Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

libertyminded · Feb 25, 2004, 09:18 pm

Alright. I just spent a few days reading all the posts on this thread and I'd like to thank shunyadragon, Pooeypants<-(even if a little condecending at times) and LogicalLunatic for your amazingly informed discourse on the topic.

I'd also like to ask PeterAnglo if he feels that insults and rambling serves any good purpose, but I suppose that's not the point of this thread. Bugsbunny... it's hard to take you seriously when you have a quote from Metallica as your signature.

Anyway... on with my opinion, which I think I'm entitled to after commiting to reading all 300 posts on this thread.

I'm one of those that comes down on the side of natural evolution and have been struck by the fact that all the YEC on this thread have 2 very problematic misconceptions invloved in their arguments.

1. You don't start from square one when going about trying to understand what the truth is. Emperical, unbiased science comes from making no assumptions about what you want to find out. You make your slate blank and then go about collecting data and use that data to construct an unbiased picture of the truth.

YEC always start off with the assumption that the Bible is true and then look for information to support this notion while attempting to either ignore or pick apart evidence that doesn't support it. This cannot be considered 'science'.

2. As many posters have previously stated, you YEC have a tendancy to look for the odd inconsistancy or discrepancy in otherwise sound theories and then claim that these inconsitancies invalidate the whole theory.

I doubt that YEC are willing to use the same scrutiny on the Bible. I think G. Adams made one of the most compelling arguments of this thread

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
G. Adams

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. "

Well sorry to say the light came long before the earth did. The sun had to exist similar to its current state in order for it's gravitational field to trap the molecules that would become earth into an orbit.

Onto day 2

"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. "

There wasn't water to begin with, there was a molten planet and gravity. In Laymens terms, volcanic activity releases CO2, gravity traps it in an orbit, warms planet, reacts with the hydrogen, we have water people, and carbon (don't ask me where that went). So the sky, if we're referring to the atmosphere (because sky is really crappy for a subject, it's just that up there), came before the seas.

Day 3

"And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. "

Sad to say wrong again. This earth began with a solid (molten maybe? geology people out there?) surface first, the water formed on top of it. So wrong order.

Don't know my paleobotanical history, so can't comment on the timing of the vegetation, except that grass came, at the earliest, at the very end of the cretatious period. So all those dinosaur films are usually wrong, and it irritates me.

Day 4

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

Oh boy is this easy. Well I'll give you my material to pick apart. Again the sun came first. The moon's not a light, just a reflector. All the other stars are like the sun, some newer, some older. Once again time scale is shoddy.

Day 5

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.

The times of the first birds and the first sea creatures are far, faaar apart. Also note that it says 'every winged bird' to it's kind. So why were some birds not around 300 million years ago that are around today? Did God get lax and add them in later? If so he forgot to tell the publishers.

Day 6

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Does the fact that the Bible reccomends death as a penalty for homosexuality, bestiality, working on the sabbath and theft make the bible's opinion on morality irrelevant?

libertyminded · Feb 25, 2004, 09:28 pm

Now I'd like to turn my critical eye to to the evolution argument.

How do you account for massive mutations that would be required inside of one generation for evolution to take place.

Specifically how do you have dinosaurs turning into birds? I know that there is some debate on the topic but as far as I know, the conventional wisdom prevailing these days is that dinosaurs were cold blooded organisms, reptiles.

All reptiles have a 3 chamber heart, while all birds have 4 chamber hearts. I don't see how a 4th heart chamber could develop slowly over the space of several generations. In the evolution from reptiles into monotremes and then into mammals there are jumps that can't be accounted for by the "slow changes" model of evolution.

Any explanations of this from the more educated folks here?

shunyadragon · Feb 25, 2004, 11:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)
Now I'd like to turn my critical eye to to the evolution argument.

How do you account for massive mutations that would be required inside of one generation for evolution to take place.

Specifically how do you have dinosaurs turning into birds? I know that there is some debate on the topic but as far as I know, the conventional wisdom prevailing these days is that dinosaurs were cold blooded organisms, reptiles.

All reptiles have a 3 chamber heart, while all birds have 4 chamber hearts. I don't see how a 4th heart chamber could develop slowly over the space of several generations. In the evolution from reptiles into monotremes and then into mammals there are jumps that can't be accounted for by the "slow changes" model of evolution.

Any explanations of this from the more educated folks here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your questions are not that hard.

(1) Massive mutations need not and do not occur in one genration unless there is a nuclear war and then it would be fatal for all envolved. The recent evolution of the family of horses is a classic example. We have a great deal of fossil evidence and closely related species living now (some unfortunately became extinct recently). Evolution comes about by genetic diversity within the population of a species. Genetic diversity occurs through mutations. If the mutations are harmful the animals do not survive. If the mutations are benificial or of neutral benifit than the genetic diversity of the species increases. Isolation of populations creates adaptations to new environments. Today and in recent history there are numerous species and subspecies of horses. Some are closely related and can partially cross like mules and horses, but are adapted to somewhat different natural environments so they do not normally cross in the wild.

(2) Some dinosaurs and birds are basicaly in the same family of animals and in the late periods of dinosaurs they coexisted. In China near whre I live they find several species of dinosaurs not capable of flight with feathers.

libertyminded · Feb 26, 2004, 12:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
shunyadragon

(2) Some dinosaurs and birds are basicaly in the same family of animals and in the late periods of dinosaurs they coexisted. In China near whre I live they find several species of dinosaurs not capable of flight with feathers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This still doesn't explain how a creature with a 3 chamber heart is able to develop a 4 chamber heart.

In more modern evolution we see a progression from reptiles into monotremes (platypusses and echidnas) and then into mammals where there is a progression from oviparous to viviparous birth, as well as other important characteristics.

