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

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 10:03 am

Also, let me draw your attention to that first quote, again. Dr. Patterson, an evolutionist, states:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil [emphasis mine] for which one could make a watertight argument.1<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
In other words, according to this evolutionist, even Archaeopteryx is not considered to be concrete evidence for evolution. Unless he simply forgot about it in making this statement. (;

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 10:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.

A questioner asked the late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms in his book, Evolution. He replied: <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do not deceptively quote out of context.

Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 10:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
"Conclusions
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
This is very bad logic. He is saying that because Archaeopteryx has dinosaurian characteristics, that proves that it is a species in evoltuionary transition. How does this prove anything? Could an animal not simply have characteristics of another animal? Is it not possible that the Creator decided to have some creative fun and make a bird with some dinosaur characteristics? That is like saying because I have eyes and so does my son's teddy bear, that is proof that I have evolved (or am evolving) from a teddy bear. I will read through the rest of the link as time permits, but I am not impressed by this conclusion.

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 10:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
According to evolutionist and Marxist Stephen Jay Gould:

Were the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds fully fledged flyers?

Evolutionists have admited ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ Since ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates,’ they can’t use the arguement of an incomplete fossil record.3 What about the ‘oldest known sea turtle’? Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, do not deceptively take people out of context and lie about their position.

This is horrible form jpapadpapa. Does lieing get you closer with the Lord or something?

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 10:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Also, let me draw your attention to that first quote, again. Dr. Patterson, an evolutionist, states:

In other words, according to this evolutionist, even Archaeopteryx is not considered to be concrete evidence for evolution. Unless he simply forgot about it in making this statement. (;<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

ONLY WHEN YOU LIE AND TAKE PEOPLE OUT OF CONTEXT:

Here is a letter from Colin (From the site I offered earlier).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

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

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 10:19 am

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

I never implied that I was trying to "prove" that there is a God. I was simply giving an example to support the fact that one does not have to accept a "personal" God to accept the idea of a "Creator." You need to read my posts a little better before responding so you don't misunderstand and thus, misrepresent them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You were arguing from authority. It would be nice if you'd actually admit it.

shunyadragon · Jan 30, 2004, 10:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Problem is, the explanation for gravity is weaker than evolution. Einstein found Newton's explanatin unsatisfactory. Einstein failed to give an adaquate explanation for gravity and all we can do is observe the effects indirectly. All the present theories and math only give partial exlanations for gravity.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 10:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Do not deceptively quote out of context.

Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think you need to go back and read the article you link to, as well as the quote. I am not quoting out of context, you are simply twisting what is being said to make it appear that I am. The point I am making is that he admitted that there are no fossils that support his belief. Clearly, he believes in transitional fossils and states this throughout his book, but here is the point: it is a matter of faith because he blatantly admits that he cannot provide any pictures of absolute proof. I don't understand how you can keep misunderstanding what I am saying. How have I taken what he said out of context? If you looked at the sources cited at the bottom of that post, you would have even seen that I already addressed your criticism. Personal attacks are a sign of feeling threatened. This is a tactic often resorted to when someone feels they are losing an arguement and quite frankly, it makes your arguement look weaker.

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 10:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Perhaps biologists would classify it as a bird. How we would classify it makes absolutely zero difference. What matters are the physical characteristics of the animal. This bird/reptile/thing has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. This is what is considered to be "transitional" as opposed to what YOU would consider to be "transitional" which is made very obvious in the following statement...
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
By "transitional" it appears that you mean "partially formed" which is absurd. Based on that statement it is safe to say that you still don't understand how natural selection or evolution works and you either misunderstood my last post or just ignored it. Evolution predicts that we will very very rarely if ever find a "partially formed" animal. If you had read/understood my last post you'd realize that every organism is "transitional" between its parents and its children. You are "transitional" between your parents and your children. Office 2000 is "transitional" between Office 98 and Office XP.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
The purpose set out at the beginning of this discussion was to debate evolution, not Creation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution. This indicates that you have an alternative explanation. As I said before, we want to hear this alternative and the evidence that supports it. Explaining evolution is fun, defending evolution is boring as it is its best defense.

