babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 26 September 2005 03:10 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near Cincinnati

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page A03

PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."

A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- already has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.

"We call him our 'missionary lizard,' " Looy says. "When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too."


Read it here.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 26 September 2005 03:38 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah yes...T-Rex was a vegetarian. Probably became a carnivore when a small furry animal accidentally fell into the condiments at the salad bar.

I honestly can't fathom this level of ignorance.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 26 September 2005 03:43 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OMG. I think creationists have finally said something SO obtuse that anybody who hears it is going to forevermore disbelieve anything they say, even if they were inclined to believe them before. T-Rex was a vegetarian? Are you kidding me? I almost spit out what I was eating all over my computer when I read that!
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 26 September 2005 04:05 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See also New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory

quote:
Pa. Trial Will Ask Whether 'Alternatives' Can Pass as Science

By Rick Weiss and David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 26, 2005; Page A08

When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.



From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 26 September 2005 04:19 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:
T-Rex was a vegetarian? Are you kidding me? I almost spit out what I was eating all over my computer when I read that!

I think they must mean this guy


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 26 September 2005 05:51 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing about evolution that's always gotten me is that it's almost more a matter of logic applied to fact than any very abstruse science. I mean, it's basically impossible for it *not* to happen.

Consider. Creatures really do exhibit both variation, including more-or-less-random mutation, and heritability. And it really is tough for creatures to survive and have offspring. OK, so if they're not all the same, some of them have to be better at surviving and having offspring than others, right? How could that not happen? And then, if some of them are better at it, and do have more offspring, they will pass on their traits to those offspring, right? Of course they will, any stockbreeder can tell you that. OK, and evolution just happened. Lather, rinse and repeat. I can't imagine a way that evolution could manage *not* to happen, given the basic facts of life as we know them.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 26 September 2005 10:11 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course they will, any stockbreeder can tell you that.

Yep. They will continue to breed cattle; they will continue to develop GE crops - and they will look you right in the face and deny it. Reason is powerless against this.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 26 September 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Snuckles:

Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World

Ah, they must mean 'museum' in the classical sense of a collection of unrelated curiosities.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572

posted 26 September 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for blacklisted     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
sort of a P.T. Barnum school of Evolution.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
-P.T. Barnum

From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 26 September 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
School board in court over attempt to sideline Darwin's theory

The Independent - In what is being described as the most important legal battle involving creation and evolution in the last 18 years, a Pennsylvania court will hear opening arguments today on a school board's attempt to include an alternative to Darwin's theory in the curriculum.

Last October, the small, rural school district of Dover became the first public school district in the US to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum.

And...

A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit

NY Times - Sheree Hied, a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures, was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about "alternatives" to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design.

But 11 other parents in Dover were outraged enough to sue the school board and the district, contending that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so inexplicably complex, the best explanation is that a higher being designed them - is a Trojan horse for religion in the public schools.

And...

BBC: US evolution court battle opens


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 26 September 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A historian's view:
quote:
..Yet it is my contention that historians have a great stake in this debate: not only is evolution the central organizing principle for modern biology—and a fine example of historical thinking—but an essential concept for understanding human history...

... More important was the relative lack of domesticated herd animals in America. Herd animals are our richest source of disease microorganisms; we share in common with pigs and other barnyard animals diseases such as influenza. The fact that Native Americans had few domestic animals—dogs, llamas, guineas pigs and couple species of fowl—meant that they had relatively few immunities compared to those Europeans gained from their extensive interactions with dogs, barnyard fowl, horses, donkeys, pigs, cattle, goats, and sheep...



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 September 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It holds that the world and the universe are but 6,000 years old and that baby dinosaurs rode in Noah's ark.

Amazing that no one mentioned the baby dinosaurs in the arc at the time it happened!

But that 6000 year bit! OMG!!

There are a zillion reasons why that cannot be true. It contradicts not just evolution, but all of modern geology, too. By modern, I mean "after 1700."

For one thing, bones cannot turn to stone in 6000 years. That's why there are no fossilized mammoths, or sabre-toothed tigers.

For another thing, the various strata of rock which record the life of the earth are 2000 to 5000 feet thick in many places. (Think of the depth of a coal mine, which penetrates only to the carboniferous age).

If the earth is only 6000 years old, that means that almost a foot of sediment is deposited each year. A house would be buried in twenty years!

Physics and chemistry are also out! Radioactive decay, which physicists measure by the amount of lead in a composite rock, gives a 2 billion year age of the earth. Electrons are ejected from the atom at a specific, measurable rate; uranium turns to lead at a specific rate. The half-life of uranium 235 is .7 BILLION years.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Uranium-lead

These religious nuts think they can isolate evolution for their attacks; but for them to be right, almost everything in science would be wrong.

For example, maybe uranium isn't radioactive! So, it's not dangerous to play with! And of course, there could be no atomic weapons.

Quite a discovery they have there.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 27 September 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
School defends its decision to teach 'intelligent design'

The Independent - In a crucial test case, education officials in rural Pennsylvania have defended their decision to require students to learn about an alternative theory to evolution to explain the origin of life.

Lawyers for the Dover area school board argued yesterday that the decision to teach intelligent design - a theory condemned by a majority of scientists as little more than "creationism-lite" - was not an attempt to force a religious agenda but a desire for pupils to keep an open mind.

"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Centre, a non-profit Christian law firm which is representing the board.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572

posted 27 September 2005 04:15 PM      Profile for blacklisted     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
that would be this Thomas More?
http://www.apostles.com/thomasmore.html
yeah ,looks pretty impartial.

From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 27 September 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jeff here's a better ref

Also you are a factor of 2 out on the age of the earth. Should be 4 billion years.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 27 September 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, JRootham. I think I meant that it gives AT LEAST a 2 billion life of the earth.

Normally, I know the 4 billion figure. But maybe I just got confused.

There were no baby dinosaurs in the arc, though.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 27 September 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:
OMG. I think creationists have finally said something SO obtuse that anybody who hears it is going to forevermore disbelieve anything they say, even if they were inclined to believe them before.

These are people who have an invisible friend who lives up in the sky and watches everything they do.
The invisible friend impregnated a virgin to have his child and the kid did real magic and got killed yet came back to life.
If these people don't do everything the invisible friend and his son say they will be sent to a fiery place underground, with a demon in charge, to burn forever.....
and you think some misinformation about a dinosaur is going to cause some critical thinking to kick in in these folks? I doubt it.


From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 27 September 2005 10:31 PM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Ah yes...T-Rex was a vegetarian. Probably became a carnivore when a small furry animal accidentally fell into the condiments at the salad bar.