Dinosaurs are thought to have been oviparous reptiles. Birds are also oviparous but are also warm-blooded. Ergo... my question still remains; what mechanism could be responsible for giving birds a 4 chamber heart from the 3 chambered hearts of the reptiles we are supposed to believe birds are decended from. (such a massive mutation would be impossible inside 1 generation)

Of course you could always go with the 'catastrophic impact' theory wherein all dinosaurs are destroyed and evolution starts anew with small reptiles and small mammals (on land anyway). This, however, conflicts with the decended dinosaur theory and starts throwing the whole evolution thing into question.

I don't believe in religion because any recent historian can easily show you the sordid origins of all major religions, but we've only had science on a more concrete level for about 150 years so I'm reserving my judgement until we can come up with a solid model for evolution.

A little aside for Fogus and BugsBunny if you're still active on this thread.

If you're so convinced evolution is bogus and that it's purveyors in the public school system are so wrong then my questions to you are:

1) Which of the 2-3000 creation stories would you like taught in SCIENCE class?

2) Do you really think that scientists are involved in some sort of effort to deliberately destroy or discredit religion? If so, why would they do this? (and don't give me that "you just don't want to be accountable to a higher power" crap because the secular folks retort; "you just can't accept that you won't live forever" is a perfect counter arguement)

Thanks for your eyes and brains,
~Aarel

shunyadragon · Feb 26, 2004, 08:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
libertyminded

This still doesn't explain how a creature with a 3 chamber heart is able to develop a 4 chamber heart. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I will check on this, but the development of chambers in the development of the fetus is a key. The dividing of the heart into two, three or four chambers is the type of progression is not difficult and does not require a massive amount of mutations. All three occur in nature. Of course almost all mutations of the heart are bad news, but the progression would require one successful mutation where one chamber will divide. If this happened and benifited the animal it would have had survival value, or neutral value and persisted in the diversity of the population until it acquired suvival value with other changes. The other point is not all dinosaurs are that closely related. Through out the period when dinosaurs roamed the earth there were amphibian dinosaurs, mammilian dinosaurs, reptilian dinosaurs and bird-like dinosaurs. All the anytomical characteristics of all the dinosaurs are not well known.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In more modern evolution we see a progression from reptiles into monotremes (platypusses and echidnas) and then into mammals where there is a progression from oviparous to viviparous birth, as well as other important characteristics.

Dinosaurs are thought to have been oviparous reptiles. Birds are also oviparous but are also warm-blooded. Ergo... my question still remains; what mechanism could be responsible for giving birds a 4 chamber heart from the 3 chambered hearts of the reptiles we are supposed to believe birds are decended from. (such a massive mutation would be impossible inside 1 generation)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not sure all dinosaurs had three chambered hearts. I know they all are not bird-like dinosaurs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Of course you could always go with the 'catastrophic impact' theory wherein all dinosaurs are destroyed and evolution starts anew with small reptiles and small mammals (on land anyway). This, however, conflicts with the decended dinosaur theory and starts throwing the whole evolution thing into question. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Evolution does not hang on the bird-dinosaur relationship, but it is likely that his relationship exists.

shunyadragon · Feb 26, 2004, 09:36 am

Evolution of a chambered heart

The following is from TalkOrigins.com

Next we come to Andy's odd claim about "something with half a heart." It is often difficult to know exactly what anti-evolutionists mean when they say things like this ("where is the half a wing?" is a common refrain). Is Andy looking to see evidence of an animal with a heart that looks like it was cut in half with a cleaver? A heart that is sort of half way made? What?

If he is looking for simpler, yet still functional, forms than those that are found in humans (and other mammals) then there are plenty of those. One need only consult a textbook on comparative vertebrate anatomy. Crocodilians for example have a heart somewhat intermediate between the three chambered 'reptilian' heart and a four chambered avian one. Also the hearts of advanced vertebrates, like mammals and birds, grows from a simple one to a more complex one during embryological development. So through comparative anatomy and embryology we can see evidence of how this organ might have evolved.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 28, 2004, 10:58 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)

A little aside for Fogus and BugsBunny if you're still active on this thread.

If you're so convinced evolution is bogus and that it's purveyors in the public school system are so wrong then my questions to you are:

1) Which of the 2-3000 creation stories would you like taught in SCIENCE class?

2) Do you really think that scientists are involved in some sort of effort to deliberately destroy or discredit religion? If so, why would they do this? (and don't give me that "you just don't want to be accountable to a higher power" crap because the secular folks retort; "you just can't accept that you won't live forever" is a perfect counter arguement)

Thanks for your eyes and brains,
~Aarel<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Hey doc, the answer to #1 is this: I have no problem with the current fossil record. What should be taught is that in such and such year, such and such species appeared. It should be left to the students to decide based on there faith (or lack of) to decide whether said species appeared during said period because it evloved from something else or because God, Yaweh, Allah, Budah, Alpha+Omega, The great "I am" or whatever you want call your supreme being created it. It should be mentioned by the teacher that scientists (like us) cannot agree on which is the case. It should be taught with everything appearing in the right order, so that if they want to believe evolution, they are not being sabotaged from doing so. But it should also be mentioned that if Genesis is translated correctly and directly to english from the old hebrew, it also more or less agrees with the fossil record.

As for wuestion #2, the short answer is no. I think what we have here is groups of perfectly reasonable scientists, with perfectly logical reasoning, that come to differing conclusions based on the same evidence. There is nothing wrong with that, because since the evidence is inconclusive, it is left to the individual scientist to draw an estimated conclusion. Darwin drew his. I drew mine.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 28, 2004, 11:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,)

Bugsbunny... it's hard to take you seriously when you have a quote from Metallica as your signature.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's probably also hard to take seriously anyone with the screen name "bugsbunny" huh?

For the record, Metallica is one of the most lyrically intellegent bands ever, period. Go find the lyrics from some of there earlier works.

