue to use the words, “evoluationist” and “evolutionism”? To prove their ignorance, which they wear proudly, like a banner?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:29pm“Texas. It’s like a whole other country.”
((Love this official motto!))
TEA
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:08pmBids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:58pm
Curator: if we’re descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Why do people continually ask a question that has been answered thousands of times? Why do they continue to use the words, “evoluationist” and “evolutionism”? To prove their ignorance, which they wear proudly, like a banner?
__________________________________________________________________
We did not desend from “Apes,” all of the modern great Apes, Man, Chimps, Gorillas, etc. share a common primate ancestor. Except for a handful of genes Man and Chimp’s DNA is similar.
“Why do people continually ask a question that has been answered thousands of times?”
Report Post »If they are creationists, cause they are brain dead christians that blindly follow a book of fables. If they are scientists, that is their job, to ask questions and seek the answers, to test and retest the answers to confirm them.
SnowBun
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:48pmDarwinism doesn’t account for many things but creationism is ridiculous. The earth is NOT 10thousand or 7thousand years old. That’s the most stupid **** I have ever heard. THAT BEING SAID. I am in favor of the theory of intelligent design.
And to the man who said “if we are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” THAT is the most stupid question I have ever heard. STUPID. You make it like there was just one kind of primate – WE ARE PRIMATES – okay? a few million years ago we were scruffing around eating some grubs.
Dogs have the same DNA as wolves, how come wolves still exist. My grandmother said she doesn’t care HOW god made us, just because ‘evolution’ could be true doesn‘t mean the bible isn’t. Jesus or God did not WRITE the bible. Humans did. And for their time they did a really great job trying to figure things out. Creationism is NOT a “scientific” theory and has no place in school. It is a religious theory.
NOW after I heard Ben Stein (smart as hell) favored intelligent design, I read more about it and I agree. How could ‘survival of the fittest” make a praying mantis become pink and turn into a flower petal like being that looks exactly like the flowers it lives around. NO WAY could random mutations and small changes in structure DO THAT. WE DO CHANGE to adapt to our environment in ways WE cannot explain. That is God’s work right there.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:47pm@fire…the appendix??? really now you need to keep up with the science…as far as critical thinking…you engage in darwinian thinking..as illustrated by the following:
It seems that this latest study is just adding to our knowledge of the functions of the appendix. And what is the response from the Darwinists? In the words of Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald, “It makes evolutionary sense.” Oh really?
Dr. Theobald happens to have authored the notorious TalkOrigins’ “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution“ where he claims that the appendix is a ”vestige of our herbivorous ancestry” whose lack of a robust function provides evidence for macroevolution (he admits that the appendix may have “a function of some sort” but contends this is a vestige of its once-important function). But now that we’ve found robust function for the appendix, Dr. Theobald claims, “It makes evolutionary sense.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/10/for_decades_darwinists_have_be.html#more
no matter what the data says, it supports evolution…just like global warming…its faith.
evolution purports to be science…but people like you have faith in it..though the fossil record does not show it…not does the lab…and it has so many failed predictions….like vestigial organs…a tailbone isn’t an organ btw…
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 1:59am@joe
As for the appendix, Dr. Martin didn’t supply any references in her Scientific American reply. It is extremely hard for me to validate what she said without them. I tried to find articles on appendix function on pubmed and didn’t find any that supported her claims. Can you supply some references? Thanks in advance.
On the D. melanogaster paper, there are some points that I think need to be made. If you look at the first figure you’ll notice that the selection used was selecting for the least viable among the population. This would be in direct conflict with the survival of the fit montra. Also, the authors don’t address the possibility of lethal mutations that could skew their results. This is an important point, as they are selecting for changes in viability and fertility. In other words, they would be selecting for the ones that wouldn’t change, as mutations in those alleles (areas of the genome) could lead to sterility or death. Also, the authors don’t argue that this disproves evolution, but that based on their data after 600 generations they didn’t see major fixed COMPARATIVE changes. Parallel evolution could give them similar SNP profiles. They addressed this.
How is believing in scientific research of evolution racist, atheist, or blind faith? Have racists and atheists used evolution as validation? yes. But does the opposite have to be true? no. How does creationism alone explain mutations and hereditary disease?
Report Post »ying
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 4:45amOf course, you are right. We never descended from apes, but people are descending INTO apes through the abomination known as race-mixing.
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:53pmJust curious if any of you have ever read Darwin or his critics thereafter.
Report Post »It is obvious that none of you have the slightest clue how evolutionary theory came about or have a clue about how science works. None of you have the slightest idea how those original theories gave birth to advances in medicine.
It is disturbing at the lack of education across the board in America on both sides. What is more disturbing is all of you have such tunnel vision on two words, “Intelligent Design.” Have any of you seen what is planned for these kind of course studies or are you so blind by emotional passion and laziness to think of any future consequences?
You may be right. You may be wrong. Learn to debate the issue.
joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:04pmoh you mean On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life…..struggle…where else have I heard that used in a book title…oh yeah my struggle…mein kampf…
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:07pmAnd in all of that gibberish the only intelligent comment was the last sentence… “You may be right. You may be wrong. Learn to debate the issue.”
Yep, you’re a genius…
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:11pmThen you really are a sad soul so willing to tear down people who are on your side Joe1234. You obviously don’t read beyond the shallow contexts of the internet.
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:12pmSo how exactly are you to convince people your side of the argument without knowing the context of debate? That is the point of my post. Do I need to dumb it down further for you?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:20pm@Christabel whats sad is you accuse others of ignorance and you don’t even know the full title of your bible…ever hear of eugenics??? which is nothing more than applied evolution?? as Sir Arthur Keith said, Hitler was an evolutionist…truth hurts.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:29pmFirst you say this “Just curious if any of you have ever read Darwin or his critics thereafter.”
Then you say this “It is obvious that none of you have the slightest clue how evolutionary theory came about or have a clue about how science works.”
I believe you have proven your level of “dumb it down further ”… The ability to tell people how dumb they are makes you “look smart”… Especially when you start out with a rhetorical question…
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:30pmYeah I’m very aware, in fact aware enough of it to know that in a course of debate it is not possible to make a thousand page dissertation on the subject.
Report Post »But you argue like a child locked in a corner. There is not one single human event that has not resulted in some form of chaos and destruction. That includes the bible. Sorry.