LogicaLunatic

shunyadragon · Jan 30, 2004, 10:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
"Conclusions
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
This is very bad logic. He is saying that because Archaeopteryx has dinosaurian characteristics, that proves that it is a species in evoltuionary transition. How does this prove anything? Could an animal not simply have characteristics of another animal? Is it not possible that the Creator decided to have some creative fun and make a bird with some dinosaur characteristics? That is like saying because I have eyes and so does my son's teddy bear, that is proof that I have evolved (or am evolving) from a teddy bear. I will read through the rest of the link as time permits, but I am not impressed by this conclusion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes Archeopteryx is considered one possible species showing that birds and dinosaurs are closely related. You would be correct if Archeopteryx was the only example of the different species in transition, but that is no longer the case. In China not far from where I live they have found more. We now have more than a half a dozen different feathered species with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs and the number is growing. Others have been found in other parts of the world. There is evidence that the presence of feather may have been common among dinosaurs.

No, I don't believe God treats his creation as creative fun. The number of intermediates among all the species the scientists are finding is growing and the relationship is beginning to be sorted out in an orderly time scalle hundreds of millions of years old.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 10:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This bird/reptile/thing has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. This is what is considered to be "transitional"...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 10:47 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, I don't believe God treats his creation as creative fun.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well, I suppose we're getting into a little theology here, but I believe we were created in God's likeness, so I think God is creative and has a sense of humor.

Anyway, that's a different topic...

No more time today to post. I'll be back in a few days, unless I can't restrain myself. (:

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 11:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Do not deceptively quote out of context.

Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think you need to go back and read the article you link to, as well as the quote. I am not quoting out of context, you are simply twisting what is being said to make it appear that I am. The point I am making is that he admitted that there are no fossils that support his belief. Clearly, he believes in transitional fossils and states this throughout his book, but here is the point: it is a matter of faith because he blatantly admits that he cannot provide any pictures of absolute proof. I don't understand how you can keep misunderstanding what I am saying. How have I taken what he said out of context? If you looked at the sources cited at the bottom of that post, you would have even seen that I already addressed your criticism. Personal attacks are a sign of feeling threatened. This is a tactic often resorted to when someone feels they are losing an arguement and quite frankly, it makes your arguement look weaker.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Please read the entire link I gave you. You are confusing two different things and I believe you to be doing this deliberately.

Matter of faith indeed. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution/transitionals as it does to believe the earth goes around the sun.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 12:33 pm

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

But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It comes down to which is the logical assumption and what data do we have to intrepret. Seeing as no one has yet proved the indirect effects due to a creator let alone observe the creator itself, I think in science we can clearly disregard any model concerning with it.

The problem you have is that you don't want to accept the science, no matter how much "proof" we have you'll just ignore it, and it's showing.

If you've got evidence that the creator designed and created all species on earth, then present it to us for then we can see it with our own eyes. Being told by an ancient book to blindly believe anything is not something I am willing to accept.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 12:34 pm

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

Please read the entire link I gave you. You are confusing two different things and I believe you to be doing this deliberately.

Matter of faith indeed. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution/transitionals as it does to believe the earth goes around the sun.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
How dare you up hold the Copernican model of the Solar System!?! Blasphemy!!!

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 01:56 pm

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

But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First of all, it doesn't have to prove a single thing ever ever ever at all in a million billion years. All it has to do is fit into the framework of the theory of evolution which it does very nicely. Archaeopteryx is not a "proof" of evolution, merely supporting evidence for it. It is exactly the type of thing that evolution predicts we will find, if anything at all due to how rare fossilization is.

Please, the theory of evolution can stand up all by itself without all of us here to defend it. You've said several times that it "could" have been this way or that you "believe" it happened another. Please, Please, Please with sugar coated balls of sugar on top, provide us with YOUR hypothesis that explains all of the species that exist today. Then once you've done that you can provide the evidence that supports it.

LogicaLunatic

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 02:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist Patriot,)
People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

See 'Perspectives on an Evolving Creation' by Keith B. Miller: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books.
Miller is an interesting guy, an evangelical Christian who is an academic geologist and who struggles to keep Creationism out of public school science curricula.

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 02:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
You know, I think statements like this are completely unfair:

"People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There is one valid point here: the comparison should be not to those alleged to have argued that the earth is flat (although some did and do exist), rather to those who insisted that the sun, planets, and stars revolved about it. It had been obvious for thousands of years that the earth was rounded, and many recognized that it was likely spherical. The religious fanatics that grounded their arguments in the Bible, those for example who hounded Galileo, based their 'Biblical interpretations' on Ptolemy's model of the universe, with the earth at the center.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet.