Early albums include: Kill'em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

If you would like to discuss this further, start a new thread, or I will in a few hours.

shunyadragon · Feb 28, 2004, 09:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)

I think what we have here is groups of perfectly reasonable scientists, with perfectly logical reasoning, that come to differing conclusions based on the same evidence. There is nothing wrong with that, because since the evidence is inconclusive, it is left to the individual scientist to draw an estimated conclusion. Darwin drew his. I drew mine.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Scientists as individuals do draw there own conclusions, but most scientists by far do consider the evidence for evolution to be conclusive. It is only a small minority of scientists directly involved with the science of the history of life and the earth who do not consider the evidence conclusive.

I do believe that what is taught in the textbooks of our schools should reflect the present views of science and the consensus of what most scientists believe. This would be true in all the sciences. It would be difficult to take into account all the different religious beliefs and objections different religions may have concerning the why and how of the existence of the universe. Religious beliefs should not dictate what is taught in the science class.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 28, 2004, 11:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon)

Scientists as individuals do draw there own conclusions, but most scientists by far do consider the evidence for evolution to be conclusive. It is only a small minority of scientists directly involved with the science of the history of life and the earth who do not consider the evidence conclusive.

I do believe that what is taught in the textbooks of our schools should reflect the present views of science and the consensus of what most scientists believe. This would be true in all the sciences. It would be difficult to take into account all the different religious beliefs and objections different religions may have concerning the why and how of the existence of the universe. Religious beliefs should not dictate what is taught in the science class.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

1st response: Are not the scientists most directly involved with that particular field the ones that are most qualified to conclude whether something in such field is conclusive or not? Thought so. And besides, my specialties are mechanics, ballistics, and US history. I am not involved directly with the science of natural history, and I also find the evidence inconclusive, based on my entry level knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology.

2nd response: You don't have to take into account all the religeous beliefs. Teach what happened. Let the students, according to their beliefs (or lack of) decide why it happened. That is not as complicated as you think.

shunyadragon · Feb 29, 2004, 08:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04)

1st response: Are not the scientists most directly involved with that particular field the ones that are most qualified to conclude whether something in such field is conclusive or not? Thought so. And besides, my specialties are mechanics, ballistics, and US history. I am not involved directly with the science of natural history, and I also find the evidence inconclusive, based on my entry level knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology.

2nd response: You don't have to take into account all the religeous beliefs. Teach what happened. Let the students, according to their beliefs (or lack of) decide why it happened. That is not as complicated as you think.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The time frame of the history and the occurance of different microbes plants and animals in that time frame is what you agree with and want taught leaving out the fact that the animals and plants are related. The problem is you have one view, AIG and drdino have another, and there are others with different religious views as to what happened . All of them want their version taught. Also they have significantly different views of the astronomy and cosmology than the majority of scientist in physics and astronomy. The overwhelming majority of life and earth scientists believe that evolution is what happened .

What is taught in the schools does not address the 'Why? of existence or whether there was a creator in the picture or not. This teaching relates to the religious and phillisophical beliefs outside science and cannot be determined by the scientific method.

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 02:42 pm

Ok, firebreathing one, I'm gonna make this as simple as I possibly can:

Teach what scientists know for a fact happened If the student has religeous beliefs that contradict it, let him believe what he wants, but his belief is wrong.

For example, evolution, and basically Judaism and Christanity, including catholicism, would all be compatible with the fossil record that evolution is based on, IFF (ask a math type) the old testament is translated properly! The only reason the fossil record is desputed by Christians is because they have been fooled into thinking that the King James Bible is the word of God, when in fact it is a watered down, filtered, censored, edited and quadruple translated version of the word of the God they (we with me) believe in.

Those who belive in a different creator will just have to accept that whatever they call their creator, or WTFever he wants from them, he/she/it/they created this planet and everything on it in a specific time frame and in a specific order that cannot be disputed. And if it conflicts with the english version of their Holy Book/Scripture/post it notes/WTFever they will just have to assume that something was lost or distorted in the translation somewhere and turned into some other inaccurate unti of time or got it's order scrambled, which is exactly what happened to the Christians, who think this planet was in fact created in six days, which is of course, completely rediculous.

ruiner · Feb 29, 2004, 04:15 pm

The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess.

For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do.
However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils.

As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble.

I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists

The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"

**Pooeypants** · Feb 29, 2004, 05:46 pm

Ruiner, surely you're not suggesting we fight blind faith with hard evidence? I mean that's a ridiculous concept. :rolleyes:

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 06:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess.

For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do.
However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils.

As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble.

I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists

The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You have not been paying attention have you? We all agree when what happened. There is no argument (except from creationists that are inadequetly educated on the history of biblical texts, and of course, radio-chemistry) that There was not a cambrien explosion or that there was not life before then.

The gaps are irrelevant. No matter how small the gaps are, they will still not be close enough to actually prove evolution. Make it less improbable? Sure. Prove it? No.

For the record, I am the first to admit that many in my religeon are completely ignorant, and have no idea WTF they are talking about when it comes to natural history, or what God actually said, especiall the "Jehova's" ([/i]sic) witnesses, as I tell them "Jehova? Yall is mispronuncin Yahweh, so why don't yall make ya way the f*ck off my front porch." I have not, and will not defend idiotic theory that suggests the earth was created in a week. But I will not accept as fact something as improbable and completely non provable as evolution, when creation by a supreme being over a long period of time is no more improbable, and no more impossible to prove, since I don't see degrees of impossibility.

Stop insulting my intellegence by using arguments that only poke holes in six day creationism, when I was the first one to point out that it is absurd. And quit refering to something as proof when it clearly is not. And one last thing: Don't assume we will find more fossils because you know[i] what assuming does.

shunyadragon · Feb 29, 2004, 07:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess.

For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do.
However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils.

As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble.

I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists

The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You have not been paying attention have you? We all agree when what happened. There is no argument (except from creationists that are inadequetly educated on the history of biblical texts, and of course, radio-chemistry) that There was not a cambrien explosion or that there was not life before then.

The gaps are irrelevant. No matter how small the gaps are, they will still not be close enough to actually prove evolution. Make it less improbable? Sure. Prove it? No.