I am a believer in God. I rely on Greek Orthodox teachings. I study and learn history. I learn about the evils man has caused throughout our history.
I also believe science and God are compatible, and when I see good arguments against evolution, it has absolutely nothing to do with 90 percent of what people think they know here. That is my point. Take it or leave it.
Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:42pmAnd @ Obama. I apologize for the use of a rheortical question that confused you so badly. I realize some people here aren’t familiar with the use of it for expressive purposes.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:49pm“I apologize for the use of a rheortical question that confused you so badly.”
Confusion?!? No…
Just proves your level of short sightedness…
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:04pmOk Obama. You win…and your friend Joe.
Report Post »I’d like to ask you what I am shortsighted, but there is no debate with you obviously. You have no concept of the topic here on MY post.
The sad part is that the end result is that I pretty much agree with both of you yet your tactics are exactly what make this whole issue practically moot, and really solidifies my first post. But that’s ok. Keep throwing out those drive by facts and claims that turn even the most sincere bistanders of an honest debate into villians. That really helps the cause…Bravo!
Islesfordian
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:35pm“None of you have the slightest idea how those original theories gave birth to advances in medicine.”
That is an interesting charge’ Cristabel, because you are right, in a way. I don’t know of a single medical advance that was achieved because of the ideas in evolutionary theory. perhaps you could point some out. It seems to me that medical breakthroughs occur by examining the biology as it exists NOW. How it got that way is an academic subect.
A lot of layman defenses of evolution blur the distinction between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution deals with natural, and controlled, selection within the species. White roses are bred. Various kindsof dog, or cattle are bred from a common species. But each species has its genetic limit. Breeds can only be bred so far before they become unstable, and only species within the same genus, and very close to each other, can be interbred, and their offspring usually are sterile, like mules. You cannot breed a dog into a fox. the genes won’t let you.
Macro evolution proposes that somehow, and the actual definition of how is still highly contested, matuations occur to add new data to the genetic code to allow a species to evolve into a new species. The fact that evolutionists cannot agree on exactly how this occurs is a good reason why it should only ever be taught as a THEORY and not a settled scientific explanation.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:13pmIslesfordian: Macro evolution proposes that somehow, and the actual definition of how is still highly contested, matuations occur to add new data to the genetic code to allow a species to evolve into a new species.
Wrong. Species do not evolve into OTHER SPECIES. They simply EVOLVE
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:56pmThat’s not the theory BIDS. I’m not saying I agree with the theory, but our distant genetic ancestors are classified as their own species. Our common ancestor with apes, according to evolution, would be a distinct proto-simian species, whatever it was. And this species would have a common ancestor with other mammals in another species further back the chain until we cross over into the reptile of amphibian era. We are all, according to evolution, descended from a species of fish. And all fish were descended from a species of single celled organism.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:14pmIslesfordian, they may be different species but all are the same genus.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:17pmBIDS, they are only the same genus from the point the genus originates. Each genus has its origin in earlier evolutions from species within a common family to other geni, and so on up the order in class, phylum, kingdom, domain and order. It’s called the tree of life. Surely you’ve heard of this. All life has a common ancestor in the original species/genus/family/class/phylum/kingdom/domain/order.
Report Post »Christabel
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:10amThank you Isle of Jordan. A voice of reason. I mean that sincerely. It was a very fascinating time when the book was published, and it set off a fire storm of debate to this day (as we can see lol). Aside from many evil deeds of men that came from it, the research in book was incredible and inspired many theories afterward. I’ll be able to post some a bit later. When looking at evolution as a theory. It’s definitely a theory that is meant to be researched, torn apart, adapted etc.
Report Post »Your replies were genuinely insightful. thank you
Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 1:12pm@Christ.. Trust me he doesn’t understand how it works.. He just looks for particular studies that had difficulty showing major differences and then he created his own version of how evolution works and decided without reading about Darwin or what Darwin learned that he was a racist. Oh and anyone, all those academic liberals people like me are surrounded by (cause i’m a conservative libertarian) whose jobs can only function with evolution as a basis for understanding myriad cellular processes are racists and we all hate blacks, and hindus, and asians according to joe..
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 1:16pm@Is and Joe.. You do know that Hitler was a Christian right? and he promoted faith! You also do know that Christianity was established based on anti-semetism right? You do know the history of how christianity started and what that did to the jewish people right?
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 11:36pmChristabel,
If you dumb it down the degree necessary to connect to Joel and others, you’ll be teaching creationism and working in a six thousand year old universe.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:45amHankscram, in your personal attacks are you referring to Joe 1234 or me Joel 228? Either way you follow the typical liberal playbook. When you can’t argue on the merits resort to personal attacks. But it sounds like you are confusing him with me as I have stated plainly my religious affiliation and I don’t think Joe1234 is LDS (Mormon).
I am not a creationist. You have a previous post where you correctly observe that the LDS church teaches something completely different in terms of the age of the universe and all of creation. In fact you big bang theorists look little different to me than a typical creationist that believes the universe is 6000 years old. You both believe the universe and all matter found in it had a beginning and is limited in quantity. Someone who believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old and has limits should not belittle someone that believes all things where created 6000 years ago. When placed in the context of eternity there is very little difference and both arguments are equally untenable.
Yes my daughter believes as I do about evolution and I think she could do a fair job of arguing that position because I teach her all sides of the debate not just the pro Darwin side that they use for indoctrination in the government controlled schools. I wish I had that advantage many years ago when I was in school but I had to search it out myself. Knowledge is power. Lack of it causes one to resort to other tactics such as personal attacks.
Report Post »cntrlfrk
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:39pmTypical hateful comments from the Anti-Christian bigot trolls.
The same flat-earthers that think man can control the climate, and same sexes can procreate now claim man was created by lightning striking a mud puddle.
That is why we are all identical!
LOL!
.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:57pmExcept for Shiela Jackson Lee. The lightning hit a coconut tree.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:58pmWell said, and convincing! Well Done!
TEA
Report Post »schmite123oh
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:19pmlol, lighnting striking a mud puddle, i usually say we all came from slime on a rock in response, but your is much better!! :)
Report Post »texasfarmer
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:37pmThe walls will be splattered with brain material from the liberals on this one.
Report Post »How dare you go against the curriculum we have controlled for decades.
MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmThe sky was blue today at 2:00 PM east coast, and the temperature was near 100 degrees. FACT
TEA
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:34pm“The sky was blue today at 2:00 PM east coast, and the temperature was near 100 degrees. FACT”
Only if you name the exact shade of blue, define the term “near”, and state whether the temperature units are in Fahrenheit or Celsius…
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:28pmMiss Sham, my theory is that there are actually persons out there that will argue about anything, no matter how silly or menial.
Welcome to the Pirates of Pin-Dance club!
TEA
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 12:56am@joe
Report Post »The issue is that simple Darwinian evolution is incomplete at best. Selection does play a major role in evolution as well as selective pressure. There are multiple other genetic factors in addition to fitness. Genetic drift, bottlenecks, double funnel, isolation and convergence models all lend information into a very complex system of how and why we look and act the way we do. There are close to 40000 reviews on the topic of evolution on pubmed. Over a thousand on directed evolution. These don’t even include individual articles. For transparency’s sake, I will mention that many of the articles are in the area of protein/enzyme evolution. Since DNA serves as a cook book for proteins many believe that understanding protein evolution with help foster understanding of the more complex whole organism evolution. For creationism, there are 7 reviews. One review that debates many of the points you have made can be found here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14527300
Since you are a scientist, you should have access to the article. If not, let me know.
chips1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:37pmBoth sides must be taught in order for the students to make their own decisions. If you only subscribe to the Darwin theory, then you must accept that there isn’t any reason for you to even exist. That would them mean that without government to completely control your life, you are expendable. Your worthless and can be replaced at the whim of your masters. Slavery is coming back into vogue. How much am I bid for this crossbreed specimen? Hardly ever whipped.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmYour argument seems fair and should add to the debate.
TEA
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:15pmWrong, both sides do not need to be taught so students can decide which is right. Science needs to be taught. Science is not determined by polling.
Report Post »Opinionmonger
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 2:23amOfcourse not.
Report Post »Fill the kids with all kind of ancient junk and supersticion, so they will never erver develop critical thinking and become nice little dumb servants to be exploited.
It the way it should be,
The scripture says so, One should never stand up against his Master!
keeping them dumb does help, you know.
dont tread
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:32pmYes Swampy, the climate isn’t changing, lets all pretend that the earth isn’t heating up to suit our needs. The ice caps haven’t shrunk at all whatever. Darwin‘s theories have been proven over and over again I honestly can’t see what makes humans different (besides our obvious more advanced thinking) than anything else on Earth
Report Post »white_wolves
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:38pmDarwinism has been proven over and over again. If it had then there would be no need for anyone to challenge the theory. It is a theory not a fact. If it was a fact then it would no longer be called a theory.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:39pmthat racist atheist fairy tale has not been proven over and and over…..no support for evolution in the fossil record, or the lab, no ‘junk dna’ the tree of life has been proven false…no ‘vestigial organs’ how many failed predictions does evolution have to make before you realize its wrong? oh but nothing will convince the darwiniacs evolution is false….because to people like you its faith…not science.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:40pm@ Don’t Tread
“Darwin‘s theories have been proven over and over again”
Really?!? An educated person says that when a THEORY is PROVEN, then it is LAW…
Sorry, you lose…
Report Post »nysparkie
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:41pmGee have not the ice caps been melting since the end of the last ice age? What am I missing here?
Report Post »Has it not been getting warmer since that date of the last ice age? Isn’t that why the ice is melting?
Who put the so called “singularity” in place for these astro-physicists to declare we all came from the big bang? Who can describe the “Beginning”? I sure can’t and I bet not one soul on this earth can.
momprayn
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:43pmWrong about being proven true. See my post.
Report Post »Attention2Detail
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:45pmHave you actually seen this “Proof”. I have and the evidence for man-made global warming (climate change) and evolution are pretty flimsy. Actually there is more scientific proof that evolution cannot happen. Look past the smoke and mirrors, it’s all just an elaborate illusion.
BTW Even most reputable scientists who believe in evolution won’t go so far as to say it is proven.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:57pmIf it had been proven it wouldn‘t be Darwin’s theory, it would be Darwin’s law, if fact it will never be proven, can never be proven, it goes against the laws of thermodynamics that have been proven and have been accepted through use of the scientific method.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:03pmWe are doing pretty well with our theories of physics and electricity, but they can not be absolutely called facts.This line of debate is so fascinating, you could literally write a big old book about it!
TEA
Report Post »ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:04pmWow, you guys have a serious deficiency in scientific understanding. A scientific theory will always be a theory and never become scientific law.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:21pmMMMk, wow, the lack of education, never heard of Newton’s Law of universal gravitation, Ohms Law, Hooks Law, the 4 laws of thermodynamics?
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:56pmShould have noted all those laws were once hypothesis, that became theories were put to the test through the scientific method and became laws once proven.
I didn’t notice the idiocy on climate change, sure the climate changes all the time, but it’s not man made most likely, and most likely it’s a natural cycle. Volcanoes over the last 3 years have put out more green house gasses than man has since the primordial ooze days, if it that we aren’t doing it. NASA has admitted they had their satellites were miscalculated for most of the last decade due to sensor problems, making much of the research they put out wrong at best. Most of the polor ice cap shrinkage was due to polar drift that caused ice to melt on one side of the earth and from on the other and not due to any climate change at all. The earth has actually been in a cooling period for the last decade.
Report Post »dont tread
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:30pmSorry for my choice of words in “proven”, I’ll go with “evidence” has mounted over and over again – hence “theory” and not “hypothesis”. Just like evidence has mounted that the earth’s crust is made up of floating plates. I’m so so sorry that Darwinism is SO much more believable than faith and yall get your panties in a twist when someone even suggests the word “evolution”.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 9:23amWhy is it so hard for the ignorant evolutionists to believe they got it wrong? They have more faith than all the Christians on the planet combined in a theory that holds no water at all. There is zero chance that life on this planet evolved here, it had to have come from some where else, we have no clue where or how it got here. If you actually take the time to study the ID books, they give dozens of likely ways, and yes often list creation by a being so far advanced above us they are “god like”. It all basically boils down to we don’t have a clue, the universe has to be orders of magnitude older than we currently believe it is, there was some time in the distant past when the 3/4 laws of thermodynamics didn’t work the way they currently do, evolution works differently from what is believed now, something, the pieces just don’t fit what we currently know. Actually study the books not some 3 paragraph whack job by someone making fun of it, trying to get more research money, taking one or two sentences completely out of context, trying to pretend it’s a religious fantasy you might understand. Sadly liberals won’t do that, they ask their “gods” and once they are told what to think, they ignore all else and they take their last dying breath believing their fantasy, knowing they were the greatest being ever to crawl from the ooze.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:08pm@ swampy It‘s so hard for us evolutionists understand what you’re talking about because we are actually educated on the matter. Concerning what you said about the laws of thermodynamics. It’s those laws that enable evolutionary processes! Where did you get your education in thermodynamics as applied to biology!?!? Life does not resist entropy! Building complexity on life does not resist entropy! If you think it does that in itself is proof of your missing education! You think we’re all brainwashed in laboratories to accept this truth? The sun is at the top of our most proximal and significant energy source for life on this planet. it does not burn forever! It(obviously) supplies all the energy you need to drive biological processes such as those that result in variations in cell progeny. Where do you creationist fools get this dogma that evolution would defy’s the second law of thermodynamics? It’s utterly laughable!