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

To me, this speaks volumes about how embedded you are in Creationist twaddle. In the first place, be careful to distinguish 'creationist' (one who believes that all was created) from 'Creationist' (one who denies science in favor of religious beliefs). There are many good scientists who are creationists, but there are none who are Creationists, because Creationism involves denying science itself. This is especially true of young-earth creationists, who deny the bases of all science in order to claim that the universe is a few thousand years old. Any 'science' they pretend to spew is a confused jumble of ideology, and their arguments are absurd.

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 02:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, evolution is all we have. It is the dominant theory of biology. That could change -- science is always open; but it's hard to see how (thus spake Newton). However, within evolutionary theory, there are many differences, widely debated -- and, more importantly, put to the test. Scientific theories generate hypotheses that can be tested against evidence, which may confirm them, debunk them, or cause them to be altered. Scientific theories lead to new questions, show new ways to explore nature, accept new challenges.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, and has not been since the triumph of Darwinism. Young-earth creationism had already been considerably challenged by geological evidence of a much-older earth, before Darwin (and Wallace) came along with a theory that explained how life changed over that long history of earth. Mendel supplied the beginnings of the genetic theory that was later incorporated into a neo-Darwinian theory. Physics supplied knowledge of radioactivity, which both explained where the energy came from in an exceedingly-old universe and supplied methods of testing and dating so useful to evolutionary theory. All of this knocked Creationism firmly out of science. The Creationism we see today is a 20th Century political movement that drew on Biblical literalism and tried to dress it up in scientific clothes. They never fit.

A recent twist has been Intelligent Design (which I discussed above). It claims to not be Creationism, to not be religious at all. But it works just like the older versions of Creationism. It seeks not to generate new hypotheses that can be tested, to ask new questions that can offer innovative paths for scientific knowledge. Rather it tries to debunk evolution, and much other science, and claims that it will win by default if it can debunk a scientific theory. This is a version of an argument from ignorance. Even if a scientific theory (even if evolution) were incorrect, this does not thereby enshrine any other approach. It would merely mean that a new theory would have to be created that explained more than the old one.

So, no, in science there is no current alternative to evolution -- although within evolution there are many lively debates.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 02:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It comes down to which is the logical assumption and what data do we have to intrepret. Seeing as no one has yet proved the indirect effects due to a creator let alone observe the creator itself, I think in science we can clearly disregard any model concerning with it.

The problem you have is that you don't want to accept the science, no matter how much "proof" we have you'll just ignore it, and it's showing.

If you've got evidence that the creator designed and created all species on earth, then present it to us for then we can see it with our own eyes. Being told by an ancient book to blindly believe anything is not something I am willing to accept.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The longer I am on here, the more frustrated I have become because, as I keep saying, I am just one person and I don't have the time to refute everything you all throw at me. <sigh> I really feel overwhelmed. I understand that to you it simply appears that I don't have any evidence to refute yours. However, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I feel I have made some very good points on lack of evidence to support evolution, but we all have a tendency to see only what we want to see. And, for every point I have made, I seem to get at least several counter-arguments. How can one person have the time to refute every point? We all have specific areas with which we are more comfortable and I simply have to pick and choose which points I will address. Also, maybe I am just not as good at arguing what I believe as some of you are. Does this automatically make my belief wrong?

The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense. You can make anything sound good with a lot of "scientific talk" and examples, but that does not prove a theory to be true. To me and many others, the miracle of nature, outside the other proof, is enough "proof" of a designer. What are the chances that you all, with all your intellegence (;, simply evolved? Has anyone experienced the miracle of childbirth? With all the things that could go wrong, how does a tiny little infant develop so perfectly with deformities being rare? We are such intricate, complex creatures. Regardless of the billions of years, it just seems like such a fantastic, impossible idea that we evolved. How did we evolve the capacity for logic? Where did we get our morals and ethics from? How can these things evolve and from what do they evolve? They are abstract. And from what did we evolve? Where did it all start? Nothing comes from nothing. When have we ever witnessed this? In my belief, only God can create something out of nothing. God has always been and always will be. These, of course, are matters of faith because science has limits. How could God be God--someone far superior in intellegence--if we could simply explain everything related to His existence with science? Having said this, please don't mock me for my religious beliefs. You may disagree respectfully, but please don't mock my faith or my God.