I honestly can't fathom this level of ignorance.


T-Rex (at fancy dress party, wearing only bow tie and tuxedo suit jacket and monocle): I dare say, Mr. Ceratops, this is a fabulous gathering, is it not?

Mr. Tri Ceratops: Oh, oh, yes, quite lovely. Goodness, did you hear something? It sounds like there might be some rain out there? I might go so far as to suggest it's raining cats and dogs! Which exist right now for some reason!

(human walks in)

Human: Grunt, grunt, ooohhh!!!

T-Rex: Goodness me, who let that in here? What is the world coming to? Ah yes, it is coming down, isn't it? I say, we'd probably be wise to board some sort of cruise ship, wouldn't we?

Tri: Yes, but how? Dem, dem these infernal thumbless hands we have! Oh, what a bother.

Etc...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 28 September 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by koan brothers:

These are people who have an invisible friend who lives up in the sky and watches everything they do.


This has always struck me as one of the most conceited and arrogant ideas promulgated by the Chritian church: That the Almighty has nothing better to do than follow your personal sorry ass around all day, every day, watching everything that you do.

Then again, I guess he/she's not the only diety to get stuck with that rap.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 28 September 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That the Almighty has nothing better to do than follow your personal sorry ass around all day, every day, watching everything that you do.

Not just watching, but judging. Because omnipotence isn't enough; you also have to be chaste and pure and kind, along with the other 6 billion humans, and worship him as well.

The closest analogy I can think of here on earth would be a human sitting and watching ants all day every day, in case one of them should covet its neighbour's grain of sand, or look lustfully upon the queen or something. Wouldn't we agree that's a pretty bizarre way to waste your life? What's the use of a huge brain, language, and opposable thumbs if all you want to do is obsess over whether some tiny insects are walking around naked and lovin' it?

And to complete the analogy, if an ant should be caught being slothful, or seems a bit too intent on mating, then it's out with the magnifying glass for some solar smiting. That'll put the fear of Bob in 'em!


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572

posted 28 September 2005 01:31 AM      Profile for blacklisted     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
magoo, if you think about it you may have just made the most compelling argument for man being made in god's image. or at least with the same degree of attention to detail.ever wonder if the ants wonder what the hell you're doing when you're not watching them?
every once in a while You smite the ants. end of job description. and tell george to do it too.
meanwhile the ants are busy going nowhere, and who cares, as long as they don't bite Your Ass.
which brings us to the cosmic Orkin man.

From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 September 2005 01:39 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
the Almighty has nothing better to do than follow your personal sorry ass around all day, every day, watching everything that you do.

What else is he going to do?

He doesn't exactly have a peer group to hang with. No point in watching a movie or reading a book - he knew how it ends before the writer did. He used to enjoy watching sparrows fall and not saving them, but that only got PETA on his ass.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 28 September 2005 02:32 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to creationists Trog-Dor was never a dragon. He was a dragon-man. And he never burnt all the peasents in their thatched roof cottages...

THATCHED ROOF COTTAGES


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 28 September 2005 02:52 AM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Scott P's reference and Timothy Findley's 'Not Wanted on the Voyage', where Noah is a gin soaked character lead us directly to Pete Townsend's "And I drunk myself blind to the sound of old T-Rex". Gin is popular with Townsend, it is also mentioned in Quadrophenia! Therefore, it is quite obvious through these creative or 'creation' works, encoded as they are that dinosaurs were indeed present on the Ark. And why are groups like 'The Who' called dinosaurs? Makes ya think hmm....
From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 September 2005 07:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
The closest analogy I can think of here on earth would be a human sitting and watching ants all day every day, in case one of them should covet its neighbour's grain of sand, or look lustfully upon the queen or something. Wouldn't we agree that's a pretty bizarre way to waste your life? What's the use of a huge brain, language, and opposable thumbs if all you want to do is obsess over whether some tiny insects are walking around naked and lovin' it?

So what would the human say to the ant for starters ?. Would they understand?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 28 September 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by blacklisted:
magoo, if you think about it you may have just made the most compelling argument for man being made in god's image. or at least with the same degree of attention to detail.ever wonder if the ants wonder what the hell you're doing when you're not watching them?
every once in a while You smite the ants. end of job description. and tell george to do it too.
meanwhile the ants are busy going nowhere, and who cares, as long as they don't bite Your Ass.
which brings us to the cosmic Orkin man.


The Cosmic Orkin Man! I love that...

Death of Ants
by
Matzu Aardvark

There is an ancient tale told
by Ants, all nimble grim and bold
Of Death awaiting in the wood
A skeletal ant in cloak and hood
Who carries at his three legg'd side
A fearful dark and keen-edged scythe
To free the restless from their chores
And carry them to better shores
where lumps of sugar lie all around
And honey, mixes on the ground
Elysium field for Formicidae
So says the hexipedal Padre
So when the time has come my friend
To meet your maker at the end
Of life devoted to the Queen
You will observe a curious scene
As Death arrives upon his steed
An Aardvark, black and fearsome he
Of flaming eyes and piglike nose
And claws that scratch the dust and toes
That search for tasty souls to eat
Of fallen Ants upon the street
While Death above doth swing his Sycthe
And send them to the other side

The part I never understood was: if God is so omnipotent why did Jesus have to 'die for our sins' before the gates of heaven could be opened for us? Why couldn't the big guy just open the damn gate? Or is that just a Catholic thing? I was never sure...


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 28 September 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blondin:
The part I never understood was: if God is so omnipotent why did Jesus have to 'die for our sins' before the gates of heaven could be opened for us? Why couldn't the big guy just open the damn gate? Or is that just a Catholic thing? I was never sure...

I think the door is open at all time. Nobody really has a patent for the infinity or God, it is everywhere in equal quantity. But can we directly communicate with what is infinite? Probably not. See, psychologically our attention is too absorbed by the particular finites, what consumes almost all of our available energy. That, according to Buddha, leads to suffering and constant rebirth, for infinity doesn’t wait and, by nature, imposes a constant pressure to move on beyond the current levels of awareness and understanding. Ignoring or ignorance of such a progressive process of evolution leads to accumulation of what is called karma (attachment and a result of such, recession of energy) as opposite to dharma (from the verbal root dhri to bear, support; leading to liberty). And, according to early Christian fathers and Gnostics (pre-dogmatic times) that what connects us to this evolution and communion with the powers of infinity is Christ. This Christ, Brahma of Hinduism, is consciousness per se, something that is more or less defined compare to the “unconsciousness” of infinity. This consciousness, once it overcomes and cleans the glueyness to the limited elements of the finite world (idolatry, that encouraged by many so-called Christians), resurrects the individual, who then becomes the Apostle of Christ, thus entering the gates of Freedom. Jesus just illustrated the process as being achieved by the Son of Man going thru the perils of everyday living, thus making this process mainstream so to speak (as opposed to its confinement to the Temples and selected initiates at older times).