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:08pm@ swampy It‘s so hard for us evolutionists understand what you’re talking about because we are actually educated on the matter. Concerning what you said about the laws of thermodynamics. It’s those laws that enable evolutionary processes! Where did you get your education in thermodynamics as applied to biology!?!? Life does not resist entropy! Building complexity on life does not resist entropy! If you think it does that in itself is proof of your missing education! You think we’re all brainwashed in laboratories to accept this truth? The sun is at the top of our most proximal and significant energy source for life on this planet. it does not burn forever! It(obviously) supplies all the energy you need to drive biological processes such as those that result in variations in cell progeny. Where do you creationist fools get this dogma that evolution would defy’s the second law of thermodynamics? It’s utterly laughable!
Report Post »nysparkie
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:29pmAfter all the research, all the looking, the geological digs. All the bones and evidence they can muster.
Report Post »These Atheists still hang onto evolution like a Pitbull on a bone. They can’t find the “MISSING LINK”! Gee, could it be there is no missing link tying me to some hairy plains dwelling creature 3 million years ago? Ya think? I do luv the mud though. Must be where we came from. Looks good on two buxom girls wrestling in it.
Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:44pmThere are no missing links.,
There are common ancestors, which evolutionary theory predicts will be difficult but not impossible to identify from the fossil record.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis, for example, is a good candidate for the common ancestor of chimps and humans.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:17pmWe have been radiating things for decades trying to get something, anything to evolve, we have simulate millions of years of evolution through countless generations of radiated fruit flies, bacteria, protozoa, etc and have yet to have anything evolve a new or better characteristic. Sure we have seen that things kept in the dark eventually loose their ability to see after generations through natural selection, but we have never even come close to seeing that had been living in the dark and couldn’t see suddenly start to see.
If you look at the oldest dna of protozoa we have discovered captured in amber, even they have the all the abilities/traits/characteristics of modern life in their dna, it’s just not active. There has even been some real cool research where they take tadpoles and mess with their dna turning on switched off portions causing them to grow wings and feathers, something we shouldn’t be able to do if evolution were true because when frogs evolved, birds weren’t to evolve for millions of years, there is no way the plan for feathers should be in their dna, yet it is.
I found it interesting that yesterday was Mendel’s birthday, I remember being taught in school that he was the reason you should always question science, he came up with an hypothesis, and then faked results to prove his hypothesis. He was one of the very few scientists that did this and it actually turned out his theory was right. I hate this 1500 char limit.
Report Post »JGraham III
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:36pmPaleontologists and geologists use each other to “prove” evolution because they both use the same artificially determined age scale for their respective studies. It is a circular argument, just as “common ancestors” is a circularly determined “fact”. Who says that a Creator didn’t use “economy of design” in producing many varied genera of animals and plants? The field of scientific study none of them want to incorporate into their pet theories is that of Statistical Analysis, which has proven mathematically that there is not enough time in the history of the Universe (given their 15 billion year estimate) for all the correct mutations required to occur in the proper order to produce a man from an amoeba. That number is one that is on the order of 10 raised to the 143rd power. Statistical Analysis states that a number that is on the order of 10 raised only to the 43rd power is a number so small as to be absurd. In plain language “it ain’t gonna happen, baby.” Evolution is a pipe dream concocted by anti-theists hell bent on getting God out of the universe. If scientists would stop being so dogmatic and consider other sources of information except their own pre-approved specialties they might actually see God in the creation! “the heavens declare the glory of God and the earth sheweth his handiwork” Ps 19.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:29pmHow about we teach BOTH sides and teach both as possible THEORIES and for once tell the truth that we really just do not know nor are we ever likely to know.
As a Bible believing Christian I KNOW the truth, but I am also aware that it cannot ever be scientifically proven. As a homeschooler we teach our kids evolution, in fact, I bet they are better versed on the theories than many undergrads. They need to know what they are fighting! I just wish more on the evolution side would at least seriously look at some of the creationist theories that are out there. But that is an honest debate that will likely never happen.
In any case, I just want to see fair play is all. I do not need to persuade you my beliefs are the correct ones, but you can never prove yours either and I want that publicly recognized as it is in the scientific circles. Don’t teach things as fact when they are not!
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:43pm@TrollTrainer
Exactly!!! The only FACT in the debate between evolution and creation is they are both THEORIES… Teach them both…
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:58pmFor years I’ve said that both Creationism and Evolution should be included as equal theories as neither side can meet the so-called ultimate criteria of “prove it to me”. At the very least, this can help teach students the skill of critical thinking and intellectual debate.
Same as troll, we are homeschoolers. We’ve presented our children with both theories. As Christians (and we’ve raised our children to be Christian), we’ve explored, in depth, the Biblical teachings that uphold our belief in Creationism. And we’ve done the same concerning Evolution – exploring why others believe. We feel children should have the skills to do more than just blindly accept the beliefs of others & the ability to support their own beliefs, from either perspective – on any topic.
Report Post »Preacher Cruz
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:21pmWhat amazes me is how some people believe SO dogmatically in things like Evolution and “Global Warming or Climate Change”. They are actually trying to fill a need that many anthropologists, sociologists and philosophers have long speculated on…The need for something bigger than ourselves. A religious expression or a faith if you will. Evolutionary atheism is a worldview and a religion with it’s own set of beliefs, morals and values.