For the record, I am the first to admit that many in my religeon are completely ignorant, and have no idea WTF they are talking about when it comes to natural history, or what God actually said, especiall the "Jehova's" (sic) witnesses, as I tell them "Jehova? Yall is mispronuncin Yahweh, so why don't yall make ya way the f*ck off my front porch." I have not, and will not defend idiotic theory that suggests the earth was created in a week. But I will not accept as fact something as improbable and completely non provable as evolution, when creation by a supreme being over a long period of time is no more improbable, and no more impossible to prove, since I don't see degrees of impossibility.

Stop insulting my intellegence by using arguments that only poke holes in six day creationism, when I was the first one to point out that it is absurd. And quit refering to something as proof when it clearly is not. And one last thing: Don't assume we will find more fossils because you know what assuming does.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Bugs

I hope I have been rational in my debate. We have a miscommunication as to what is meant by how the history of existence should be taught, but other than that we can learn from each other. I try to deal rationally with everyone even the hard core 'Creation Science ' believers.

There is an interesting point that needs to be explored further in terms of what is a 'proof', 'when is something proven', and what are the different ways 'theory' is used in science.

ruiner · Feb 29, 2004, 07:30 pm

I appologise if my post seemed like an attack, it may have been a little over the top.
My problem is not with most Creationists but the few who take the anti-evolution thing too far and propagate the myths. There is a lot of misinformation spread around on BOTH sides on the internet I can tell you but Creationist propaganda makes up the most significant part of it. On the evolutionist side I find that many young troublemakers latch onto evolution to have religious fights but don't really understand it and end up making up ridiculous assertions about evolution. People like me who are interested in the subject (for non-debate reasons), don't have biology qualifications and can also make mistakes. For example I have argued things before which on deeper investigation turn out to be less certain than I at first believed.
On the Creationist side however I testify that there is an active misinformation machine working in the background. I find that it is suprisingly well educated adults who make the most ridiculous assertions about evolution.
Not all creationists are like this of course. There are different levels of integrity, but I believe that once a person knows enough about the subject there is no excuse for them to deny the obvious. Like you said you cannot "prove" it either way, but noone has to prove a defendant is guilty, only show it beyond doubt.
I prefer to debate with the harder creationists, not people new to the subject who might have simply read some misinformation and are not at fault (I myself originally believed the moon landings were faked just from watching that tv show and when I came onto a forum shouting about it I was put in my place quite forcefully)
I believe many young Christians are succeptible to what the well educated creationists say because the idea of Creationism sounds very Christian doesn't it? It is so easy for them to brand evolution as "atheist conspiricy" and if kids hear it from adults, especially christian adults, then they believe it. This is afterall why they want to get it into schools is it not?

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 09:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
I appologise if my post seemed like an attack, it may have been a little over the top.
My problem is not with most Creationists but the few who take the anti-evolution thing too far and propagate the myths. There is a lot of misinformation spread around on BOTH sides on the internet I can tell you but Creationist propaganda makes up the most significant part of it. On the evolutionist side I find that many young troublemakers latch onto evolution to have religious fights but don't really understand it and end up making up ridiculous assertions about evolution. People like me who are interested in the subject (for non-debate reasons), don't have biology qualifications and can also make mistakes. For example I have argued things before which on deeper investigation turn out to be less certain than I at first believed.
On the Creationist side however I testify that there is an active misinformation machine working in the background. I find that it is suprisingly well educated adults who make the most ridiculous assertions about evolution.
Not all creationists are like this of course. There are different levels of integrity, but I believe that once a person knows enough about the subject there is no excuse for them to deny the obvious. Like you said you cannot "prove" it either way, but noone has to prove a defendant is guilty, only show it beyond doubt.
I prefer to debate with the harder creationists, not people new to the subject who might have simply read some misinformation and are not at fault (I myself originally believed the moon landings were faked just from watching that tv show and when I came onto a forum shouting about it I was put in my place quite forcefully)
I believe many young Christians are succeptible to what the well educated creationists say because the idea of Creationism sounds very Christian doesn't it? It is so easy for them to brand evolution as "atheist conspiricy" and if kids hear it from adults, especially christian adults, then they believe it. This is afterall why they want to get it into schools is it not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I did not neccessarily see anything as an attack, nor did I see any of your facts as wrong. I saw your assumptions as just that, and I don't think assumption has any credibility, since it can "make an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'" And while your facts were accurate, they were irrelevant since, being facts, they were not anything I disagreed with. And I get the impression that you would be better off debating with Ignorant christians who continue the self defeting and mal-translation based argument of six-day creation. Debating with someone who has not been brain washed into believing in the "atheist conspiracy" will result in what we have here: stalemate. We are not debating facts. We agree on the facts. But what conclusion can we draw? Well, none really, or at least not on any scientific basis. And yes, you are very correct that the six-day creationist cranks want six-day creation taught in school. What they want is irrelevant, because they are not scientists. We are scientists. We should decide what is taught in science class. They are not reasonable. We have to be reasonable. It is our job to be reasonable, because that is what science is: reasoning. It is their job not to be reasonable. They are Theologeans, they can't possibly think for themselves. They think it sinful, or Crimethink if you will (read George Orwell's 1984)

bugsbunny04 · Feb 29, 2004, 09:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess.