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 28 September 2005 01:31 PM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:

I think the door is open at all time. Nobody really has a patent for the infinity or God, it is everywhere in equal quantity. But can we directly communicate with what is infinite? Probably not. See, psychologically our attention is too absorbed by the particular finites, what consumes almost all of our available energy. That, according to Buddha, leads to suffering and constant rebirth, for infinity doesn’t wait and, by nature, imposes a constant pressure to move on beyond the current levels of awareness and understanding. Ignoring or ignorance of such a progressive process of evolution leads to accumulation of what is called karma (attachment and a result of such, recession of energy) as opposite to dharma (from the verbal root dhri to bear, support; leading to liberty). And, according to early Christian fathers and Gnostics (pre-dogmatic times) that what connects us to this evolution and communion with the powers of infinity is Christ. This Christ, Brahma of Hinduism, is consciousness per se, something that is more or less defined compare to the “unconsciousness” of infinity. This consciousness, once it overcomes and cleans the glueyness to the limited elements of the finite world (idolatry, that encouraged by many so-called Christians), resurrects the individual, who then becomes the Apostle of Christ, thus entering the gates of Freedom. Jesus just illustrated the process as being achieved by the Son of Man going thru the perils of everyday living, thus making this process mainstream so to speak (as opposed to its confinement to the Temples and selected initiates at older times).


Pull the other one.


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 28 September 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Teacher Says Board Effort on Evolution Was Resisted

NY Times - HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 27 - Science teachers at the high school in Dover repeatedly resisted the school board's efforts to force them to teach creationism on equal footing with evolution in biology class, according to a former teacher who is among those challenging the board in a landmark trial.

The conflict in Dover grew so heated that in public meetings board members called opponents "atheists," threatened to fire the science teachers and invoked Jesus' crucifixion as a reason to change the curriculum, two witnesses testified on Tuesday.

"We would repeatedly tell them, 'We're not going to balance evolution with creationism. It's an inappropriate request,' " said Bryan Rehm, who once taught physics in Dover and is one of 11 plaintiffs in the suit.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 28 September 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
Teacher Says Board Effort on Evolution Was Resisted

NY Times - HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 27 - Science teachers at the high school in Dover repeatedly resisted the school board's efforts to force them to teach creationism on equal footing with evolution in biology class, according to a former teacher who is among those challenging the board in a landmark trial.


what's their problem? Why can't they just teach some pseudo-science along with regular science? Regular science is boring anyway, with all its protons and nanos and so on; who really knows what those are, I mean, really? I don't. If you ask me, science needs a little pizzazz...you know, some gloss and glimmer.

God, on the other hand, is exciting! Creationism! Bang! Boom! Light! Fire! Brimstone! Yeah! Arks and smiting! Now that's what I'm talking about! Kids will finally find science interesting. I mean, what scenario's more exciting to you:

Boring Old Science Teacher: Bla bla bla, humans evolved SLOWLY over millions of years bla bla protons...

OR...

Exciting New Creationist Teacher: Hey kids! Wouldn't it be awesome if we lived at the same time as real dinosaurs, just like in Jurassic Park! Well only a few years ago, we did! Yeah! That's right! And hey, guess what...we aren't from stupid old monkeys (walks around, making monkey faces; children laugh uproariously), but were created in God's image! We look like little Gods! Awesome! Alright! Now, let's all listen to Creed, because they're an accessible contemporary Christian rock group which you identify with! Alright!

Case Closed. We should never allow truth to get in the way of entertainment.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 28 September 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I thought Venus_man summed it up very eloquently: the Christian path to Enlightenment. I'm not religious but it looks good even to me.
From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 29 September 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
But that 6000 year bit! OMG!!

There are a zillion reasons why that cannot be true. It contradicts not just evolution, but all of modern geology, too. By modern, I mean "after 1700."

For one thing, bones cannot turn to stone in 6000 years. That's why there are no fossilized mammoths, or sabre-toothed tigers.

For another thing, the various strata of rock which record the life of the earth are 2000 to 5000 feet thick in many places. (Think of the depth of a coal mine, which penetrates only to the carboniferous age).

If the earth is only 6000 years old, that means that almost a foot of sediment is deposited each year. A house would be buried in twenty years!


What usually goes unremarked by the reports on the creation/evolution debates is that there is in fact about 10 different strands of "creationism," some of which keep quite close to the 6,000 years some have calculated from the Bible, to others who more or less completely accept what science says about evolution, except they add the assertion that God started it all.

In fact, there is a rather heated debate between those who say 6,000 years and the day-age creationists who suggest (I kid you not) that each day of creation was followed by millions of years.

There certainly is debate within scientific circles about the precise mechanism of evolution, and the precise sequence of events, and when life first appeared, how specific species are related etc., but nothing as fundamental a difference as there is between the various creationists.

Which brings me to the final point, and that is this "intelligent design" stuff.

If the creationists above would care to actually read what Behe and others say about evolution, they will find that many if not all of the science behind the intelligent design ACCEPTS that evolution took place! They just say at some early point, some structures and processes could not have emerged on their own.

IOW, Behe and others accept Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain much of the world, they just say that there are certain aspects of evolution which cannot be accounted for by natural processes and therefore came about via supernatural intervention.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 29 September 2005 02:15 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, except that experiments have been done that have caused the formation of organic compounds from primitive inorganic chemicals that were known to exist pre-life. All it took was a little spark of electricity. Literally. Not even fire and brimstone.

As far as each day of creation being followed by a million years, how weak is this god, if he needs to take a day of rest after breaking for a million years between each day of work?


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 29 September 2005 10:30 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
IOW, Behe and others accept Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain much of the world, they just say that there are certain aspects of evolution which cannot be accounted for by natural processes and therefore came about via supernatural intervention.

And I for one am prepared to accept that they could be right about that (though I have yet to hear of any supporting evidence).

I have always felt that no matter what we learn about the process or mechanism of evolution and the origins of life, the universe and everything, it is hard to imagine what kind of discovery would ever prove, once and for all, that there was NO intelligent intervention (divine or otherwise) for at least a part of it.