Intelligent design actually makes sense of many things that neo-Darwinian theory fails to account for, primarily; the sentience of the human being. There are NO feasible explanations for so MANY things…NO one can give us an accounting for why our planets are comprised of largely different elements (seeing as how they all should have been formed from material that “sprang” into being after the big bang) how the moon may have been formed or placed etc. Also one of my favorites is the anthropic principle (check the wiki page for more info)…Did you know that solar and lunar eclipses can not be observed on any other planet in our solar system? How fortuitous that life arose on a planet UNIQUELY positioned and tuned to allow that life to explore its place in the universe.
My ministry exists to address philosophical and logic based resistances to Christianity. I specialize in apologetics and Christian worldview. MANY believe that to be a Christian you must check your brain at the door….This is NOT so. http://www.kjv-truth-ministrie
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:22pmObama_Sham:
Evolution is a FACT. It’s happening all the time in the bacterial world right under our noses (actually IN our noses), it has been induced in laboratories in insects, snails and the like, and you can see it happening over generations of wild fish, birds and mammals. It is borne out in the genetic relationships among orgamisms, and in the fossil record. Reduced to its essence, it says that all life ultimately shares common ancestors. Religious people can support it, provided they do not insist on special creation a la Genesis.
There have been various THEORIES (in the sense of hunches, guesses, speculations, hypotheses) about what drives evolution, and of these theories Darwin’s, though not without flaws, has overall proven the best. It holds that hereditary variations are perpetuated, or not, according to their fitness to survive and reproduce in changing environments–climate, topography, range, reproductive habits and lots else go under the “environments” umbrella.
It does not pretend to explain the origin of life or of the universe. Most scientists would not as scientists introduce God into their equations at any level, though some might make room for Him in a book written for a popular readership.
Here’s chimpin at ya.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:40pm@Lloyd Drako evolution isn’t a fact…its faith…what you call ‘evoltuion’ is not….sorry…all that ‘evolution’ in bacteria…and its stil what? bacteria. sorry
it has not been borne out in the lab…
Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09352.html
the relationships don’t show it….
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5‘ and 3’ LTR sequences.
link
sorry…..
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:41pm@drako…religious people can’t support it…evolution is nothing more than atheism…
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:45pmLloyd,
I have no doubts that you honestly believe what you claim and this is why it is imperative that we quit teaching lies to our children. You muddy the waters by claiming that “evolution” is happening all around us. That depends on your definition of “evolution” I suppose. Things do change. Species do adapt. But…They never turn into something beyond their genetic code. You cannot show this. You simply cannot show a common ancestor. Believe me, this has been misrepresented. Cows do not turn into whales, dinos do not turn into birds. You did not come from a monkey. I suppose you can believe you did if you wish, but until you can present me ANY proof of this I will not believe it. I will, instead,, believe what God told us in the Book of Genesis. Maybe I am the idiot for that but so be it…The Bible has never proven to be wrong as far as I am concerned.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:47pmLloyd_Drako
And to those that believe in creationism say that the evolving bacteria is based upon the design of a supreme creator…
Point being, NEITHER CAN BE PROVEN… That is why both should be taught as possibilities… Neither side should be allowed to completely rule out other possibilities…
Talk about “chimpin at ya”…
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 5:46pm@joe
You may want to read that article again. Pay especial attention to the word “unconditionally” and its use as well as the word expunge.
I don’t think it means what you think it means – The Princess Bride.
From the Nature article
Report Post »We consider two possible explanations for the convergence of allele frequencies and heterozygosity levels between replicate populations. First, selection is acting on the same intermediate-frequency variants in each population. Under this scenario, convergence in allele frequencies is due to parallel evolution. Second, unwanted migration between replicate populations, even at very low levels, could explain observed similarities. Despite preventative measures in place to isolate replicate populations during routine maintenance, some degree of migration between the replicate populations within a selection treatment is probable (successful migration between treatments is not as likely, owing to the selection regimes effectively precluding the survival and reproduction of migrants). If migration is occurring, its rate must be low, as we have observed substantial and sustained phenotypic differences between replicate populations within selection treatments (compare with Fig. 1). A small amount of cross-contamination between replicate populations does not rule out our inference that classic selective sweeps have not occurred during the evolution of these populations.
Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:01pmJoe1234:
You have quoted liberally from an articles in “Nature,“ and ”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” but have not properly understood them.
Nowhere do the authors of either article draw your conclusion, which is that evolution is not fact but fantasy, in fact, “faith.” If you had read the articles carefully, you would have realized that.
I suspect that your knowledge of these articles derives from creationist or ID propaganda, which typically seizes on the slightest disagreement among scientists as to the details of selection, or the exact phylogeny of a particular species, to discredit the fact of evolution. If not, and if you are in fact a trained biologist or geneticist, then I apologize in advance. But I seriously doubt that you understand any better than I do what it means to have “single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population,“ or what ”HML1 (5′-TTGCCTTCTCAAGACAATATGGGC-3′) and HML2 (5′-AGGCGCTGACCTCATGTGCGC-3′) might be.
As for the bacteria, yes, they remain bacteria, just as apes remain apes. That does not change the exceedingly high probability–as close to 100% certain as anything in science can be–that we have common ancestors with the apes that lived maybe 6 mya, and common ancestors with bacteria that lived maybe 2 bya. There is quite simply no genetic or paleontological evidence that would contradict such a conclusion, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that t
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:25pm@lloyd and Firebrand..really now I’m sure you can give us the proper darwiniac talking points…
looks like you missed this part…
we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.
apparently you are lacking in intelligence….600 generations…and no evolution….perhaps you should take english 101….
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:39pm@lloyd…I’m not a biologist, I work in another area of science…but how hard is english for you to understand? you don’t need to understand the last details of the article to understand the following:
As has been the case with numerous nuclear DNA markers, there was no consensus among the HERV trees for the relationship among humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (30). The remaining trees displayed interesting deviations from the predicted separation of the 5′ and 3′ LTR sequences.
pssstt…you do know that ID accepts common ancestry….but you really need to keep up with the science…
For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place.
(Ingo Ebersberger, Petra Galgoczy, Stefan Taudien, Simone Taenzer, Matthias Platzer, and Arndt von Haeseler, “Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 24(10):2266-2276 (2007).)