For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, an

Feb 25, 2004, 09:18 pm	#301 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	Alright. I just spent a few days reading all the posts on this thread and I'd like to thank shunyadragon, Pooeypants<-(even if a little condecending at times) and LogicalLunatic for your amazingly informed discourse on the topic. I'd also like to ask PeterAnglo if he feels that insults and rambling serves any good purpose, but I suppose that's not the point of this thread. Bugsbunny... it's hard to take you seriously when you have a quote from Metallica as your signature. Anyway... on with my opinion, which I think I'm entitled to after commiting to reading all 300 posts on this thread. I'm one of those that comes down on the side of natural evolution and have been struck by the fact that all the YEC on this thread have 2 very problematic misconceptions invloved in their arguments. 1. You don't start from square one when going about trying to understand what the truth is. Emperical, unbiased science comes from making no assumptions about what you want to find out. You make your slate blank and then go about collecting data and use that data to construct an unbiased picture of the truth. YEC always start off with the assumption that the Bible is true and then look for information to support this notion while attempting to either ignore or pick apart evidence that doesn't support it. This cannot be considered 'science'. 2. As many posters have previously stated, you YEC have a tendancy to look for the odd inconsistancy or discrepancy in otherwise sound theories and then claim that these inconsitancies invalidate the whole theory. I doubt that YEC are willing to use the same scrutiny on the Bible. I think G. Adams made one of the most compelling arguments of this thread </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by G. Adams "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. " Well sorry to say the light came long before the earth did. The sun had to exist similar to its current state in order for it's gravitational field to trap the molecules that would become earth into an orbit. Onto day 2 "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. " There wasn't water to begin with, there was a molten planet and gravity. In Laymens terms, volcanic activity releases CO2, gravity traps it in an orbit, warms planet, reacts with the hydrogen, we have water people, and carbon (don't ask me where that went). So the sky, if we're referring to the atmosphere (because sky is really crappy for a subject, it's just that up there), came before the seas. Day 3 "And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. " Sad to say wrong again. This earth began with a solid (molten maybe? geology people out there?) surface first, the water formed on top of it. So wrong order. Don't know my paleobotanical history, so can't comment on the timing of the vegetation, except that grass came, at the earliest, at the very end of the cretatious period. So all those dinosaur films are usually wrong, and it irritates me. Day 4 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. Oh boy is this easy. Well I'll give you my material to pick apart. Again the sun came first. The moon's not a light, just a reflector. All the other stars are like the sun, some newer, some older. Once again time scale is shoddy. Day 5 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. The times of the first birds and the first sea creatures are far, faaar apart. Also note that it says 'every winged bird' to it's kind. So why were some birds not around 300 million years ago that are around today? Did God get lax and add them in later? If so he forgot to tell the publishers. Day 6 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Does the fact that the Bible reccomends death as a penalty for homosexuality, bestiality, working on the sabbath and theft make the bible's opinion on morality irrelevant? "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 25, 2004, 09:28 pm	#302 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	Now I'd like to turn my critical eye to to the evolution argument. How do you account for massive mutations that would be required inside of one generation for evolution to take place. Specifically how do you have dinosaurs turning into birds? I know that there is some debate on the topic but as far as I know, the conventional wisdom prevailing these days is that dinosaurs were cold blooded organisms, reptiles. All reptiles have a 3 chamber heart, while all birds have 4 chamber hearts. I don't see how a 4th heart chamber could develop slowly over the space of several generations. In the evolution from reptiles into monotremes and then into mammals there are jumps that can't be accounted for by the "slow changes" model of evolution. Any explanations of this from the more educated folks here? "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 25, 2004, 11:27 pm	#303 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,) Now I'd like to turn my critical eye to to the evolution argument. How do you account for massive mutations that would be required inside of one generation for evolution to take place. Specifically how do you have dinosaurs turning into birds? I know that there is some debate on the topic but as far as I know, the conventional wisdom prevailing these days is that dinosaurs were cold blooded organisms, reptiles. All reptiles have a 3 chamber heart, while all birds have 4 chamber hearts. I don't see how a 4th heart chamber could develop slowly over the space of several generations. In the evolution from reptiles into monotremes and then into mammals there are jumps that can't be accounted for by the "slow changes" model of evolution. Any explanations of this from the more educated folks here?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your questions are not that hard. (1) Massive mutations need not and do not occur in one genration unless there is a nuclear war and then it would be fatal for all envolved. The recent evolution of the family of horses is a classic example. We have a great deal of fossil evidence and closely related species living now (some unfortunately became extinct recently). Evolution comes about by genetic diversity within the population of a species. Genetic diversity occurs through mutations. If the mutations are harmful the animals do not survive. If the mutations are benificial or of neutral benifit than the genetic diversity of the species increases. Isolation of populations creates adaptations to new environments. Today and in recent history there are numerous species and subspecies of horses. Some are closely related and can partially cross like mules and horses, but are adapted to somewhat different natural environments so they do not normally cross in the wild. (2) Some dinosaurs and birds are basicaly in the same family of animals and in the late periods of dinosaurs they coexisted. In China near whre I live they find several species of dinosaurs not capable of flight with feathers. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 26, 2004, 12:18 am	#304 (permalink) (top)
libertyminded Molten Ash Location: Seattle, Washington USA Posts: 69	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by shunyadragon (2) Some dinosaurs and birds are basicaly in the same family of animals and in the late periods of dinosaurs they coexisted. In China near whre I live they find several species of dinosaurs not capable of flight with feathers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This still doesn't explain how a creature with a 3 chamber heart is able to develop a 4 chamber heart. In more modern evolution we see a progression from reptiles into monotremes (platypusses and echidnas) and then into mammals where there is a progression from oviparous to viviparous birth, as well as other important characteristics. Dinosaurs are thought to have been oviparous reptiles. Birds are also oviparous but are also warm-blooded. Ergo... my question still remains; what mechanism could be responsible for giving birds a 4 chamber heart from the 3 chambered hearts of the reptiles we are supposed to believe birds are decended from. (such a massive mutation would be impossible inside 1 generation) Of course you could always go with the 'catastrophic impact' theory wherein all dinosaurs are destroyed and evolution starts anew with small reptiles and small mammals (on land anyway). This, however, conflicts with the decended dinosaur theory and starts throwing the whole evolution thing into question. I don't believe in religion because any recent historian can easily show you the sordid origins of all major religions, but we've only had science on a more concrete level for about 150 years so I'm reserving my judgement until we can come up with a solid model for evolution. A little aside for Fogus and BugsBunny if you're still active on this thread. If you're so convinced evolution is bogus and that it's purveyors in the public school system are so wrong then my questions to you are: 1) Which of the 2-3000 creation stories would you like taught in SCIENCE class? 2) Do you really think that scientists are involved in some sort of effort to deliberately destroy or discredit religion? If so, why would they do this? (and don't give me that "you just don't want to be accountable to a higher power" crap because the secular folks retort; "you just can't accept that you won't live forever" is a perfect counter arguement) Thanks for your eyes and brains, ~Aarel "Any man willing to trade freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

Feb 26, 2004, 08:41 am	#305 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by libertyminded This still doesn't explain how a creature with a 3 chamber heart is able to develop a 4 chamber heart. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I will check on this, but the development of chambers in the development of the fetus is a key. The dividing of the heart into two, three or four chambers is the type of progression is not difficult and does not require a massive amount of mutations. All three occur in nature. Of course almost all mutations of the heart are bad news, but the progression would require one successful mutation where one chamber will divide. If this happened and benifited the animal it would have had survival value, or neutral value and persisted in the diversity of the population until it acquired suvival value with other changes. The other point is not all dinosaurs are that closely related. Through out the period when dinosaurs roamed the earth there were amphibian dinosaurs, mammilian dinosaurs, reptilian dinosaurs and bird-like dinosaurs. All the anytomical characteristics of all the dinosaurs are not well known. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by In more modern evolution we see a progression from reptiles into monotremes (platypusses and echidnas) and then into mammals where there is a progression from oviparous to viviparous birth, as well as other important characteristics. Dinosaurs are thought to have been oviparous reptiles. Birds are also oviparous but are also warm-blooded. Ergo... my question still remains; what mechanism could be responsible for giving birds a 4 chamber heart from the 3 chambered hearts of the reptiles we are supposed to believe birds are decended from. (such a massive mutation would be impossible inside 1 generation)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not sure all dinosaurs had three chambered hearts. I know they all are not bird-like dinosaurs. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Of course you could always go with the 'catastrophic impact' theory wherein all dinosaurs are destroyed and evolution starts anew with small reptiles and small mammals (on land anyway). This, however, conflicts with the decended dinosaur theory and starts throwing the whole evolution thing into question. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Evolution does not hang on the bird-dinosaur relationship, but it is likely that his relationship exists. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 26, 2004, 09:36 am	#306 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	Evolution of a chambered heart The following is from TalkOrigins.com Next we come to Andy's odd claim about "something with half a heart." It is often difficult to know exactly what anti-evolutionists mean when they say things like this ("where is the half a wing?" is a common refrain). Is Andy looking to see evidence of an animal with a heart that looks like it was cut in half with a cleaver? A heart that is sort of half way made? What? If he is looking for simpler, yet still functional, forms than those that are found in humans (and other mammals) then there are plenty of those. One need only consult a textbook on comparative vertebrate anatomy. Crocodilians for example have a heart somewhat intermediate between the three chambered 'reptilian' heart and a four chambered avian one. Also the hearts of advanced vertebrates, like mammals and birds, grows from a simple one to a more complex one during embryological development. So through comparative anatomy and embryology we can see evidence of how this organ might have evolved. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 28, 2004, 10:58 am	#307 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,) A little aside for Fogus and BugsBunny if you're still active on this thread. If you're so convinced evolution is bogus and that it's purveyors in the public school system are so wrong then my questions to you are: 1) Which of the 2-3000 creation stories would you like taught in SCIENCE class? 2) Do you really think that scientists are involved in some sort of effort to deliberately destroy or discredit religion? If so, why would they do this? (and don't give me that "you just don't want to be accountable to a higher power" crap because the secular folks retort; "you just can't accept that you won't live forever" is a perfect counter arguement) Thanks for your eyes and brains, ~Aarel<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hey doc, the answer to #1 is this: I have no problem with the current fossil record. What should be taught is that in such and such year, such and such species appeared. It should be left to the students to decide based on there faith (or lack of) to decide whether said species appeared during said period because it evloved from something else or because God, Yaweh, Allah, Budah, Alpha+Omega, The great "I am" or whatever you want call your supreme being created it. It should be mentioned by the teacher that scientists (like us) cannot agree on which is the case. It should be taught with everything appearing in the right order, so that if they want to believe evolution, they are not being sabotaged from doing so. But it should also be mentioned that if Genesis is translated correctly and directly to english from the old hebrew, it also more or less agrees with the fossil record. As for wuestion #2, the short answer is no. I think what we have here is groups of perfectly reasonable scientists, with perfectly logical reasoning, that come to differing conclusions based on the same evidence. There is nothing wrong with that, because since the evidence is inconclusive, it is left to the individual scientist to draw an estimated conclusion. Darwin drew his. I drew mine. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 28, 2004, 11:07 am	#308 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (libertyminded,) Bugsbunny... it's hard to take you seriously when you have a quote from Metallica as your signature. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's probably also hard to take seriously anyone with the screen name "bugsbunny" huh? For the record, Metallica is one of the most lyrically intellegent bands ever, period. Go find the lyrics from some of there earlier works. Early albums include: Kill'em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets and ...AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. If you would like to discuss this further, start a new thread, or I will in a few hours. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 28, 2004, 09:30 pm	#309 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) I think what we have here is groups of perfectly reasonable scientists, with perfectly logical reasoning, that come to differing conclusions based on the same evidence. There is nothing wrong with that, because since the evidence is inconclusive, it is left to the individual scientist to draw an estimated conclusion. Darwin drew his. I drew mine.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Scientists as individuals do draw there own conclusions, but most scientists by far do consider the evidence for evolution to be conclusive. It is only a small minority of scientists directly involved with the science of the history of life and the earth who do not consider the evidence conclusive. I do believe that what is taught in the textbooks of our schools should reflect the present views of science and the consensus of what most scientists believe. This would be true in all the sciences. It would be difficult to take into account all the different religious beliefs and objections different religions may have concerning the why and how of the existence of the universe. Religious beliefs should not dictate what is taught in the science class. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 28, 2004, 11:28 pm	#310 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon) Scientists as individuals do draw there own conclusions, but most scientists by far do consider the evidence for evolution to be conclusive. It is only a small minority of scientists directly involved with the science of the history of life and the earth who do not consider the evidence conclusive. I do believe that what is taught in the textbooks of our schools should reflect the present views of science and the consensus of what most scientists believe. This would be true in all the sciences. It would be difficult to take into account all the different religious beliefs and objections different religions may have concerning the why and how of the existence of the universe. Religious beliefs should not dictate what is taught in the science class. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 1st response: Are not the scientists most directly involved with that particular field the ones that are most qualified to conclude whether something in such field is conclusive or not? Thought so. And besides, my specialties are mechanics, ballistics, and US history. I am not involved directly with the science of natural history, and I also find the evidence inconclusive, based on my entry level knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology. 2nd response: You don't have to take into account all the religeous beliefs. Teach what happened. Let the students, according to their beliefs (or lack of) decide why it happened. That is not as complicated as you think. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 08:29 am	#311 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04) 1st response: Are not the scientists most directly involved with that particular field the ones that are most qualified to conclude whether something in such field is conclusive or not? Thought so. And besides, my specialties are mechanics, ballistics, and US history. I am not involved directly with the science of natural history, and I also find the evidence inconclusive, based on my entry level knowledge of chemistry, physics and biology. 2nd response: You don't have to take into account all the religeous beliefs. Teach what happened. Let the students, according to their beliefs (or lack of) decide why it happened. That is not as complicated as you think.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The time frame of the history and the occurance of different microbes plants and animals in that time frame is what you agree with and want taught leaving out the fact that the animals and plants are related. The problem is you have one view, AIG and drdino have another, and there are others with different religious views as to what happened . All of them want their version taught. Also they have significantly different views of the astronomy and cosmology than the majority of scientist in physics and astronomy. The overwhelming majority of life and earth scientists believe that evolution is what happened . What is taught in the schools does not address the 'Why? of existence or whether there was a creator in the picture or not. This teaching relates to the religious and phillisophical beliefs outside science and cannot be determined by the scientific method. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 29, 2004, 02:42 pm	#312 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Ok, firebreathing one, I'm gonna make this as simple as I possibly can: Teach what scientists know for a fact happened If the student has religeous beliefs that contradict it, let him believe what he wants, but his belief is wrong. For example, evolution, and basically Judaism and Christanity, including catholicism, would all be compatible with the fossil record that evolution is based on, IFF (ask a math type) the old testament is translated properly! The only reason the fossil record is desputed by Christians is because they have been fooled into thinking that the King James Bible is the word of God, when in fact it is a watered down, filtered, censored, edited and quadruple translated version of the word of the God they (we with me) believe in. Those who belive in a different creator will just have to accept that whatever they call their creator, or WTFever he wants from them, he/she/it/they created this planet and everything on it in a specific time frame and in a specific order that cannot be disputed. And if it conflicts with the english version of their Holy Book/Scripture/post it notes/WTFever they will just have to assume that something was lost or distorted in the translation somewhere and turned into some other inaccurate unti of time or got it's order scrambled, which is exactly what happened to the Christians, who think this planet was in fact created in six days, which is of course, completely rediculous. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 04:15 pm	#313 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess. For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do. However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils. As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble. I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"

Feb 29, 2004, 05:46 pm	#314 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	Ruiner, surely you're not suggesting we fight blind faith with hard evidence? I mean that's a ridiculous concept. :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 29, 2004, 06:54 pm	#315 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess. For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do. However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils. As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble. I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have not been paying attention have you? We all agree when what happened. There is no argument (except from creationists that are inadequetly educated on the history of biblical texts, and of course, radio-chemistry) that There was not a cambrien explosion or that there was not life before then. The gaps are irrelevant. No matter how small the gaps are, they will still not be close enough to actually prove evolution. Make it less improbable? Sure. Prove it? No. For the record, I am the first to admit that many in my religeon are completely ignorant, and have no idea WTF they are talking about when it comes to natural history, or what God actually said, especiall the "Jehova's" ([/i]sic) witnesses, as I tell them "Jehova? Yall is mispronuncin Yahweh, so why don't yall make ya way the f*ck off my front porch." I have not, and will not defend idiotic theory that suggests the earth was created in a week. But I will not accept as fact something as improbable and completely non provable as evolution, when creation by a supreme being over a long period of time is no more improbable, and no more impossible to prove, since I don't see degrees of impossibility. Stop insulting my intellegence by using arguments that only poke holes in six day creationism, when I was the first one to point out that it is absurd. And quit refering to something as proof when it clearly is not. And one last thing: Don't assume we will find more fossils because you know[i] what assuming does. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Feb 29, 2004, 07:20 pm	#316 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bugsbunny04,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) The problem is of course that the Creationist position has been collapsing ever since Darwin proposed Evolution. As more and more evidence is uncovered the evolutionary patterns become more and more pronounced. The main Creationist arguments against evolution have always been based on the current lack of knowledge in science and they use this lack of knowledge to make out that the Theory of Evolution is some sort of guess. For example decades ago (and continuing recently unfortunately) Creationists would hold up the cambrian explosion as a severe blow for evolution and confirmation of their own theory. As you probably know the Cambrian explosion marks a sudden appearance of hard shelled sea creatures about 550 million years ago. Evolutionary biologists always knew there would be pre-cambrian fossils, probably soft shelled hence the lack of fossilisation. The theory demanded there must be pre-cambrian fossils and it was hard to see how else it could be. But none could be found. Creationists of course paraded this around as a falsification of evolution, and some still do. However now, a few decades later, there are now many pre-cambrian fossils which are ancesteral forms to many of the cambrian fossils. As more time passes, more fossils are found and the gaps are disapearing. In 100 years time we will have millions more fossils, much better understanding of genetics and maybe a few class discoveries. Creationism will continue to crumble. I don't know what the final death knell will be but I doubt it will happen with one bold discovery. More likely as more and more fossil transitionals are amassed, it will become just too difficult for Creationists The funny thing is that as soon as this happens the new generation of Biblical literalists will suddenly "find" half a dozen bible verses that show the Bible actually predicted evolution. We will then have them all lining up saying "look the bible is proof of God, how else would it have predicted evolution 2000 years in advance of darwin?"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have not been paying attention have you? We all agree when what happened. There is no argument (except from creationists that are inadequetly educated on the history of biblical texts, and of course, radio-chemistry) that There was not a cambrien explosion or that there was not life before then. The gaps are irrelevant. No matter how small the gaps are, they will still not be close enough to actually prove evolution. Make it less improbable? Sure. Prove it? No. For the record, I am the first to admit that many in my religeon are completely ignorant, and have no idea WTF they are talking about when it comes to natural history, or what God actually said, especiall the "Jehova's" (sic) witnesses, as I tell them "Jehova? Yall is mispronuncin Yahweh, so why don't yall make ya way the f*ck off my front porch." I have not, and will not defend idiotic theory that suggests the earth was created in a week. But I will not accept as fact something as improbable and completely non provable as evolution, when creation by a supreme being over a long period of time is no more improbable, and no more impossible to prove, since I don't see degrees of impossibility. Stop insulting my intellegence by using arguments that only poke holes in six day creationism, when I was the first one to point out that it is absurd. And quit refering to something as proof when it clearly is not. And one last thing: Don't assume we will find more fossils because you know what assuming does.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Bugs I hope I have been rational in my debate. We have a miscommunication as to what is meant by how the history of existence should be taught, but other than that we can learn from each other. I try to deal rationally with everyone even the hard core 'Creation Science ' believers. There is an interesting point that needs to be explored further in terms of what is a 'proof', 'when is something proven', and what are the different ways 'theory' is used in science. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 29, 2004, 07:30 pm	#317 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	I appologise if my post seemed like an attack, it may have been a little over the top. My problem is not with most Creationists but the few who take the anti-evolution thing too far and propagate the myths. There is a lot of misinformation spread around on BOTH sides on the internet I can tell you but Creationist propaganda makes up the most significant part of it. On the evolutionist side I find that many young troublemakers latch onto evolution to have religious fights but don't really understand it and end up making up ridiculous assertions about evolution. People like me who are interested in the subject (for non-debate reasons), don't have biology qualifications and can also make mistakes. For example I have argued things before which on deeper investigation turn out to be less certain than I at first believed. On the Creationist side however I testify that there is an active misinformation machine working in the background. I find that it is suprisingly well educated adults who make the most ridiculous assertions about evolution. Not all creationists are like this of course. There are different levels of integrity, but I believe that once a person knows enough about the subject there is no excuse for them to deny the obvious. Like you said you cannot "prove" it either way, but noone has to prove a defendant is guilty, only show it beyond doubt. I prefer to debate with the harder creationists, not people new to the subject who might have simply read some misinformation and are not at fault (I myself originally believed the moon landings were faked just from watching that tv show and when I came onto a forum shouting about it I was put in my place quite forcefully) I believe many young Christians are succeptible to what the well educated creationists say because the idea of Creationism sounds very Christian doesn't it? It is so easy for them to brand evolution as "atheist conspiricy" and if kids hear it from adults, especially christian adults, then they believe it. This is afterall why they want to get it into schools is it not?

Feb 29, 2004, 09:07 pm	#318 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) I appologise if my post seemed like an attack, it may have been a little over the top. My problem is not with most Creationists but the few who take the anti-evolution thing too far and propagate the myths. There is a lot of misinformation spread around on BOTH sides on the internet I can tell you but Creationist propaganda makes up the most significant part of it. On the evolutionist side I find that many young troublemakers latch onto evolution to have religious fights but don't really understand it and end up making up ridiculous assertions about evolution. People like me who are interested in the subject (for non-debate reasons), don't have biology qualifications and can also make mistakes. For example I have argued things before which on deeper investigation turn out to be less certain than I at first believed. On the Creationist side however I testify that there is an active misinformation machine working in the background. I find that it is suprisingly well educated adults who make the most ridiculous assertions about evolution. Not all creationists are like this of course. There are different levels of integrity, but I believe that once a person knows enough about the subject there is no excuse for them to deny the obvious. Like you said you cannot "prove" it either way, but noone has to prove a defendant is guilty, only show it beyond doubt. I prefer to debate with the harder creationists, not people new to the subject who might have simply read some misinformation and are not at fault (I myself originally believed the moon landings were faked just from watching that tv show and when I came onto a forum shouting about it I was put in my place quite forcefully) I believe many young Christians are succeptible to what the well educated creationists say because the idea of Creationism sounds very Christian doesn't it? It is so easy for them to brand evolution as "atheist conspiricy" and if kids hear it from adults, especially christian adults, then they believe it. This is afterall why they want to get it into schools is it not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I did not neccessarily see anything as an attack, nor did I see any of your facts as wrong. I saw your assumptions as just that, and I don't think assumption has any credibility, since it can "make an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'" And while your facts were accurate, they were irrelevant since, being facts, they were not anything I disagreed with. And I get the impression that you would be better off debating with Ignorant christians who continue the self defeting and mal-translation based argument of six-day creation. Debating with someone who has not been brain washed into believing in the "atheist conspiracy" will result in what we have here: stalemate. We are not debating facts. We agree on the facts. But what conclusion can we draw? Well, none really, or at least not on any scientific basis. And yes, you are very correct that the six-day creationist cranks want six-day creation taught in school. What they want is irrelevant, because they are not scientists. We are scientists. We should decide what is taught in science class. They are not reasonable. We have to be reasonable. It is our job to be reasonable, because that is what science is: reasoning. It is their job not to be reasonable. They are Theologeans, they can't possibly think for themselves. They think it sinful, or Crimethink if you will (read George Orwell's 1984) Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!