I find it hard to understand why it's so important to the ID crowd to get their message into the science classroom. What do they expect to gain? The ID message seems to be that some things are just too complicated to understand so we should just accept them as proof that God dunnit. Yet the more we investigate the more we learn. The whole suggestion of simply accepting the gaps as perpetually incomprehensible is not only not science, it is anti-science. It's like being forbidden to explore certain parts of the world because somebody wrote "Dragons be here" on a map.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Blondin ]


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 29 September 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blondin:

.... I find it hard to understand why it's so important to the ID crowd to get their message into the science classroom. What do they expect to gain? The ID message seems to be that some things are just too complicated to understand so we should just accept them as proof that God dunnit. Yet the more we investigate the more we learn. The whole suggestion of simply accepting the gaps as perpetually incomprehensible is not only not science, it is anti-science. It's like being forbidden to explore certain parts of the world because somebody wrote "Dragons be here" on a map.


Not that I would want to argue for creationism, but contemporary science itself leaves a "perpetually incomprehensible" gap that we are supposed to accept simply as the "Missing Link" hypothesis. Unless contemporary science has a new explanation for how evolution 'leapt' from primates who don't wear clothes and build office towers to human beings who do, the "missing link" hypothesis is pretty lame, in my opinion, and does kinda throw a big wrench into evolutionary theory. At least as far as the appearance of human beings is concerned.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mersh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10238

posted 29 September 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for mersh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know it's from Wikipedia (the lazy person's research system), but this reference points to how scientists don't actually use the term:

quote:
The missing link is a popular and not a scientific concept. Scientists studying the fossil record have long known that not every species that lived was 'lucky' enough to leave behind a fossil. More importantly, populations are constantly changing and species are statistical constructs and not ideal-types; therefore, there is not scientific meaning to the notion of a "transitional form."

For me, the intriguing question is how we went from having the right conditions and building blocks (organic molecules) to living organisms.


From: toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 29 September 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't buy the concept of perpetual incomprehensibility. "Never say 'never'". Who knows what we'll uncover tomorrow (or the day after)?

I've heard that reconstructing the process of evolution from the sparsely distributed fossils and other clues that we have found so far is like trying to reconstruct the entire Ecyclopedia Brittanica from a couple of hundred pages found blowing down the street. There's no doubt that the theory is full of gaps and the biggest one is right at the start - the origin of life. We may never find the clues to filling all those holes but does that mean we should stop looking?

The IDers seem to get a sense of comfort from being able to point to all the great unknowns as evidence of the great architect in the sky. I believe they are worried that as the gaps diminish they will have less 'evidence' to point to. Here's the scoop, though: lack of evidence never was and never will be evidence of anything. The unknowns can never be anything but unknowns until/unless they become 'knowns'.

I'm a godless heathen but I would support the idea of having a religious studies aspect to the social studies part of a school curriculum. If a kid's family doesn't go to church where else are they going to be exposed to the beliefs and tenets of religion? I mean besides the Vision channel (oh yeah, Touched By An Angel - there's a good wholesome spiritual experience, but don't get me started!).

I just don't think anybody should be advocating blind acceptance of *anything* in science class.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Blondin ]


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 29 September 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
yes, and thanks Mersh for that clarification.

[Edited to remove snarky criticism of TV show which I actually sometimes watch.]

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 30 September 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blondin:

I have always felt that no matter what we learn about the process or mechanism of evolution and the origins of life, the universe and everything, it is hard to imagine what kind of discovery would ever prove, once and for all, that there was NO intelligent intervention (divine or otherwise) for at least a part of it.

It would be literally impossible for science to do the above. Even if it could be shown that the universe COULD have emerged naturally, that doesn't prove it DID.

It is almost impossible, IOW, to disprove a negative.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 30 September 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jas:

Not that I would want to argue for creationism, but contemporary science itself leaves a "perpetually incomprehensible" gap that we are supposed to accept simply as the "Missing Link" hypothesis. Unless contemporary science has a new explanation for how evolution 'leapt' from primates who don't wear clothes and build office towers to human beings who do, the "missing link" hypothesis is pretty lame, in my opinion, and does kinda throw a big wrench into evolutionary theory. At least as far as the appearance of human beings is concerned.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]


It seems you are misinformed on the subject of human evolution.

There are literally hundreds of hominoid skeletons and a fairly firm concensus on the sequence of evolution.

There are no "missing links" per se, just questions of interpretations in terms of how the various hominoid species are related.

There are gaps between the ape precussors like proconsul and more recent ancestors, but the sequence is fairly clear, if open to re-evalution upon new discoveries and analyses.

The fallacy from the creationist side is that the presence of dispute and differing interpretation amongst evolutionists somehow bolsters their side. But if the evolutionists are wrong, the fossils do not vanish into thin air. Creationists do worse than come up with implausible explanations for these specimens - they largely ignore the evidence.

IOW if evolution is not going on here, then what is? Saying God snapped his fingers does little to account for the mountains of evidence which demonstrate evolution occuring. Indeed, we have seen new species emerge since the time of Darwin proving that evolution occurs, and Darwin's explanation of the main process - natural selection - has been reinforced by some 150 years of observation.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 30 September 2005 12:49 AM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blondin:
There's no doubt that the theory is full of gaps and the biggest one is right at the start - the origin of life. We may never find the clues to filling all those holes but does that mean we should stop looking?

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Blondin ]


That's a bit of a misconception.

Evolution is about speciation. The origin of life, though related, is biogenesis, a separate question.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 30 September 2005 11:26 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Temp Name:

It would be literally impossible for science to do the above. Even if it could be shown that the universe COULD have emerged naturally, that doesn't prove it DID.

It is almost impossible, IOW, to disprove a negative.


Yes, exactly my point. This is where I believe a lot of people shoot themselves in the foot by making absolute statements about the impossibility of some things.


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464

posted 30 September 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for Blondin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Temp Name:

That's a bit of a misconception.

Evolution is about speciation. The origin of life, though related, is biogenesis, a separate question.


Of course. I didn't mean to imply they were the same thing. Please forgive my phraseology.


From: North Bay ON | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 30 September 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Temp Name:

It seems you are misinformed on the subject of human evolution.

There are literally hundreds of hominoid skeletons and a fairly firm concensus on the sequence of evolution...


Thanks for the information. I am pretty uninformed in matters of evolutionary evidence.