Report Post »The article goes on to state that “[t]he human genome is a mosaic with respect to its evolutionary history.” In other words, some parts of the genome tell one evolutionary story while others tell a different, contradictory story. Our genome is not painting a consistent picture of common descent.
joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:42pmhere’s the link…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html
oh and that whole ‘tree of life’ thing…
Charles Darwin‘s tree of life is ’wrong and misleading’, claim scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
sorry…..notice how the ‘unscientific creationist’ has all the scientific articles…and you darwiniacs just have your talking points…ironic isn’t it?? LOL
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:13pmJoe1234:
Once again you have selectively drawn from articles whose authors do not support your conclusion.
No one for some time has suggested that evolution is as simple as Darwin’s “tree.” A luxuriant bush and a bush whose branches diverge, and sometimes recombine, are the preferred metaphors today.
No one for some time has suggested that single-celled and asexual organisms, still less structures such as retroviruses, display the same sorts of evolutionary patterns that “higher” forms of life do.
I’m, aware that ID advocates (as opposed to strict creationists) often accept the basic idea of common ancestry, but they always seem to balk at certain points: the eye is a favorite sticking-point with many of them, despite the fact that evolutionary biology can explain it perfectly adequately.
The scientists who authored the articles you cite don’t seem to agree with your conclusions: why is that?
Trolltrainer:
No, cows do not turn into whales, nor did humans come from monkeys.
As I and several others here have pointed out, we come from common ancestors: the last common ancestor of Shamu and Elsie was neither a whale nor a cow, and the last common ancestor of you or me and Koko the monkey was neither a member of our species nor his.
This is not difficult to understand, and it rests on solid evidence rather than blind faith as Biblical literalism does.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:18pm@lloyd…of course if they took their work to its logical conclusion…and said evolution was false…then they would be EXPELLED..FIRED…by those ‘tolerant’ darwiniacs…
why can’t you accept ANY evidence that goes against your beloved FAITH in evolution…for you prove that evolution is faith…the data doesn’t matter to people like you.
so you admit the tree of life is another failed prediction of darwinism…there goes your common ancestor….
as far as the ‘asexual’ you miss the bigger point of that article…which is after 600 generations…no evolution…zero zip nada…how hard is this?
from the article…
Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:20pmoh and lloyd…as far as ‘selectively drawn’ you sir are a LIAR. post your proof how other parts of those articles dispute what I said…you cannot.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:25pm@lloyd…you say:
the eye is a favorite sticking-point with many of them, despite the fact that evolutionary biology can explain it perfectly adequately.
this shows you are either extremely ignorant..or a liar….list the mutations that led to the eye then…in order.
not even close…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/scientific_american_makes_bold047651.html
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:42pmJoe1234:
No, since you seem to be way more familiar with these articles than I am, and since you’re the one who first alluded to them, the burden of proof is on YOU to show US (not just ME) where the authors conclude that “descent with modifications” and–especially–speciation have not occurred.
Can’t do it? Didn’t think so.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:48pm@lloyd…just laughable…as I said…if they dared say anything like that they‘d be FIRED by those ’tolerant’ darwiniac facists….
the articles speak for themselves…no surprise you refuse to acknowledge any data that refutes your FAITH in evolution…
thanks for proving evolution is faith…not science…for it can never be disproven to the faithful…
ps: the theory is racist as hell…no surprise you libs love it so…..
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:50pmoh and lloyd..where are all the scientific papers to support your position???
notice how you ‘scientific’ types haven’t posted any supporting articles…while I have? LOL
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 2:54pm@Darko.. It’s definitely relieving to see someone actually take the time to try and explain to Joe their ignorance. I have virtually no patience to civilly debate with non-trained biologists. (I am a 4 year PhD. candidate studying cellular mechanisms of lifespan) . Joe laughably claims there aren’t many publications providing evidence for evolution or evolutionary events.
Report Post »http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v29/n4/abs/ng775.html
I just grabbed that paper in 5 seconds that does neither to prove nor disprove evolution alone but it gives evidence! There 1000s of papers with evidence that joe claims don’t exist. Joe doesn’t understand the magnitude of selective pressure in the wild to that of the lab and as a trained scientist, I do not agree with the statement in the Nature fly paper suggesting they performed a selection event that would be stronger at maintaining a chromosome “sweep” than in the wild. but I am not a molecular evolutionary biologist so I may not totally understand their selection. There are so many things in nature that pressure either the retaining or expunging of genetic info. UV, Gamma radiation, retrovirus, transposons, error prone dna repair, error prone DNA replication,.. all things that vulnerable-ize the genome to variation.. There is a reason DNA repair and replication are error prone!! If they were perfect there would be no speciation! these imperfections leds insight as to how cancer emerges.. Joe would know absolutely nothing about this!
HankScram
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 12:07amThis discussion is way beyond my comprehension – you too Joel1234. But what I do see is that those who believe in evolution are open to changing opinions as new information becomes available. Joel1234 on the other hand will NEVER change his opinion because his mormon belief won’t allow him to. Thus, the scientific evidence is completely irrelevant. He will ALWAYS argue the science – to say that it is false. He studies the subject only to debunk it. He is not allowed to believe it. Interestingly, he doesn’t hold his own faith up to any scrutiny. Rather, he simply rebuts the scientific evidence showing his faith to be false by doing the same thing he is doing here – just trying to debunk the science. But he just doesn’t use the science to prove the affirmative – that his faith is true. Because there is no science. In short, understanding any science that disagrees with his faith is only for the purpose of trying to debunk the science. Again, he’s been told what to believe since he could first utter the words “I know this mormon church is true.” So, don’t expect science to change that.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on July 23, 2011 at 3:19amJoe1234, are you LDS? I think Hank may be confusing us. Maybe I should change my login name to something else. My real name is not Joel anyway and the reference was a reference to the Bible book of Joel chapter 2 to the area where the sun would be darkened. I think there is a good chance that will happen within my lifetime but even that won’t get those that are intellectually superior (in their own minds) to rethink their position on religious matters.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:27pmWhat VENNOYE said.
Report Post »white_wolves
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:24pmThe Statists will fight this every step of the way. You cannot have something introduced into curriculum that challenges Darwinism especially if it involves God, because in doing so you open up the doors to our freedoms being given to us by a divine being, which cannot be taken away by any man. I am glad that this is coming up and I pray that it passes. We need people to open up their minds to and challenge things like Darwinism. Then and only then can more and more students, young and old, find it in themselves to see past the lies given by progressives who seek to indoctrinate as to push forward their freedom- restricting Statist agendas.