Finally, an analogy that I will borrow from a friend of mine: Can any of you refute the existence of my husband? He is real and he loves me, but I cannot prove that to you. I can show you evidence in the form of some computer programs that he's written and some letters to me, but that will not prove anything to most of you. I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you. I do know that there have been many antagonistic people who have read the Bible with the intent to disprove it and have found that they cannot. Many of these people actually become converts. On a personal level, I can also tell you of all the very specific answers to prayer I've had through the years (and get a lot of mocking for it, probably) and I can tell you about miracles I've seen. I can even point to evidences of a God in the creation, as many of you want me to do. But, just as you cannot prove evolution, I cannot "prove" creation or that there is a God. But, I have seen the evidence that is all around us, both scientific and otherwise. There just isn't time for me to put forth every argument and refute every counter-argument in one little thread.

There is a book I have been reading called "What is Creation Science?" If anyone feels they are up for the challenge, I highly recommend it. But, I am probably wasting my words, since I doubt any of you will bother.

I'm done here. I don't think this is profitable and I don't see it as ever being profitable. I believe you all have been blinded to the Truth and have accepted evolution, a theory based on assumptions, poor evidence, and logical fallacies, despite the scientific-sounding jargon. I believe you will do whatever it takes to defend it because the alternative is to believe there is a God who created you. To believe that we all evolved is easier because it means we would have no one to answer to. It allows us to be proud and arrogant and think we are the highest intellegence. It allows us to be a god to ourselves and answer to no one. I am not trying to incite anyone, but I am speaking honestly about what I believe. So, I hope you don't take it personally and become defensive, but rather take a good, hard look at what you believe and why. The former reaction is unproductive, while the latter just might surprise you.

Thanks to those of you who were kind and courteous in your responses and to those of you who had open minds.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:03 am	#141 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Also, let me draw your attention to that first quote, again. Dr. Patterson, an evolutionist, states: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil [emphasis mine] for which one could make a watertight argument.1<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> In other words, according to this evolutionist, even Archaeopteryx is not considered to be concrete evidence for evolution. Unless he simply forgot about it in making this statement. (; I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:13 am	#142 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct. A questioner asked the late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms in his book, Evolution. He replied: <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do not deceptively quote out of context. Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?

Jan 30, 2004, 10:13 am	#143 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by "Conclusions Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is very bad logic. He is saying that because Archaeopteryx has dinosaurian characteristics, that proves that it is a species in evoltuionary transition. How does this prove anything? Could an animal not simply have characteristics of another animal? Is it not possible that the Creator decided to have some creative fun and make a bird with some dinosaur characteristics? That is like saying because I have eyes and so does my son's teddy bear, that is proof that I have evolved (or am evolving) from a teddy bear. I will read through the rest of the link as time permits, but I am not impressed by this conclusion. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:15 am	#144 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) According to evolutionist and Marxist Stephen Jay Gould: Were the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds fully fledged flyers? Evolutionists have admited ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ Since ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates,’ they can’t use the arguement of an incomplete fossil record.3 What about the ‘oldest known sea turtle’? Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, do not deceptively take people out of context and lie about their position. This is horrible form jpapadpapa. Does lieing get you closer with the Lord or something?

Jan 30, 2004, 10:17 am	#145 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Also, let me draw your attention to that first quote, again. Dr. Patterson, an evolutionist, states: In other words, according to this evolutionist, even Archaeopteryx is not considered to be concrete evidence for evolution. Unless he simply forgot about it in making this statement. (;<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ONLY WHEN YOU LIE AND TAKE PEOPLE OUT OF CONTEXT: Here is a letter from Colin (From the site I offered earlier). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Dear Mr Theunissen, Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false. That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else. I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule. Yours Sincerely, [signed] Colin Patterson <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Jan 30, 2004, 10:19 am	#146 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I never implied that I was trying to "prove" that there is a God. I was simply giving an example to support the fact that one does not have to accept a "personal" God to accept the idea of a "Creator." You need to read my posts a little better before responding so you don't misunderstand and thus, misrepresent them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You were arguing from authority. It would be nice if you'd actually admit it.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:23 am	#147 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Problem is, the explanation for gravity is weaker than evolution. Einstein found Newton's explanatin unsatisfactory. Einstein failed to give an adaquate explanation for gravity and all we can do is observe the effects indirectly. All the present theories and math only give partial exlanations for gravity. 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 . . .