Interesting though, that popular conceptions of evolutionary theory do still contain the notion of a 'missing link'. Probably because there are no current, apparent species links between our ourselves and our primate cousins.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 30 September 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suspect part of that is people's resistance to the information about exactly how close we are to our primate cousins. The isn't much genetic room for a "missing link"
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 30 September 2005 11:48 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I've heard that's true even for the genetic differences between humans and mice. But in terms of expressed behaviours - the use of technologies alone, and the kinds of technologies used - humans do seem to live far apart from the other primates. This reality, in my opinion, is not currently well-explained by science, or by any other, for that matter.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rambler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10194

posted 30 September 2005 11:50 PM      Profile for Rambler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My junior high school science teacher preached, and I mean preached the word of intellegence design in our classroom. He did it under the guise of just representing the alternatives, but his bias was so creationist it wasn't even funny. He constantly derided evolution and presented "facts" from crackpot creationism publications. Guess he didn't get the memo about it being illegal. Some classmates and I used to get into tremendous rows with him over it.

Basically, his strategy when questioned about his illogical stance was to just arbitrarily make up "facts" about how creationism works. Here are some of his more crackpottish assertations.

-The world used to be covered with a film of water. The atmosphere was thick with it. This was why people lived to be 800-900 years old.
-Dinosaurs were just lizards that lived a long time because of the atmosphere. (Beats me why we don't see tiny triceratops running around today )
-Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. When questioned why we always find dinosaurs in lower levels of rock then human fossils, the response was......Dinosaurs lived in swamps and people lived on the hills.
-to prove dinosaurs lived at the same time as people he quoted a section from the bible about the "Leviathian" which was large, had scales, and...breathed fire.

The biggest hypocricy about "intellegent design" that I can see is that its proponents go to great lengths to dilute the obvious christian fundimentalist beliefs that underlay it. They claim that ALL creationist myths state the world is 6000-10000 years old, and that ALL myths speak of a great flood when that is just horseshit.


From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 01 October 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jas:

Interesting though, that popular conceptions of evolutionary theory do still contain the notion of a 'missing link'. Probably because there are no current, apparent species links between our ourselves and our primate cousins.

It's part of the missinformation that creationists have been spreading for decades, this notion of a "missing link."

Think of it this way, if you discover a distant cousin, say a 4th or 5th cousin (as I have in doing genealogical research), do I dismiss the possibility we have common ancestory because that common ancestor is dead? I'd think not, since a 4th or 5th cousin would be linked by a common ancestor likely dead for a century.

The same goes for the various ape relations we have today. It would be ludicrous to suppose we'd find a LIVING "missing link," we'd, of course, look into the fossil record.

For a good overview of the current thinking of how the known Hominid species are related, go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

There is even a good candidate for most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees - Sahelanthropus tchadensis - which thrived about 6 or 7 million years ago.

A glance at the page will illustrate the huge number and variety of hominid species, their clear relationships in time and location to each other (though the relatedness of certain species is debated and revised constantly), and the misleading contention there is a "missing link."

As I have said before, to pretend that evolution did not occur means that creationists have to come up with another rationale to explain these sequences of fossils, even if they are not related. Instead of attempting to account for these specimens and to counter the other evidence for our inter-relatedness, they largely ignore the evidence and use utterly misleading arguments.

Like evolution is "only" a theory, misrepresenting what is meant by that word. You don't hear the same sort of complaints about the "theory of gravity." If someone comes up with a new explanation for gravity, it doesn't mean that you suddenly start floating away, or that gravity ceases to occur because it is "only" a theory.

Similarily, if Darwin's theory - Natural Selection - is discarded (it WAS discarded during his lifetime, BTW, in favour of Lamarkian evolution, only subsequently re-adopted once genetics were discovered), the FACT of evolution still must be accounted for.

And this is what creationists consistently ignore - Evolution itself is a proven FACT, something which is demonstrably occuring every single day. The PROCESS of Evolution is the "theory," like the process of Gravity, or the phenomena of light, and may not be perfectly understood, or may undergo revision in terms of our understanding, but that in no way stops the phenomena from occuring.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good post, Mr. T!

I think the term "missing link" was used in the original attack on Darwin in the 1860's, because he insisted that humans were part of the evolutionary process. (His co-discoverer of evolution, Wallace, claimed that humans were "above a God-created line", ie. that only humans had not evolved; all other animals had.

So, in 1862 there really was a jump between humans and the closest known ancestor, chimpanzees. When neanderthal bones were discovered, everyone wondered "Is this the missing link?"

By now, as Mr. T. has shown, there are a dozen species links between humans and apes.

----
I am still enthralled with the idea, above, that there were dinosaurs on the arc. Baby dinosaurs, they tell us! (Big ones would sink the ol' arc.)

But, did these cuties get thrown overboard, or eaten, or what? Cause they didn't get off the arc and procreate, did they?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 01 October 2005 07:55 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cause they didn't get off the arc and procreate, did they?

Of course they did...they're all in the Bush cabinet now...

One small quibble, chimpanzees are not a human 'ancestor', they are a human cousin with which we share a common ancestor (as Mr T pointed out).

Also someone made a good point about gravity. We know it exists, but have no idea what causes it.

Does that mean if someone comes along and says there is no such thing as gravity. If they say it is Gods's hand that is pushing things back toward earth, must we teach that in science class as well?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
redneck leftie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4681

posted 01 October 2005 08:18 PM      Profile for redneck leftie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My gawd, this is a fascinating thread. As most of you know I am completely uneducated and just go by visceral to suss out. I personally don't care about the creationists and the evolutionists, what I do care about is what happens to some of us when we are AWAKE. We dream, so do all four leggeds as far as I can tell. But awake Humans do more than anything else. I mean the other worldly experiences we can't explain. For the solid grounded person, who had no religious experience, but had untold (what they now call spiritual experiences), they have a tendency to figure out if it was religious or not. But I am convinced by my own experiences that they are Natural. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is within our makeup to have these other-worldly experiences, simply a function of our brain. For what tho? I imagine just To Wonder. Which would go well in hand with evolution. Because wondering gets things discovered and shared for all.
Two things I can't figure out. One is, I have seen with my own eyes about 5 prototype human facial features that is cross race. So I have seen the same physical facial characteristics that cross race. The first time I recognized it, or my brain recognized it, I was simply stunned. Viscerally.
The other is what is considered NEWS of today. As in the Gorilla using tools. During my time in Africa, it was simply considered normal to see gorillas using tools, even chimpanzees for that matter. The chimpanzees had calculated the scenic spots that tourists stopped in, waited for them to get out, and then viciously chomped down on their hands. That seemed a tad planned/calculated to me. When I asked about it to S. Africans, they agreed this is common with chimpanzees. So were they not using the tool of their brain?