Report Post »Start with the schools and liberate the students from progressive ideologies and then it will become a domino affect in all areas of the United States.
SpawnofThomasJefferson
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:23pmWatch Ben Steins “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”. it exposes how Darwin’s Theory has been built up into scientific fact…but is faulty to its core.
It also discusses the demonization of ANY educator that dares utter the idea of “Intelligent Design”.
Report Post »junior1971
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:22pmThe theory of evolution is also someones belief being forced on children. Teach the kids both, let them decide. Hippocracy at it’s finest!
Report Post »CCS
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:58pmIf there was an legitimate, alternative theory based on real science, it should be presented along with evolution. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. There may be more to it than we can understand at a given point in time but, there is a real body of evidence that shows that it has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. ID & creationism are the antithesis of science. Neither can be tested or proven by any scientific method. They are beliefs, not science. Keep them out of the science curriculum and let our students compete with the rest of the world. If these loons have their way, Catholic schools will be the only place that students will be taught pure science in science class.
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:20pmOnly Conservatives try to debate something that Science already made it’s mind up about decades ago. Sorry sheeples, this debate was decided a century ago, and you lost, get over it and move on. And you can’t use the “Social Darwinism is bad” line. It’s only the pro-business Conservatives who cling on to that 19th Century crap, using it as an excuse to continually urinate on the poor.
Report Post »white_wolves
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:28pmUrinate on the poor? Wow… Science used to teach that the world was flat and all who challenged this ‘fact’ was greatly ridiculed. To close your mind off to unlimmited possiblities is to kill the intellectual. It is obvious that you believe in things like Global Warming. Or is Global Cooling now…oh well, dolts will be dolts.
Report Post »Steven63
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:29pmHow anyone can believe that all that is was the result of chaos is beyond me…
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:33pmand this is why we HAVE to have this fight! You call us the sheeple yet you do not even realize that science has NOT decided and that even in evo circles there is total disagreement. NOTHING is proven.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:33pmName calling makes you seem like a genius, you must have an iq almost equal to Obama’s 89, what is it, 87?
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:36pmoh yeah thats exactly what we do…urinate on the poor..what a statement…I believe you got that one wrong…the only ones trying to urinate on anything is evolutionists peeing all over our beliefs…having said that…don’t you find it strange that both “theories” are not scientifically proven, but yet we only teach one in our schools, so tell me who’s peeing on who?
Report Post »foranewNC
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:00pmSPQR1, pretty typical of a liberal. You haven’t done your homework on Darwin and believe what others tell you. Darwin’s evolution theory is based in a socialist/ communist framework. Darwin’s brother was the creator of eugenics… look that up. The church was America’s foundation and will be what saves us. If you feel angry about my reply, try reading Matthew 5:44-48 and the book of Proverbs.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:00pmSenatus populesque romana 1 – simiam tu? :)
Report Post »mydh12
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:20pmRemember, liberals can’t allow that the other side of an issue be honestly presented. If evolution is so strong, then why can’t the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of the theory be told? Why can’t statements about its weaknesses, even by top evolutionists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, be included for the students to consider?
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:23pmJust properly teach them the requirements and allow them to think for themselves.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:43pmOk I’m not a liberal but let us be clear about something. While it does make sense to provide scientific challenges to Darwin’s theory. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. And to address the post above regarding the missing link. There have been numerous discoveries which clearly show evolutionary changes in humans. Read the report above, it does not relate to scientists or a scientific debate about intelligent design, it relates to a group of Christians trying to introduce their belief on how the world was formed and where man came from. At the end of the day I believe there is some higher energy or force tin the universe. But I also believe humans don’t have a clue what it is and our attempts through religion to explain it fall very, very, very short. We have little clue what it is and we clearly would have trouble understanding it.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:32pmWhen scientists disagree about evolution, teachers and texts should most certainly present their disagreements in the classroom.
You mention Gould, but he did not argue with his fellow scientists about the validity of evolution, but about its “ways and means.”
Perhaps his most useful contribution to the evolution-v-creation debate was his suggestion that science and religion are non-overlapping “magisteria,” different domains of human understanding, neither of which is comprehensible in terms of the other.
That is why creationism and its more urbane cousin ID have no place in a science curriculum, just as Gould’s idea of punctuated equilibrium is completely irrelevant to the discipline of theology.
Report Post »LibertyGirl USA
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:20pmI am more worried about the fact that most schools are teaching incorrect / not enough U.S. history and civics. Also – I think high school children taking both history and civics should have to read both sides of the issue. They need to learn to think critically at a younger age.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:02pm“They need to learn to think critically at a younger age.”
So true… So true…
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:19pmYes Swampy. If they get AGW out of the schools, or at least show both sides of the debate that would help.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:18pmLaughing stock of the entire world!
Which “creationism” should we teach? If these rubes want to dumb down our children even more lets let them teach “creationism” as science. Only let them teach Hindu creationism.
Sound fair? Let’s go further….
And after Astronomy Class they can have an Astrology Class. During Chemistry Class equal time must be given to Alchemy studies. Also, all study of medicine must give equal time to Voodoo, socery and witchdoctorism. No Algebra or any math can be taught either without allowing students to “consider” the truths and hidden secrets of numerology.
No wonder our Math and Science scores suck so much. This crap is actually considered worth debating!
America’s mad plunge into oblivion continues….
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:26pmNo, we are not “laughing stock of the entire world” because so many of us question evolution.
We are just the laughing stock of MOST of the world: many millions of Muslims are as adamant in their intellectual obscurantism as these folks in Texas, and equally opposed to the truth of evolution.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:30pmTouche’.
Let me rephrase it: laughing stock of the entire INTELLIGENT world.
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:39pmWe are totally the laughing stock of the world. Do you people have any idea how science had advanced because of evolutionary science? Especially MEDICAL science? You complain about the theory while reaping the benefits of the resulting science.