Jan 30, 2004, 10:29 am	#148 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Do not deceptively quote out of context. Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you need to go back and read the article you link to, as well as the quote. I am not quoting out of context, you are simply twisting what is being said to make it appear that I am. The point I am making is that he admitted that there are no fossils that support his belief. Clearly, he believes in transitional fossils and states this throughout his book, but here is the point: it is a matter of faith because he blatantly admits that he cannot provide any pictures of absolute proof. I don't understand how you can keep misunderstanding what I am saying. How have I taken what he said out of context? If you looked at the sources cited at the bottom of that post, you would have even seen that I already addressed your criticism. Personal attacks are a sign of feeling threatened. This is a tactic often resorted to when someone feels they are losing an arguement and quite frankly, it makes your arguement look weaker. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:31 am	#149 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Perhaps biologists would classify it as a bird. How we would classify it makes absolutely zero difference. What matters are the physical characteristics of the animal. This bird/reptile/thing has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. This is what is considered to be "transitional" as opposed to what YOU would consider to be "transitional" which is made very obvious in the following statement... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> By "transitional" it appears that you mean "partially formed" which is absurd. Based on that statement it is safe to say that you still don't understand how natural selection or evolution works and you either misunderstood my last post or just ignored it. Evolution predicts that we will very very rarely if ever find a "partially formed" animal. If you had read/understood my last post you'd realize that every organism is "transitional" between its parents and its children. You are "transitional" between your parents and your children. Office 2000 is "transitional" between Office 98 and Office XP. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The purpose set out at the beginning of this discussion was to debate evolution, not Creation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution. This indicates that you have an alternative explanation. As I said before, we want to hear this alternative and the evidence that supports it. Explaining evolution is fun, defending evolution is boring as it is its best defense. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 10:38 am	#150 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by "Conclusions Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is very bad logic. He is saying that because Archaeopteryx has dinosaurian characteristics, that proves that it is a species in evoltuionary transition. How does this prove anything? Could an animal not simply have characteristics of another animal? Is it not possible that the Creator decided to have some creative fun and make a bird with some dinosaur characteristics? That is like saying because I have eyes and so does my son's teddy bear, that is proof that I have evolved (or am evolving) from a teddy bear. I will read through the rest of the link as time permits, but I am not impressed by this conclusion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes Archeopteryx is considered one possible species showing that birds and dinosaurs are closely related. You would be correct if Archeopteryx was the only example of the different species in transition, but that is no longer the case. In China not far from where I live they have found more. We now have more than a half a dozen different feathered species with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs and the number is growing. Others have been found in other parts of the world. There is evidence that the presence of feather may have been common among dinosaurs. No, I don't believe God treats his creation as creative fun. The number of intermediates among all the species the scientists are finding is growing and the relationship is beginning to be sorted out in an orderly time scalle hundreds of millions of years old. 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 . . .

Jan 30, 2004, 10:43 am	#151 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This bird/reptile/thing has characteristics of both birds and reptiles. This is what is considered to be "transitional"...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not? I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:47 am	#152 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, I don't believe God treats his creation as creative fun.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, I suppose we're getting into a little theology here, but I believe we were created in God's likeness, so I think God is creative and has a sense of humor. Anyway, that's a different topic... No more time today to post. I'll be back in a few days, unless I can't restrain myself. (: I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 11:01 am	#153 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Do not deceptively quote out of context. Please do not lie and quote people out of context again. This shows horrible character on your part. Can't you follow all Ten Commandments?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you need to go back and read the article you link to, as well as the quote. I am not quoting out of context, you are simply twisting what is being said to make it appear that I am. The point I am making is that he admitted that there are no fossils that support his belief. Clearly, he believes in transitional fossils and states this throughout his book, but here is the point: it is a matter of faith because he blatantly admits that he cannot provide any pictures of absolute proof. I don't understand how you can keep misunderstanding what I am saying. How have I taken what he said out of context? If you looked at the sources cited at the bottom of that post, you would have even seen that I already addressed your criticism. Personal attacks are a sign of feeling threatened. This is a tactic often resorted to when someone feels they are losing an arguement and quite frankly, it makes your arguement look weaker.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please read the entire link I gave you. You are confusing two different things and I believe you to be doing this deliberately. Matter of faith indeed. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution/transitionals as it does to believe the earth goes around the sun.