From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 01 October 2005 08:40 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, I've heard that's true even for the genetic differences between humans and mice. But in terms of expressed behaviours - the use of technologies alone, and the kinds of technologies used - humans do seem to live far apart from the other primates. This reality, in my opinion, is not currently well-explained by science, or by any other, for that matter.

It's not even hard. Technology is a positive feedback loop. Positive feedback loops go a long way in a short time if there is nothing holding them back.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 01 October 2005 08:43 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also someone made a good point about gravity. We know it exists, but have no idea what causes it.

Speak for yourself.


Cartoon Laws of Physics

quote:
Gravity is transmitted by slow-moving waves of large wavelengths.
Their operation can be wittnessed by observing the behavior of a canine suspended over a large vertical drop. Its feet will begin to fall first, causing its legs to stretch. As the wave reaches its torso, that part will begin to fall, causing the neck to strech. As the head begins to fall, tension is released and the canine will resume its regular proportions until such time as it strikes the ground.


From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 01 October 2005 09:19 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not so sure about those cartoon laws that say it is a wave. Think about the coyote chasing the roadrunner - until he notices that's he's gone over the cliff he just stands there in mid air, once he notices he falls all at once. Sounds like a particle force to me ...
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 01 October 2005 10:25 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You may be right. That is the first law of the Cartoon Laws of Physics after all.

quote:
Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.

Daffy Duck steps off a cliff, expecting further pastureland. He loiters in midair, soliloquizing flippantly, until he chances to look down. At this point, the familiar principle of 32 feet per second per second takes over.



From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 01 October 2005 10:30 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was a game called "Toon" many years ago. All cartoon physics. I think my favourite rule was the one that said if anything that got cut (branch off tree, hole in floor, etc.) the odds were even about which one fell down.
Still around.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: jrootham ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463

posted 02 October 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for Mr Temp Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
Think about the coyote chasing the roadrunner - until he notices that's he's gone over the cliff he just stands there in mid air, once he notices he falls all at once. Sounds like a particle force to me ...

My fave cartoon gravity moment is one where Bugs Bunny tricks Yosemite Sam into running over a cliff. Yosemite clues in to the fact that he is not on solid ground a promptly goes zooming down.

Then he pops up back up, says to Bugs "I hate you," and goes zooming back down.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 02 October 2005 02:11 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cartoon physics...I don't think you're treating the subject with enough gravity.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 02 October 2005 03:14 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PlEASE tell me babble has a hall of infamously bad puns.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 02 October 2005 08:55 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the term "missing link" was used in the original attack on Darwin in the 1860's

Another 'missing link'-type mistaken impression is that a set of transitional forms existed completely covering the variation between the start and endpoints in question.

So, in the case of whales, you might be asked 'well, where are all the fossils of animals with their noses slightly higher, and slightly higher than that, and so on, until the nose has moved all the way to the top of the head and becomes a blowhole?'.

Doesn't work that way: a genetic shift or mutation can create a major change in the appearance of the next generation of offspring--if it renders the organism more fit, then it'll likely be passed on.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 02 October 2005 04:12 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:

Another 'missing link'-type mistaken impression is that a set of transitional forms existed completely covering the variation between the start and endpoints in question.

So, in the case of whales, you might be asked 'well, where are all the fossils of animals with their noses slightly higher, and slightly higher than that, and so on, until the nose has moved all the way to the top of the head and becomes a blowhole?'.

Doesn't work that way: a genetic shift or mutation can create a major change in the appearance of the next generation of offspring--if it renders the organism more fit, then it'll likely be passed on.


You've hit upon the major point of disagreement between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

Gould (and Niles Eldridge) positted 'punctuated equilibrium', suggesting long periods of stability punctuated by brief periods of larger change, while Dawkins was a proponent of the multitude of small changes school.

Myself I tend towards 'many small changes' evolution. It's true that the fossil record has gaps. but it's likely those gaps are a result of the fossilization process itself.

Fossilization occurs only under certain conditions, and soft tissue doesn't fossilize at all. Given that, it's not surprising there are gaps.

Yet it's also true that larger mutations can happen, and be beneficial. Larger changes are less likely to be beneficial, however. After all, if you already have a functioning complex organism any large mutation is more likely to be harmful.

Another point in Dawkins favour is the fact of the time periods we're talking about. A lot of small changes can add up over a period of a hundred thousand years.

At the same time, I've read many of Gould's books and articles on evolution, and he's one of my favourite science writers.

A great explanation of Dawkins position is in his book, 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 02 October 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where would humans and whales have shared a common ancestor? Did they even have a nose at all? It's entirely possible that both structures evolved entirely independently.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
blacklisted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8572

posted 02 October 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for blacklisted     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
you're totally ignoring the one theory which explains the whole thing.
http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php
and no supernatural beings ,lizards,or angels.
just friendly little aliens.

From: nelson,bc | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 02 October 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think the punctuated equilibrium idea and the accumulation of small changes are in fact contradictory. There is a lot of time available for evolution. So long periods of relative stability interspersed with relatively shorter periods of many changes makes sense to me. The evidence is a little light to confirm this, otherwise there wouldn't be the argument.

Assuming that geological changes are a major evolution driver it's pretty clear that some significant chages are pretty abrupt. Geology is catastrophic (think San Andreas), so responses to it need to be fairly rapid.

Note that when I say rapid, I mean at least tens to hundreds of generations, possibly longer. Slow is on the order of a million generations.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 October 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blondin: I find it hard to understand why it's so important to the ID crowd to get their message into the science classroom. What do they expect to gain?

In his book, What's the matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank pointed out, in relation to "intelligent design", the use of wedge issues by the backlash ideologues in the US. It is interesting that the Discovery intelligent design website has deleted the article that Frank referred to in his book. The Discovery website has, however, placed an article on their site in an effort to "debunk" the claim that there ever was such an article on their site.

Their disingeniousness is instructive. Here is the relevant quote that Frank provided in his book.

quote:
We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points...

Getting ID into science classes is a "wedge" approach to attacking philosophical materialism. That's why it's important to get their message into the classroom.

100 years ago some left-winger by the name of Ulyanov wrote a book called Materialism and Empirio-Criticism on such ideological warfare by right-wingers of his time. Perhaps another book along the same lines, updated with the latest crap from the right, would be very useful today.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
gerlarad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9377

posted 02 October 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for gerlarad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Give up!. You are dealing with "People of Faith; wishful-thinking that crystalized into dogma.

Faith defies logic. Faith allows young boys in the middle-east to kill themselves, believing that as soon as they go "kaboom", they will somehow be transported to an eden where they will have 72 virgins tethered outside their silken tents, awaiting for their attention.

