Author
|
Topic: In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
|
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764
|
posted 26 September 2005 03:10 AM
quote: Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near CincinnatiBy 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
|
|
|
|
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764
|
posted 26 September 2005 04:05 AM
See also New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory quote: Pa. Trial Will Ask Whether 'Alternatives' Can Pass as ScienceBy 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
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 26 September 2005 05:51 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960
|
posted 26 September 2005 04:03 PM
School board in court over attempt to sideline Darwin's theoryThe 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
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 26 September 2005 07:11 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723
|
posted 27 September 2005 10:31 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 28 September 2005 01:39 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464
|
posted 28 September 2005 11:35 AM
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
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
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
Teacher Says Board Effort on Evolution Was ResistedNY 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
quote: Originally posted by Transplant: Teacher Says Board Effort on Evolution Was ResistedNY 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
|
|
|
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463
|
posted 29 September 2005 01:04 AM
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
|
|
|
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464
|
posted 29 September 2005 10:30 AM
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
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
|
|
|
Blondin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10464
|
posted 29 September 2005 03:07 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463
|
posted 30 September 2005 12:46 AM
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Temp Name
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10463
|
posted 01 October 2005 05:20 PM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242
|
posted 01 October 2005 08:43 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842
|
posted 02 October 2005 04:12 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 02 October 2005 04:57 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764
|
posted 02 October 2005 10:09 PM
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 04:09 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960
|
posted 24 October 2005 02:42 PM
"Penguins" director tells right-wingers to stuff itPuzzle 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
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
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
|
|
|
|
Swannie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7847
|
posted 28 October 2005 05:52 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 28 October 2005 06:06 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960
|
posted 15 November 2005 11:58 AM
Kansas School Board Redefines ScienceNY 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
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
Christian High Schools Claim Discrimination Against California State Universities For Not Crediting CoursesHere'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
|
|
|