Jan 30, 2004, 12:33 pm	#154 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It comes down to which is the logical assumption and what data do we have to intrepret. Seeing as no one has yet proved the indirect effects due to a creator let alone observe the creator itself, I think in science we can clearly disregard any model concerning with it. The problem you have is that you don't want to accept the science, no matter how much "proof" we have you'll just ignore it, and it's showing. If you've got evidence that the creator designed and created all species on earth, then present it to us for then we can see it with our own eyes. Being told by an ancient book to blindly believe anything is not something I am willing to accept. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 12:34 pm	#155 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,) Please read the entire link I gave you. You are confusing two different things and I believe you to be doing this deliberately. Matter of faith indeed. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution/transitionals as it does to believe the earth goes around the sun.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How dare you up hold the Copernican model of the Solar System!?! Blasphemy!!! War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 01:56 pm	#156 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First of all, it doesn't have to prove a single thing ever ever ever at all in a million billion years. All it has to do is fit into the framework of the theory of evolution which it does very nicely. Archaeopteryx is not a "proof" of evolution, merely supporting evidence for it. It is exactly the type of thing that evolution predicts we will find, if anything at all due to how rare fossilization is. Please, the theory of evolution can stand up all by itself without all of us here to defend it. You've said several times that it "could" have been this way or that you "believe" it happened another. Please, Please, Please with sugar coated balls of sugar on top, provide us with YOUR hypothesis that explains all of the species that exist today. Then once you've done that you can provide the evidence that supports it. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 02:04 pm	#157 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist Patriot,) People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> See 'Perspectives on an Evolving Creation' by Keith B. Miller: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books. Miller is an interesting guy, an evangelical Christian who is an academic geologist and who struggles to keep Creationism out of public school science curricula.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:16 pm	#158 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) You know, I think statements like this are completely unfair: "People who argue for creationism are modern variants of the same people who argued the earth is flat. I find the whole argument absurd. What is to say that evelution is not the way God intended. Bible literalists are clueless."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There is one valid point here: the comparison should be not to those alleged to have argued that the earth is flat (although some did and do exist), rather to those who insisted that the sun, planets, and stars revolved about it. It had been obvious for thousands of years that the earth was rounded, and many recognized that it was likely spherical. The religious fanatics that grounded their arguments in the Bible, those for example who hounded Galileo, based their 'Biblical interpretations' on Ptolemy's model of the universe, with the earth at the center. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) To me, this speaks volumes at how much research this person has done into the argument that Bible literalists make for creationism. There are many highly intellegent scientists that are also creationists, but most people don't hear of them. I think everyone should have open minds and at least be willing to look at both sides instead of belittling others and acting arrogant just because they disagree. Check out these links and see if maybe they give you some good questions you haven't thought of yet. http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> To me, this speaks volumes about how embedded you are in Creationist twaddle. In the first place, be careful to distinguish 'creationist' (one who believes that all was created) from 'Creationist' (one who denies science in favor of religious beliefs). There are many good scientists who are creationists, but there are none who are Creationists, because Creationism involves denying science itself. This is especially true of young-earth creationists, who deny the bases of all science in order to claim that the universe is a few thousand years old. Any 'science' they pretend to spew is a confused jumble of ideology, and their arguments are absurd.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:39 pm	#159 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,) are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, evolution is all we have. It is the dominant theory of biology. That could change -- science is always open; but it's hard to see how (thus spake Newton). However, within evolutionary theory, there are many differences, widely debated -- and, more importantly, put to the test. Scientific theories generate hypotheses that can be tested against evidence, which may confirm them, debunk them, or cause them to be altered. Scientific theories lead to new questions, show new ways to explore nature, accept new challenges. Creationism is not a scientific theory, and has not been since the triumph of Darwinism. Young-earth creationism had already been considerably challenged by geological evidence of a much-older earth, before Darwin (and Wallace) came along with a theory that explained how life changed over that long history of earth. Mendel supplied the beginnings of the genetic theory that was later incorporated into a neo-Darwinian theory. Physics supplied knowledge of radioactivity, which both explained where the energy came from in an exceedingly-old universe and supplied methods of testing and dating so useful to evolutionary theory. All of this knocked Creationism firmly out of science. The Creationism we see today is a 20th Century political movement that drew on Biblical literalism and tried to dress it up in scientific clothes. They never fit. A recent twist has been Intelligent Design (which I discussed above). It claims to not be Creationism, to not be religious at all. But it works just like the older versions of Creationism. It seeks not to generate new hypotheses that can be tested, to ask new questions that can offer innovative paths for scientific knowledge. Rather it tries to debunk evolution, and much other science, and claims that it will win by default if it can debunk a scientific theory. This is a version of an argument from ignorance. Even if a scientific theory (even if evolution) were incorrect, this does not thereby enshrine any other approach. It would merely mean that a new theory would have to be created that explained more than the old one. So, no, in science there is no current alternative to evolution -- although within evolution there are many lively debates.