There already mass suicide who wanted to catch the tail of a comet.

Faith might even totally replace science in certain location. Hell there is a substantial number of people who are living just as their ancestors did in biblical times...


From: Victoria B.C | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 October 2005 06:29 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Faith is far too important to be left to people who have no faith in humanity as conscious authors of our cosmic fate; furthermore, no one social group can claim a monopoly on matters of faith in general.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 02 October 2005 10:09 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is interesting that the Discovery intelligent design website has deleted the article that Frank referred to in his book. The Discovery website has, however, placed an article on their site in an effort to "debunk" the claim that there ever was such an article on their site.

You're probably referring to the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture's Wedge Strategy.

(the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture is now called the Center for Science & Culture. See here for more info.)

[ 02 October 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 03 October 2005 02:28 AM      Profile for CourtneyGQuinn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
though i believe in evolution/mutations....i often wonder if a creationalist in the past initiated intelligent design

key word- mitochondrial DNA

what if a "Mitochondrial Eve" was created by an "Alien Adam"?....


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 03 October 2005 03:06 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Umm...mitochondrial DNA is due to fairly well supported theory that early eukaryotic cells were inhabited by a prokaryotic cell. The eukaryotic cells and prokaryotic cells were able to co-exist in a mutually beneficial environment. The eukaryotic cell was a safe and nutrient rich environment for the prokaryotic cell, and the prokaryotic cell was a more efficient metabolic energy producer for the eukaryote compared to its own metabolic machinery. Unlike most of your ideas, this is not a radical crankpot theory, it's well accepted and is supported by evidence. It's also how chloroplasts, and peroxisomes, emerged in eukaryotic cells.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 03 October 2005 04:09 AM      Profile for CourtneyGQuinn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
so...i was lying in bed trying to sleep but i couldn't stop thinking about mtDNA-evolution-creationism.....the whole theory about a possible Mitochondrial/African Eve seems to indicate that all humans are the offspring of one or a few dozen women from approx 150 000 years ago....

this theory/explanation can't seem to come about from evolution alone....why are all humans the offspring of so few?....i mean...why aren't there hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of different mtDNA lineages?....how could so few (or even one) women populate the entire globe?...are we to believe that only a few mutant female monkies evolved, mated and changed the course of history (or herstory i guess )....

anyway...i'm digressing....

does anyone know how many different mtDNA lineages there are for other primates and mammals?....are all modern monkies/mice/donkeys/dolphins the result of one or a small few incredibly successful females?....or are humans the only species with such limited mtDNA lines?...(i need sleep...i'll research tomorrow)


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 03 October 2005 04:16 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You've mistaken the meaning of Mitochondrial Eve.

While it is true that there is a single woman who is the 'mother' of all humans, she was not the only woman alive at the time. There were many women about, but those maternal lines died out.

For a complete explanation of Mitochondrial Eve see Richard Dawkins, 'River Out Of Eden'. It explains clearly why Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
CourtneyGQuinn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5068

posted 03 October 2005 04:44 AM      Profile for CourtneyGQuinn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
maestro---

thanks for info...i'll read more about Richard Dawkins

one more thought before i call it a night....i'm guessing that dogs/donkeys/cats/cows have smaller mtDNA lines then say wild deer or dolphins....a creationalist, intelligent designer (humans) bred certain traits causing domesticated animals....selective genetic manipulation has served humans well....i doubt that small, cute, cuddly lapdogs would have evolved in the wild...yet they exist....(i remember reading an article saying that up until as recently as 1000 years ago there was only a couple of dozen different dog breeds worldwide)


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 03 October 2005 05:18 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Carl Zimmer wrote an article about mtEve in Natural History 4 years ago, After You, Eve

quote:
Newspaper reports on Wilson’s 1987 paper dubbed this African woman “mitochondrial Eve.” But despite the biblical overtones, she was not the sole female progenitor of all living humans. She was simply the most recent female ancestor to whom we can all trace this particular genealogical connection. Mitochondrial Eve existed alongside thousands of other women in Africa, all of whom had mitochondrial genes of their own. Many of those other women had children who inherited their genes, and some of their descendants had children with mitochondrial Eve’s descendants. But over the course of thousands of years, the other mitochondrial lineages gradually disappeared. A lineage would have vanished if the women carrying it died without having children or gave birth only to sons. As these different mitochondrial genes were dropping out, Eve’s were becoming more widespread.

From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 17 October 2005 11:07 AM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:

It's not even hard. Technology is a positive feedback loop. Positive feedback loops go a long way in a short time if there is nothing holding them back.

Something seems too pat to me about this explanation, jrootham, and it would seem to have to explain a lot in the case of human speciation. Are there examples in other species where this can be demonstrated? And hypothetically (if you have the time), how would it play itself out in the divergence between humans and other primates? Or is there some reading on this that you know of? Thanks.


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 24 October 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Penguins" director tells right-wingers to stuff it

Puzzle of the penguin trek parable

The Times - IT WOULD seem extraordinary that a film about penguins trekking 70 miles through sub-zero temperatures and 120mph winds could be seized upon by the American religious right as a parable about monogamy and creationism. But that was exactly what happened when March of the Penguins became the surprise hit at the American box office this year.

Yesterday, days before the film’s British premiere at The Times bfi London Film Festival next week, the director hit back at the commentators he believes have wilfully misread his film. “If you want an example of monogamy, penguins are not a good choice,” Luc Jacquet told The Times. “The divorce rate in emperor penguins is 80 to 90 per cent each year,” he said. “After they see the chick is OK, most of them divorce. They change every year.”
...
“It does annoy me to a certain degree,” he said. “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way. Some scientists I know find the film interesting because it can be a good argument against intelligent design. People should not jump on these bandwagons.”


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847

posted 28 October 2005 05:38 PM      Profile for Swannie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Snuckles:

Read it here.

[ 26 September 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]


Not so much breaking new ground as spreading new manure on the ground.


From: Denton, TX | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swannie:

Not so much breaking new ground as spreading new manure on the ground.


I stopped reading the article when I hit this quote: "When dinosaurs lived with man."

You cannot logically discuss this issue with "intelligent designers" because they cannot discuss the issue in a rational, objective and analytical manner.

Personally, I think that the sentence should have read: "When dinosaurs and Martians lived with man."


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 28 October 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now look...there's evidence that Dinsoaurs still live with man. Dilbert lives with Bob, Dawn, and Rex.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 05:51 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Now look...there's evidence that Dinsoaurs still live with man. Dilbert lives with Bob, Dawn, and Rex.