Report Post »Attention2Detail
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:39pmYou are obviously assuming that macro-evolution is proven science. I used to assume that too, until I looked at the real science. Real science does not support evolution. In order for the evidence to lead you to evolution, you must already assume it to be true. This is circular reasoning and is not scientific. I was an atheist who believed in evolution. Then I looked at the scientific data and now I am a Christian who believes in creation. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that life was designed.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:54pmThis could be the reason the space program was halted by BO. The science of phisics has been found out to be completely unfounded in space. Things are not the same as science has proven to be the only correct answer. Teaching only one theory will stop a students quest for more knowledge. Prove the impossible is the goal of science and Libs are against it.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:09pmevolution is totally useless to science, as coyne admits…and as skell says…
In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin‘s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html
Report Post »spyderpopp
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:13pmDarwin’s theory teaches that modern man evolved from less intelligent creatures, postulating that modern man was preceded by other more primitive hominid ancestors. This sparked the notion (a lie) that black and aborigine tribes are not as evolved as white man because of the different physical characteristics. Where do you think such racist stereotypes come from? Evolution = evil
As far as which creationism to teach, how about one that doesn’t define who the intelligent designer may be? Maybe it was an alien? ID proponents only want the other side debated. Face it, Darwin’s theory has gaping holes in it. The fossil record is incomplete. The intricacy of our world, the diversity of life, etc. etc., cannot be satisfactorily explained by evolution. If you ask me, evolution only supports the idea that small changes occur within a species, not that one species can evolve over time into an entirely new/different species. I don’t care how much time goes by, it makes no sense that a single cell evolved into the enormous variety of life.
Why not teach and debate evolutionary theory along with ID theory? It will foster critical thinking instead of the closed-minded approach of evolution only (i.e., “this is how it happened because that’s what we think”).
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:09pmEvolution, global warming, gay genes, psychology, it‘s strange the only science liberals believe in are made up sudo sciences that don’t involve the scientific method.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:17pmI fail to understand why Intelligent design and evolution cannot exist together. Someone or something caused the creation and the fact that species evolve as conditions change does not negate that. As I tell my friends who advocate the “Big Bang” theory: “Who lit the match?” I refuse to belive that this wonderful world and everything in it was the result of some lucky throw of the cosmic dice….Just sayin’
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:21pmevolution my arse,,,,,,how about just improving failing systems????and I’m not just talking about Texas schools,,,,,,ALL of them. The education systems nationwide have been turning into a political circus,,,enabling the establishment of solid education crumble. Far, far to many young people graduate with reading, writing, mathematical abilities far below past standards. Evolution? What we had was fine,,,,just get back to the way it was originally established.
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:21pmBecause Intelligent design is NOT testable science. Simple as that…
Report Post »loriann12
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:22pmIf evolution were true, why do we still have apes? I think if they’re going to teach one theory, they ought to teach them all. I have raised my 12 year old son to believe in creationism. He knows evolution is bunk. I’ve told him to remember it long enough for the test, and then do a data dump and get it out of his head. It takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does God.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:22pm…and some conservitives think the entire universe was created with them in mind. Some prime mover behind the clouds waiting to judge actions upon death and destroy the world.
And that’s it.
The meaning of life solved.
Why even have schools and education when these answers have been revealed to us?
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:24pmIsn’t it strange that we are even having this debate, when latest research supports more of what the Bible tells us than the “theory” of evolution. Theory that they can’t find even ONE specimen to support!!
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:29pmNot “who” but “what lit the match.”
Assigning antropomorphic motivations to natural occurances not yet understood is a fallacy in logic.
We don’t know what caused Singularity to cease and expand. But we do know it is still expanding and increasing, against the laws of Physics, in speed.
Creationism is not compatible with evolution.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:31pmLoriann12:
If we were descended from apes, apes would no longer exist.
But we’re not descended from apes, we’re descended from common ancestors with apes, and indeed all living creatures on earth share common ancestors.
That, in essence, is what the theory of evolution says.
You are doing your son a disservice by discouraging him from taking evolution seriously, at least if he has the slightest scientific bent.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:33pmVennoye:
What “latest research?”
Every single piece of evidence I’m aware of, whether genetic or paleontological, shows that all living species derive from common ancestors, which is all the theory of evolution per se says.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:42pmSpqr1 if ID wasn‘t testable why does miller run around saying he’s disproved it??? hmmm?? you can’t disprove faith.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:57pm@Joe
I missed it in this article: where does she say she can disprove it? As far as I know, the argument is that ID is not science, and thus should not be taught in a science class. Which, you know, seems pretty legitimate.
As has been said, there’s been no support for ID. The lack of support, even for the “who started the Big Bang” line of reasoning does not inherently point to a creator. It simply means “We don’t know.” Saying God did it is just as likely (and untestable) as saying a Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Both are less likely than saying universes are created and destroyed regularly through natural means, as that at least has some observable effects; but it doesn‘t mean it’s right either.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:46pm“Both are less likely than saying universes are created and destroyed regularly through natural means, as that at least has some observable effects”
Actually, NO. The point of the Singularity is that its origin lies outside the realm of observable effects. No law that we see now can be premised to have caused it. It is the singular effect of a cause outside it. “Before” the singularity there was nothing that connects in causality to the universe as it is now. the singularity ios the beginning of all natural causation.
But what caused it? It did not cause itself because it has no existence, no mass and no duration in time. God, or whatever you want to call the First Cause, caused it. God is the philosophical shorthand for the cause of the universe. By definition, no knowledge of God could be “naturally” known apart from this.
This does not mean that God could not create within the universe the means to know more about him, or for himself to be a part of the universe.
Report Post »Bids
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 6:09pmIs that the same as your made up “sudo” spelling?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:19pm@ locked first off miller is a he…and you missed his (misleading) criticism of behe and the flagellum and blood clotting? so why did he bother to refute behe…and even testify against him…if ID was just faith…how can you testify against faith in a court? hmmmmm??
there is quite a lot of support for ID…quite a few peer-reviewed papers…but then to darwiniacs like you facts don’t matter…all you have is your faith in that racist atheist fairy tale of evolution
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 22, 2011 at 8:20am@Joe
I thought you were talking about Miller from this article, hence the confusion.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 7:47pmThat is akin to child abuse. Keep your child ignorant, might as well blind him also.
Report Post »CCS
Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:02pmEvolution in action! Parents that were never educated in hard science don’t understand or appreciate how important it is for their children to have a well-rounded education to compete in the modern world. Keep this up for a few million years and the world will have a new species of hominid that hasn’t just been deprived of a proper education but is incapable of understanding science. The Bible is the most important book ever written but, isn’t a science book!
Report Post »