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:49 pm	#160 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It comes down to which is the logical assumption and what data do we have to intrepret. Seeing as no one has yet proved the indirect effects due to a creator let alone observe the creator itself, I think in science we can clearly disregard any model concerning with it. The problem you have is that you don't want to accept the science, no matter how much "proof" we have you'll just ignore it, and it's showing. If you've got evidence that the creator designed and created all species on earth, then present it to us for then we can see it with our own eyes. Being told by an ancient book to blindly believe anything is not something I am willing to accept.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The longer I am on here, the more frustrated I have become because, as I keep saying, I am just one person and I don't have the time to refute everything you all throw at me. <sigh> I really feel overwhelmed. I understand that to you it simply appears that I don't have any evidence to refute yours. However, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I feel I have made some very good points on lack of evidence to support evolution, but we all have a tendency to see only what we want to see. And, for every point I have made, I seem to get at least several counter-arguments. How can one person have the time to refute every point? We all have specific areas with which we are more comfortable and I simply have to pick and choose which points I will address. Also, maybe I am just not as good at arguing what I believe as some of you are. Does this automatically make my belief wrong? The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense. You can make anything sound good with a lot of "scientific talk" and examples, but that does not prove a theory to be true. To me and many others, the miracle of nature, outside the other proof, is enough "proof" of a designer. What are the chances that you all, with all your intellegence (;, simply evolved? Has anyone experienced the miracle of childbirth? With all the things that could go wrong, how does a tiny little infant develop so perfectly with deformities being rare? We are such intricate, complex creatures. Regardless of the billions of years, it just seems like such a fantastic, impossible idea that we evolved. How did we evolve the capacity for logic? Where did we get our morals and ethics from? How can these things evolve and from what do they evolve? They are abstract. And from what did we evolve? Where did it all start? Nothing comes from nothing. When have we ever witnessed this? In my belief, only God can create something out of nothing. God has always been and always will be. These, of course, are matters of faith because science has limits. How could God be God--someone far superior in intellegence--if we could simply explain everything related to His existence with science? Having said this, please don't mock me for my religious beliefs. You may disagree respectfully, but please don't mock my faith or my God. Finally, an analogy that I will borrow from a friend of mine: Can any of you refute the existence of my husband? He is real and he loves me, but I cannot prove that to you. I can show you evidence in the form of some computer programs that he's written and some letters to me, but that will not prove anything to most of you. I cannot "prove" the existence of God to you. I do know that there have been many antagonistic people who have read the Bible with the intent to disprove it and have found that they cannot. Many of these people actually become converts. On a personal level, I can also tell you of all the very specific answers to prayer I've had through the years (and get a lot of mocking for it, probably) and I can tell you about miracles I've seen. I can even point to evidences of a God in the creation, as many of you want me to do. But, just as you cannot prove evolution, I cannot "prove" creation or that there is a God. But, I have seen the evidence that is all around us, both scientific and otherwise. There just isn't time for me to put forth every argument and refute every counter-argument in one little thread. There is a book I have been reading called "What is Creation Science?" If anyone feels they are up for the challenge, I highly recommend it. But, I am probably wasting my words, since I doubt any of you will bother. I'm done here. I don't think this is profitable and I don't see it as ever being profitable. I believe you all have been blinded to the Truth and have accepted evolution, a theory based on assumptions, poor evidence, and logical fallacies, despite the scientific-sounding jargon. I believe you will do whatever it takes to defend it because the alternative is to believe there is a God who created you. To believe that we all evolved is easier because it means we would have no one to answer to. It allows us to be proud and arrogant and think we are the highest intellegence. It allows us to be a god to ourselves and answer to no one. I am not trying to incite anyone, but I am speaking honestly about what I believe. So, I hope you don't take it personally and become defensive, but rather take a good, hard look at what you believe and why. The former reaction is unproductive, while the latter just might surprise you. Thanks to those of you who were kind and courteous in your responses and to those of you who had open minds. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.