Oh, shit...I forgot about them.

My bad.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847

posted 28 October 2005 05:52 PM      Profile for Swannie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Temp Name:

It would be literally impossible for science to do the above. Even if it could be shown that the universe COULD have emerged naturally, that doesn't prove it DID.

It is almost impossible, IOW, to disprove a negative.


But it would disprove the ID claim that current life COULD NOT have emerged naturally. Science cannot disprove any assertion that intelligent design was responsible for any outcome: that something's emergence is entirely consistent with nonintelligent natural processes means that it is reasonable for science to conclude that it results from such natural processes; but it does not prove that the outcome was not due to intelligence. For example, a result of 9 heads and 11 tails for 20 coins lying on the ground is entirely consistent with a random toss of 20 coins; but it is nevertheless possible that someone purposefully arranged 9 heads and 11 tails on the ground.


From: Denton, TX | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I gotta admit…I went bad to read a little more of the WP article (strangely, it attracted me in a way not dissimilar to a good article in “The Onion”).

But the cool thing is, that even The Onion could not in a million year (and certainly not in 6,000 years) have come up with this gem:

"When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too."

Yeah, and monkeys flew out of their butts, too.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847

posted 28 October 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Swannie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:

Another 'missing link'-type mistaken impression is that a set of transitional forms existed completely covering the variation between the start and endpoints in question.

So, in the case of whales, you might be asked 'well, where are all the fossils of animals with their noses slightly higher, and slightly higher than that, and so on, until the nose has moved all the way to the top of the head and becomes a blowhole?'.

Doesn't work that way: a genetic shift or mutation can create a major change in the appearance of the next generation of offspring--if it renders the organism more fit, then it'll likely be passed on.


The most-important Creationist law is the Law of Multiplication of Missing Links: wherever there is a gap in the fossil record, if a new fossil is found that fits into that gap, this results in two gaps bracketing the new fossil.


From: Denton, TX | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847

posted 28 October 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for Swannie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raos:
Where would humans and whales have shared a common ancestor? Did they even have a nose at all? It's entirely possible that both structures evolved entirely independently.

To start with, both are mammals, so they have a common ancestor in mammalian history. The closest modern land-dwelling kin of the whale is the hippopotamus, which does have a nose.


From: Denton, TX | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 06:06 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
So, in the case of whales, you might be asked 'well, where are all the fossils of animals with their noses slightly higher, and slightly higher than that, and so on, until the nose has moved all the way to the top of the head and becomes a blowhole?'.

You know what the really funny thing is, aRoused? Back in the days of the Garden of Eden, a whale's blowhole and asshole were the same thing. But, God soon found out that it was difficult for the whales to breath through their assholes. So, he waived his magic wand (yes, he has magic wand) and...poof!!...the blowhole was moved to the place it is found today (6,000 year later).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847

posted 28 October 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Swannie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CourtneyGQuinn:
so...i was lying in bed trying to sleep but i couldn't stop thinking about mtDNA-evolution-creationism.....the whole theory about a possible Mitochondrial/African Eve seems to indicate that all humans are the offspring of one or a few dozen women from approx 150 000 years ago....

this theory/explanation can't seem to come about from evolution alone....why are all humans the offspring of so few?....i mean...why aren't there hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of different mtDNA lineages?....how could so few (or even one) women populate the entire globe?...are we to believe that only a few mutant female monkies evolved, mated and changed the course of history (or herstory i guess )....

anyway...i'm digressing....

does anyone know how many different mtDNA lineages there are for other primates and mammals?....are all modern monkies/mice/donkeys/dolphins the result of one or a small few incredibly successful females?....or are humans the only species with such limited mtDNA lines?...(i need sleep...i'll research tomorrow)



Note that it does not mean that there was only one human woman at that time, only that all current humans derive from only one woman alive at a given time, however many other females may have lived then. And the evidence is that the rest of humanity wandered out of Africa and populated the earth.

The evidence relates to the numbers of mutations in mtDNA, which derives only from the mother so is not mixed around in sexual reproduction. The evidence is that all humans had a common ancestor about 150k years ago.

WHY should it be so? No one knows. It's not a question that appears amenable to scientific study. Yes, many reasons can be conjectured; but there's no untouched crime scene for the CSI investigators to investigate.

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I stopped reading the article when I hit this quote: "When dinosaurs lived with man."

You cannot logically discuss this issue with "intelligent designers" because they cannot discuss the issue in a rational, objective and analytical manner.

Personally, I think that the sentence should have read: "When dinosaurs and Martians lived with man."


Hey, there's no evidence that the dinosaurs and the Martians lived with humans at the same time! Just because they were both green doesn't mean that they were contemporaries.


From: Denton, TX | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 28 October 2005 08:21 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swannie:
Hey, there's no evidence that the dinosaurs and the Martians lived with humans at the same time! Just because they were both green doesn't mean that they were contemporaries.
Oh, that wasn't a bit nice...You have made me very angry... very angry indeed!

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 November 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kansas School Board Redefines Science

NY Times - Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science.

In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth.

The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it.

On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.

The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin's opponents, said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations."


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 November 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
...While it is true that there is a single woman who is the 'mother' of all humans, she was not the only woman alive at the time. There were many women about, but those maternal lines died out...
So there is one direct line of daughters from Mitochondrial Eve to the present; M.Eve's daughter had a daughter, who had a daughter, who had a daughter, etc; and each one passed her mitochondrial DNA to her daughter. For all the other women who lived then, there was at some point in their lines a daughter who had no daughter, but could have had sons; so she would have descendants but they would not have her mitochondrial DNA.

An analogy would be in genealogy, where a man's children would have his last name; and the daughters would then marry and take their husband's last names, so only the sons had the original last name. So if at one point the male descendants had only daughters then their last name would be lost; and the line is said to have "daughtered out".

So M.Eve is the only woman of her time whose line did not "son out".

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 28 November 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Christian High Schools Claim Discrimination Against California State Universities For Not Crediting Courses

Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson

NY Times - INTELLIGENT design isn't the only flashpoint in the battle over religion in the nation's classrooms. On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

Among those courses are "Christianity's Influence in American History" and "Christianity and American Literature," both of which draw on textbooks published by Bob Jones University of Greenville, S.C., which describes itself as having stood for "the absolute authority of the Bible since 1927."

The plaintiffs, the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools in California, and the Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, Calif., contend that their students are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. The university system counters that it has the right to set its own standards. Here are excerpts from the disputed texts....

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: Transplant ]


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca