The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 this week to submit the Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which would guarantee the freedom of teachers and students in Florida public schools who challenge theories of Darwinism, for debate in the Senate.
Lawmakers felt prompted for the need of an academic freedom bill after the Florida Board of Education voted for the first time in its history to require the teaching of evolution in schools back in February.
According to lawmakers, teachers who opposed or were critical of Darwinism felt threatened by administrators and were purposely denied class planning time and other privileges.
The new bill, however, would guarantee the freedom of both teachers and students to share their views in the classroom without fears of reprisal.
"There are a variety of ways that people in leadership, other class members and teachers and department heads and principals can intimidate teachers from presenting the full range," said Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, the bill’s sponsor, according to the Palm Beach Post.
Opponents of the bill, however, argued that it was unconstitutional and nothing more than a masked agenda for the promotion of religion in schools.
“This bill is bad for education, it’s bad for our efforts to bring the biotech industry to Florida and it’s bad for the constitution,” said Rebecca Steele, Tampa regional director of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to News Press.
Senate Republican leader Daniel Webster countered criticism of the new bill, pointing out that evolution was a “theory” with “flaws” and that it was important to guarantee basic academic freedom.
"The point is are we or are we not going to have academic freedom? This is going to go a long way in allowing flaws in whatever theory is presented to be pointed out without fear of retribution by someone over you,” he explained, according to News Press.
In addition to Florida, two other states, Missouri and Louisiana, have also submitted Academic freedom legislation.
RSS
.jpg)
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Seeing as Woot's post was wongly censored, I am taknig it upon myself to repost what they cited.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
agentorange
Re:No it’s not star, I drew a correlation that perhaps, just maybe, possibly, you were the one flagging him and got him ejected as a result of you have flagged Howard (by your own admission), myself, and others earlier along with calling CP to have certain accounts expunged.
I have never flagged Howard. When he went by the name Dwen, I flagged once a comment he made to Slacker. I admited I flagged him and I apologized to Dwen later. He thanked me for apologizing.
I have flagged you several times, usually after your repeated ungodly attacks against me and my God. I flagged you once for your use of profanity. I get tired of it, you know.
Once CP identifies someone who is abusing the system like first/danny2/danny did on that Sunday in march 08, they went and deleted all his comments he had made on CP. That was their decision, not mine. They did it to him when he went by the name Dwen. Again that was their decision not mine.
If CP just loved me so much and highly regarded my opinion so much, then when I get flagged for saying stuff that is true and/or biblical they would restore my flagged messages. They don't. My stuff is less offensive in my opinion than anything you atheists/agnostics say.
Believe me CP does not love me and highly respect my opinion like you are suggesting. They respectfully listen to what I say, they investigate, and they make their own decisions.
Your defense of your arguments are getting to be a joke.
CP makes their own decision about who gets expunged. I don't make those decisions. Get real. Like I said, I don't own CP nor do I run it.
“This is a contradiction agentorange.”
No it’s not star, I drew a correlation that perhaps, just maybe, possibly, you were the one flagging him and got him ejected as a result of you have flagged Howard (by your own admission), myself, and others earlier along with calling CP to have certain accounts expunged.
“You need to get the facts before you make the accusations that you make. Wrong information, lack of information will lead someone to the wrong conclusion. You do that quite often.”
Facts summary: Star flags people? Check. Star in the past admitted to contacting CP to have certain accounts removed? Check. So, where are the missing facts that I need to understand you’re not flagging others and getting them booted?
“Did I flag your first entry? Yes, I did because of the remark you made of my Lord and Savior. I am sick of it.”
Did you flag my entry, now there I a rhetorical question. Well of course, I knew you did. It’s quite apparent. And why did you exactly? CP didn’t find it offensive, so perhaps you over reached just a tad? If you’d noticed I wasn’t offending your god, I was commenting on how I don’t need to call him a zombie or infer to continually saying Christians are magic lovers like Danny was doing and thus I am not acting in a profane manner. I am using his horrid acts to show that I don't need to disrepect you in such a manner, and yet still flagged.
“You do that quite often. Evolution is based on wrong assumptions and a lack of information. Evolution is nothing but a fairy tale full of magic.”
Wrong assumptions, lack of information like? Call it magic star, it doesn’t offend me, but we know the same can’t be said if Danny, or anyone for that matter says it of your beliefs now don’t we.
agentorange
>>>>....my past accounts were also targeted, ....<<<<
Lots of people have had to deal with this. One good example of someone's who was, who NEVER uses any type of questionable language, insulting speech, etc. was 'wilderness'. CP has very high standards, which have become even more rigorous recently (in great part thanks to first/danny.....), which is one of the things you have to deal with when you're on a Christian site vs. a non-Christian site. I, for one, think it's worth it.
agentorange
agentorange said : "contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past.
Then agentorange said: "I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed"
This is a contradiction agentorange.
If someone goes nuts and abuses the system, which first/danny2/danny did back in March 08, then CP will remove that person. Even if I didn't complain on that Sunday when he was doing it along with at least three other people who complained via email, CP would have removed him anyway because they would have seen all the comments flagged. They know who flaggs what. What they don't know is 'why'.
You need to get the facts before you make the accusations that you make. Wrong information, lack of information will lead someone to the wrong conclusion. You do that quite often. Evolution is based on wrong assumptions and a lack of information. Evolution is nothing but a fairy tale full of magic.
Agentorange said "‘Magic’ is a profane word now?"
You know what I am talking about. I have had many dialogs with you. You have used profanity.
You are a L I A R to say that you haven't.
agentorange said :I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ "
There was no need for you to even bring this up. Do I find it offensive? You bet I did. Was this a way for you to express your opinion of my Savior and the Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ by concealing it in an example thinking that you could get away with it? I was offended by you even bringing it up. It is probably how you think anyway, isn't it agentorange?
Did I flag your first entry? Yes, I did because of the remark you made of my Lord and Savior. I am sick of it.
One day God bring you into account for all you have said and done.
I cannot understand why CP even restored your flagged message. But, they make the decisions, not me, even though you claim that I control them in that.
“I don't flag too often”
If by too often you mean not always, then yes, but I find censorship generally a one-way street here. Others and I have changed our logins countless times when not being outright censored, can you say the same for you?
‘But there is a limit to my tolerance.”
So as soon as ‘magic’ is used, then it’s all over it seems. Well, how else is one to define ‘how god did it’ but by essentially invoking supernatural magic? Time to call a spade a spade folks. If it’s short on descriptive explanation and offers nothing on details on ‘how’ it was accomplished and the only recourse is to refer to scripture in which ‘god spoketh’ and the universe, galaxies, stars, and planets
I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed, but I know you’ve done it in the past, so I draw the correlation there.
“Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles”
Exactly what I mean, mostly a one-way street, but perhaps it’s revenge for something Howard flagged right?
“Sometimes you use profane words.”
‘Magic’ is a profane word now? I think others here can attest to my language usage and it’s not been anywhere near hate speech., especially not the type Danny and the aliases he’s had have used. Let’s be brutally honest star, I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ and other ridicule as I know this is disrespectful, and still I am flagged…WHY?
Ok star, I don’t understand you. You’re a walking contradiction. I posted this earlier and you (or apparently you) flagged it….WHY? What is hate full about it at all? And STILL it’s flagged…WHY?
“I don't flag too often”
If by too often you mean not always, then yes, but I find censorship generally a one-way street here. I and others have changed our logins countless times when not being outright censored, can you say the same for you?
‘But there is a limit to my tolerance.”
So as soon as ‘magic’ is used, then it’s all over it seems. Well, how else is one to define ‘how god did it’ but by essentially invoking supernatural magic? I am not accusing you of flagging Howards posts or getting him removed, but I know you’ve done it in the past, so I draw the correlation there.
“Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles”
Exactly what I mean, mostly a one-way street, but perhaps it’s revenege for something Howard flagged right?
“Sometimes you use profane words.”
‘Magic’ is a profane word now? I think others here can attest to my language usage and it’s not been anywhere near hate speech., especially not the type Danny and the aliases he’s had have used. Let’s be brutally honest star, I choose not to offend you by saying Christ was a ‘stinking zombie corpse’ and other ridicule as I know this is disrespectful despite how I disagree with it.
It's not reasonable to expect a non-Christian to respect Christian ideas.
agentorange
Re:contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past.
This is foolish. I don't own or run CP. They make their own decisions on who they bar and for what reason(s).
agentorange
Re:It's not hard seeing Star falgg such comments as she's done in the past, or contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past. But I wont presume anything, I'l let her speak for herself here.
I don't flag too often. I am usually fairly tolerant of your antiChristain ramps that you, and Howard/Dwen/asdfg/oldguy/first/danny2/danny/BobC and who knows what else he goes by posts on a regular basis. But there is a limit to my tolerance.
I did not report Howard to CP. I reported first/danny2/danny via telephone when he went on his flagging rampage back in March. Others reported him via email.
Last night someone went crazy and flagged Howard's posts on many different articles. It was not me. I was laying down because I was tired and didn't feel well when all that was happening.
CP has new rules they go by now regarding flags. If you flag yourself, then your flag will be removed fairly quickly. If someone else flags you, then CP will review that flag to see if it was in any way offensive. If not, then CP will restore the flagged message.
If you use any kind of profane word in your post, then when you hit the submit button, the s/w will scan it and rufuse to post what you wrote and will give you a message that if it happens again you will be barred from the CP community. So Mr. Agentorange, clean up your vocabulary. Sometimes you use profane words.
Now I will admit agentorange you have toned down your attacks on anti-evolutionists and the Christian God but you do relaspe into it some. You can discuss your ideas without such attacks. You are quite capable of writing about your opinion without all your defamatory remarks about Christians and their God.
Seedplanter,
If howard was who others think he was, then by comparison of the postings on this topic, it wasn’t quite the same. Alas I can’t hold hands and hope he plays nice, and yet others have no qualms in openly censoring anything offending. Particularly the use of the word ‘magic’ which is nothing short of ridicule, but one must see it from his perspective in which there is no other symbolic way of inferring how ‘god did it’ but to refer to it as magic. So, if it’s simply a play on words, then perhaps those that censor him shouldn’t censor, but instead rebuke his statements how its’ not magic, or supernatural but something else. The guy is essentially calling it what it is and he’s censored for it. To me, that is not ethical either. Time to call a spade and spade.
Agent, you are too modest. If I remember correct you actually admonished the guy to be a bit more cordial in his discussion, recognizing that Christian bashing gets no accommodations, not only on the boards, but also in deconverting people over to atheism.
GeorgeX,
Get used to it around here. I can understand flagging hate speech, but around here it seems more often outright censorship occurs even on otherwise not overly hostile posts. It's not hard seeing Star falgg such comments as she's done in the past, or contacting CP and having Howards account banned which she's also done in the past. But I wont presume anything, I'l let her speak for herself here. To me, Howard didn't have to refer to it as 'magic' to get the point across, and yet it strikes a strong enough nerve to want to flag and ban outright. Regardless of Howard and if he is who some suspect him to be, my past accounts were also targeted, flagged, and eventaully banned and my level of cordial dialog isn't even comparable to his and yet it occurs, so it's not soley the comment, but the message is what burns.
Seedplanter: I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that Howard is not Bob, Danny, or whoever. I have a feeling that Howard is Howard. Danny / Bob couldn't contain his anger. Howard is just clearly disdainful of Christians - he doesn't exhibit the anger the other guy did.
George, I think this Howard guy is the same one who likes to rant here on CP under numerous aliases. He at one time went through every single article and flagged everyone. It was truly a sight to see. If this was the same guy, he made a few enemies to say the least. I did not get the chance to read his posts, but I know this guy likes to use the term magic flippantly in reference to Christianity.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
I was just reading the conversation here. I was wondering why does Howard keep saying "Flagged as inappropriate"?
I believe that no one who believes in the Bible has any sense or wisdom compared with me, in accounting for the Creation of the world and all the creatures in it. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Pr 3:19).
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
::begin quote::
Also, it doesn’t state only a single man and a single woman led to all of today’s humans as the oldest mtDNA (female lineage) dates further back then the Y Chromosome DNA (male lineage). ::end quote::
Yes you are correct on this point, I misspoke, my error. I should have said it dates back to 1 male. Although as far as I understand mitochondrial dna points to 1 female as our initial ancestor, but I could be mistaken on that point, it has been some time since I have studied.
“As far as Adam and Eve, the Human Genome project ….”
Actually it was the Geographic Project, but I get you, as the genome project was important in its own right. Also, we know previous H.Sapiens lived prior to the oldest dates we get from genetic studies like from the genographic project, so we know other Sapiens were around, but their lineage didn’t directly lead to ours. The oldest dated H.Sapien fossils are nearly 200,000 years old, while the oldest genetic dates for mtDNA are around 160,000 and less for Y chromosome.
Also, it doesn’t state only a single man and a single woman led to all of today’s humans as the oldest mtDNA (female lineage) dates further back then the Y Chromosome DNA (male lineage). So the oldest records for both the female and male side don’t match in their relative dates, IE they weren’t around at the same time. Now you might think this is weird, but when you consider why this is the case it becomes clearer.
Read something like ‘journey of man’ or ‘Deep Ancestry’., both discuss the details and why the dates differ. I will explain it if you like, but it might take a while.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
Better yet, the very same techniques used to get these dates by the genographic project were also used in researching a partiucular history of the bible, namely Aaron and his priestly decedants.
http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
Howard,
That's really the question, what is it? and if God exists how did he do it?. I do not believe it's really a situation where we have a dilemma between "Either it's a magic trick, or it's not".
It's possible there is a third alternative that is yet to be discovered.
If we take the presupposition that there is no God, we still have to backtrack to the first "something" and wonder where that "something" that begat and resulted in everything else came from. Did it come from nothing? Assuming our current scientific theories are correct, where did the substance to create the big bang come from? We don't know for certain, we can theorize, but if it came from a substance, where did that substance come from and so forth. Causes have Causes.
Theists backtrack as far as they can go and say everything came from "God". The skeptic may ask, so who begat God? by the very definition of God he exists outside the plane of "time" and therefore had no beginning. Therefore, at least in the viewpoint of many theists like myself, it solves the problems induced by the endless backtracking of causes we see in atheism.
Both arguments have their problems and advantages. For me, the theism of Christianity makes the most sense. At some point I believe, there was an un-caused cause, I believe this to be God. It might not be the most logical solution for you, and that's fine.
For me I believe simplyfing it with the term "magic" seems to mis-represent the vast philosophical problem existence itself poses, and if we were to use the presented definition (coming from nothing), both atheism and theism would struggle not to posit some form a "magic".
As far as Adam and Eve, the Human Genome project did conclude that all of Humanity came from one male and one female. Whether or not these people were what we would traditionally called "Adam" and "Eve" is certainly up for debate.
DannyPoo,
Huh? Howard is saying that overall creationists (today at least, and no I don't mean all creationist, but generally only YEC's) don’t prefer to read into the science and the details provided therein and the evidence and rather refer to archaic quotes (see Wildeness1). Sorry, but ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). doesn’t exactly explain a whole lot in terms of details on how and what processes were involved. it tells us 'who' but not 'how' and that is why when asked 'how god did it, or what processes were used' it's hard to say much else than magic. However science shows us the 'how' and so they are complimentary.
And in sake of saying they don’t know, either b/c genuinely no one knows, yet; or b/c they (creationists) dont or won’t research and read on the evidence and instead they opt for ‘god did it’ which is essentially a non answer as in the end it doesn't explain the 'how', but only the 'who'. When asked ‘how god did it’ they will always invoke magic and this is what Howard is referring to, and therefore it’s not a strawman point as his statement is accurate. When in doubt, creationists appeal to ‘god did it’, which is like it’s the result of magic/supernatural and not the natural.
Creationists like Newton, like those today inject God only when they’re on the border of ignorance.
“I've seen far too many Christians respond in such a way such as for example "sure God used magic".”
Well Dannypoo, you have to ask yourself, how else could it be explained, but by essentially supernatural magic? The bible doesn’t explain the detailed processes, mechanisms at all, it opts for ‘made it – God’ essentially. When I ask you ‘how’ it was done by God, and none of the processes are defined, that by defacto leaves the door open to magic.
A strawman statement would be like comparing Evolution to Abiogenesis and then continually addressing Abiogenesis and avoiding talking about evolution so as to escape having to answer the tough questions.
Howard,
The reason why it is a strawman argument is because you view something coming out of nothing as magic. Although it might be from your perspective, it is not by necessity "magic". Your reasoning for saying it is magic is because it comes out of "nothing".
If this is the criteria for declaring what is magic and what is not. Then quantum physics is full of "magic".
"spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing."
Davies, P., God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), p. 215.
Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously. However, his point is noted that things seem to appear out of "nothing" in quantum physics.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." Hebrews 11:3
::begin quote::
If you still want to believe in magic, I suggest you hide your God of the gaps just before the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago.
::end quote::
This is a strawman statement, he is essentially making the claim that a believer in God is believing in "magic" without substantiating the claim. Christian's don't necessarily make the claim that un-natural means to create the earth and/or universe, therefore the idea of God using "magic" is a strawman argument. It's an attempt to set up their version of your perspective in such a way that it's easy to tear down or refute.
It's always important that Christians use critical thinking skills whenever they argue against somebody. It will reveal statements like this as illogical.
I am sure the person who wrote the statement didn't intend it that way and is probably a very kind person with good intentions, it is probably his/her honest perspective of our argument. But we must be careful not to step into their perspective and then try to defend it. Instead always outline your own argument and defend that, not someone elses perspective of your argument. I've seen far too many Christians respond in such a way such as for example "sure God used magic". In this way they have stepped into defending the indefensible.
This is just a tip to those who are Christians like myself, here.
I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. (All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877)
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).
“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).
And I got the thumbs down because.....? Which part of the geology did you not agree with ?
Slacker,
Like I've said before and I'll say it again, you're young, you have potential to still LEARN something, so quit being a slacker, read up (hit the books, they wont bite) and you'll find evolution doesn't rule out god. Go pick up a book by PH.D Ken Miller, 'Finding Darwin's God', it's an easy read, not overly technical and addresses general common questions theists have on 'how to reconcile evolution and religion'. The two aren't not diametrically opposing, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Here's the reference to the HIV immunity, http://microbiology.suite101.com/article.cfm/hiv_protection
Now consider what happens in the comming decades if we can reproduce this type of genetic mutation so all further generations have the ability to avoid this strain of HIV, this would no doubt save millions of lives and billions of dollars. All in part, at least even to the slightest degree to evolutionary biology.
Slacker
“The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old”
Here are just few dating methods which all collectively point the same age for Earth of 4.5 billion years, I am sure it’s just a coincidence.
argon-argon dating, iodine-xenon dating, lead-lead dating, potassium-argon dating, radiocarbon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, uranium-lead dating, uranium-thorium dating, uranium-uranium dating.
Now of course, Star will try to come out and say ‘radiometric dating is flawed’ however she’ll cheery pick examples of where the wrong methods were used to date recent material and thus resorted to inaccurate dates. She’ll complain how ‘potassium-argon dating can’t date recent lava flows’ and for good reason, as it’s a very slowly decaying isotope, has a much longer ½ life than say C-14 dating and therefore it can’t accurately measure the ratio of parent to daughter elements in a recent solidification.
Radiometric dating aside, we also know the Universes age based on using light speed as a predictable constant (and many other methods, red shifting for instance) which all correlate to an a Universe around 13.7 billion years old. Again, I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.
“What possible help could proving evolution have on society, none”
Yep, I guess the understanding of evolution has nothing to do with how we create drugs against HIV or the Flu, create genetically modified crops so they are more pest and weather resistant which means greater food supplies so people don’t go hungary, or how to address bugs which have become resistant to certain pesticides. Nope evolution has nothing to do with any of those things. Gee, did you know around 9% of Europeans are IMUNE to HIV bonding simply b/c of a single genetic mutation? Perhaps this can be reproduced world wide and it will in turn save many, many millions? Naaa, evolutionary theory couldn’t help there.
“So explain to me how your God of evolution is going to bring me hope in the future, it isn't and you don't have an argument to say it will”
Um….Evolutionary theory isn’t a god, it’s a science discipline and like all sciences it increases the knowledge for humanity to make our society better overall.
The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old,
The Earths internal temperature( and the other terestrial planets)
The solar systems cratering rate
The myriad of ancient enviroments we find in the rocks
Changes in th Earths magnectic polarity
The vast record of orogenic events we find in the rocks (such as the one at the base of grand canyon).
The record contained in rocks which must have been buried at great depths and are now at the surface.
Now in and of themselves one of these does not alone show the Earth is 4billion years old ( the correct figure by the way is 4.6 Ga) put them together though and it soon becomes apparent the Earth is very very old.
Steve
"By the way Slacker, can you list some of the ideas scientists have suggested for how the first living cells developed almost 4 billion years ago?
Or are you an uneducated person who knows nothing about science? Perhaps that's why you threaten people and call them "imbeciles". It's because you don't have anything intelligent to say."
The question is do you have any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old, it isn't a matter of whether i am educated in science it is the blatent name calling and slurs that you have been using in this post against people that differ from your point of view. That is why i said what i said, you haven't changed a bit since you used the name Bob, or danny or whatever else you have used in the past. You need to learn how to treat people with respect rather then outright contempt. What possible help could proving evolution have on society, none whatsoever, if those same scienctist put as much effort into saving life rather then destroying it, then i would possibly care more about evolution, but as I see it evolution isn't going to cure the worlds problems, it isn't going to reduce the price of gas, it isn't going to reduce the chance of me loosing my Job, it isn't going to help put food on the table, so I ask again what is the point of evolution other then to destroy a persons hope because as you have said in previous posts
"The god invention is boring. I wish the world would throw it out. God means "I'm too bloody lazy to figure something out." That's all God is good for, making scientific progress come to a complete stop. The sooner this curse on the human race (God) is permanently thrown in the garbage where it belongs, the better."
So explain to me how your God of evolution is going to bring me hope in the future, it isn't and you don't have an argument to say it will... Good luck your you dillution...
as ive said.. so i guess sooner or later conservative teachers will want to tackle astronomy classes, maybe rewrite a few roman history classes, and oh! you know what.. let's just exchange all high school english poetry with epistles.. infact, lets just lay insult to all of the doctorates of education all over this country's universities and let them know that their discoveries and studies mean religious-based bills will soon take over one day.
Howard
You don't have the slightest clue on how anything got started.
howard,
“I'm too bloody lazy to figure something out."
Well, I have to disagree with you there. Even Newton and Einstein plugged god into the gaps when even they couldn’t figure something out. Einstein got lost as he concluded ‘god doesn’t play dice’ and this lead him to doubt Quantum Theory and how it works, but we know he was wrong in that regard. Newton explained a lot to do with general gravity, but even his knowledge couldn’t explain certain aspects with cosmology and in sake of saying ‘I don’t know, yet’ he opted for ‘god did it’ (paraphrased of course). - http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
It’s sort of a habit with us humans and comes out when hitting an intellectual wall. In the end, ‘god made it that way’ is a copout, it explains nothing, answers nothing and is essentially a dead end intellectual shrug of the shoulders as well. No equation has ever been solved by injecting ‘god did this and that, and that over there’ so it’s not genuinely wise to opt for it.
If there be a god, I doubt it would be something even he’d consider noble on our part, it would like forsaking our intellect on face value. Invoking god as opposed to saying ‘I don’t know’ is sort of a get out of jail free card’, but in our society we’ve already realized that such cards return nothing of value and so they are overwhelmingly avoided.
When you try to answer everything with a single thing (like god) you end up really explaining nothing and this is why only certain science theories are applicable to certain realms of knowledge. This is something people, like Star, don’t realize and consider it to be a weakness, when it’s actually a strength.
Tardigrades, and others are examples why concepts like Panspermia is seen as plausible. Such a hardy creature can thrive in temperature ranges that would kill most life, and research has shown that (like some insects and microbes) even when totally frozen and then unthawed they can live on. =) This is why some consider Panspermia, or life from elsewhere as something of a possibility alongside Abiogenesis, however such a concept like Panspermia likely won’t get much traction from Ben Stein and others for they ignore, or are ignorant of such examples as Tardigrades. FYI, Tardigrades'genome is currently being mapped and they're cute too!
Wilderness1,
Why quote something from 1877? It makes absolutely no sense, as knowledge has progressed in many arenas (and evolution) and therefore all you're doing is bringing up baseless quotes. Quote something from the 21st century and is more relevant to the evidence and you might have something. Furthermore, you’re not quoting Darwin directly, but rather a Reverend who wrote on him…mkay. Why don’t you quote Darwin directly instead of quoting someone else? Alas, I won’t presume you know nothing of biology or evolution but you sure are giving that impression with the rhetorical bible quotes.
Howard,
Let’s be clear here, the early atmosphere is nothing that would have supported life as we know it, only microbial life would have survived, at least until around 800 million YO. The temperature wasn’t also ideal for todays type of life, however bacterium and other micro organisms (extremeophiles) are hardy and can darn will survive/thrive anywhere on our planet. If you want an idea of how hardy such things are, google ‘water bears’. Talk about prolific survivors. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada
I must agree though, the ‘god of the gaps’ is not only scientifically dissatisfying, but also theologically. Over time the arena to which ‘god made it that way’ have been reduced, and this gives the impression to some, that god is nowhere to be found. This is why I suggest theists not to inject 'god made it that way' so readily to curent unknowns, as its been shown time and again science to strip away unknowns and ultimately this leaves a smaller gap to hide in. Essentially it's self deafeating as in the end you'll have god occupying the smalles (if any holes) and this leads to the conclussion of 'what is there left for god to do?'.
The real solution is that ultimately, if there be a god, a first cause, he/she/it is ultimately responsible for all things in this universe, directly or indirectly or not. That’s not saying he’s poofing things left and right, rather I am saying all things which we acknowledge, material universe and all, stem from his will and therefore in a sense god is nowhere and everywhere. The fundamental laws and constraints which govern how matter operates is such a force/god and thus, evolution or any other processes yet unknown are ultimately via his nature.
Jesusis1,
Think of it this way, the more often a given theory can be repeatedly tested and correctly answer falsifiable predictions, it only reaffirms the theory; refer to all those listed predictions I gave earlier, and this is by no means an all inclusive list, but it provides a framework to see how its passed tests time and again. It’s like continually retesting the mechanics of gravity or atomic matter or cell theory. A theory in this sense becomes stronger and truer in a sense over time as new evidence is gathered and it supports the theory further. With the new evidence from DNA, evolutionary theory could have been turned on its head, or found to be so utterly wrong that it would crumble from all the new evidence. But this didn’t happen, instead the evidence from DNA research only further highlights the processes and fills in previous voids of ignorance.
This doesn’t mean that the absolute knowledge regarding this theory, or the details within it are absolutely known now, but when all evidence collectively points towards a given model time and again, then one could say the theory is quite accurate, even if not absolute right now.
Star,
“Don't you think it is pretty foolish to talk about how life changed over time when you don't even know if it started out the way you think it might have?”
How exactly is it foolish, or better yet illogical? You want ‘it all at once’, but this isn’t how science works, science knowledge is cumulative. IE, knowledge begets more knowledge. It’s not like religion where it’s ‘revealed’ and assumed all epistemological ‘truth’ spot on, this is why you and others find it hard to accept. Rather, evidence is gathered, tests are done and further predictions are made. Just b/c we don’t know how life started here doesn’t mean we can’t observe and study how it’s changed overtime now and in the past. We know life began here somehow as we are here talking about it. What you propose is an ‘all or nothing’ type of dichotomy, which a logical fallacy. I am afraid this is why you can’t accept any sort of science, as for you if it doesn’t explain everything all at once; it’s somehow useless in your eyes.
Jesusis1,
“If evolution is just a theory then how do you believe in it without faith?”
Let me start by saying yes, ‘evolution is a science theory/model’ but it’s also a fact, and I explain why the semantics and understanding ‘theory’ is often confusing for laymans and this is particularly why it’s somewhat doubted. ‘Theory’ in the context of science, isn’t the same as how we use ‘theory’ in layman speak and for this reason both have different, but important meanings.
In Science, a ‘theory’ doesn’t mean a hunch, a guess, rather it’s more akin to a model which can collectively explain all evidence that it pertains to. This is why gravity is also equally ‘just a theory’, but as you can see such an approach is wrong. A theory/model is important b/c it allows us as scientists to apply falsifiable predictions which therefore further our understanding of what we are observing and thus increases knowledge via deduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
“Evolution offers nothing in the way of the point of origin.”
Here you’re correct, evolutionary theory doesn’t or can’t explain ‘origins’ as that isn’t what it as a theory is functionally useful for. Just like gravitational theory can’t explain why we’re here, its usefulness allows for us to make predictions and increase knowledge which in turn led to understanding to allow for flight travel. Evolutionary theory only pertains to explanations of the processes and mechanisms of life changing over time, it doesn’t seek to explain the origins of life, nor does it address origins of matter or the universe. This is how science theories work, they are specific to a given arena of knowledge and border on others, but in no way are they an all encompassing to all possible avenues of knowledge. Collectively all the science theories can cross reference each other for greater accuracy and can be used to allow us to better understand our universe and all things in it. Imagine a pie chart, each slice segmented with a given science theory, no single theory attempts or can explain everything, but collectively they do, this is how ‘theories’ more or less work in applicable knowledge.
I believe that the tail of the giraffe has grown by degrees into a "fly-flapper" (!), although I cannot explain how the species did without it in previous countless ages before it grew to its present length, when, no doubt, there were just as many flies in those hot countries, if not more, than there are now.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).
“O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens” (Ps 8:1).
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God…” (Ps 14:1).
star: AgentOrange has pointed this out countless times and I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposefully being obtuse. You know they are two different branches of science - they are closely related but still different.
And besides that, its not an assumption, its a hypotheses, one that is being tested. If it is false, then it won't be trotted out. It's possible that all we'll ever have is hypotheses as to how life started.
Howard
Don't you think it is pretty foolish to talk about how life changed over time when you don't even know if it started out the way you think it might have?
To say it started out in an infant state, a single cell organism, is merely an assumption for which there is no evidence.
Jesusis1 - clearly you haven't been paying attention at all. You're using a colloquial definition of theory. In science a theory is paramount. Tell me, do you think gravity is a faith?
Wilderness1, what are you talking about? evolutionary theory is a disipline in science and as such it relies on observations, testable falsifiable predictions and facts, it doesn't require faith to accept and understand the processes, methods and principles of how it all works.
Unfortunately, there are those who walk in the Darwin faith. May such be rescued from that false faith, and embrace the words of Jesus, “Have faith in God” (Mk 11:22).
Emmaus: You've made some pretty wild statements. You've suggested - though not directly said, that you cannot be a Christian if you believe the facts of evolution. Total horse-you-know-what. Nothing about evolution dispells God in our minds.
Let me ask you, where does it say we are to take the Bible literally? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't. Do you follow Mark 16:17-18 (handle snakes and drink poison)? The Bible is not to be taken literally - saying that the Bible has to be taken literally is actually proof against it.
I've posed a few other questions that you've ignored. What falsifiable statements does ID make?
"Creation science" is a complete misnomer. You're not going where the evidence leads you, you have a preconcieved notion that the earth is 6,000 years old and you are trying to make the evidence fit that model when overwhelmingly it doesn't.
Evolution is not religion - that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Religion is religion and science is science. You wouldn't say gravity is a religion, would you? Answer that question.
At least at the end you were starting to be a little honest and say you really don't know.
I'm sorry if I come across as a little abrasive but trust me - these silly "evolution is false" stuff drives away a lot more people from the fold then it brings in.
I believe that man, and all the animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects in the world have descended from one single original, and not any of these from ancestors of their own kinds ; that the gnat and the elephant, the cat and the mouse, the bat and the butterfly, the whale and the ant, the toad and the swallow, the hare and the tortoise, the crocodile and the lamb, the humming-bird and the snake, the mole and the monkey, and then the man, are all one species and only one.
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
Emmaus: "Creation science"
You can't say "Creation science" for the same reason you can't say "Resurrection science". Both Creation and the Resurrection are religious beliefs. You are mixing up religion with science. That's wrong and it's dishonest.
I BELIEVE that we are the people, and that wisdom shall die with us.
I believe, I am ready to believe, anything- like the Infidel of old provided only it is not in the Bible.
I believe that my theory of natural selection is right, and that every one who does not hold it is in the wrong, although the difficulties "are so grave, that to this day I can never reflect on them without being- staggered." (Darwin.}
Source: All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith. By The Rev. F.O. Mokris, B.A., 1877
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps 14:1).
"It has been the evolutionists who have thrown a tenper tantrum and demanded that their theory, and their theory alone be taught in schools. "
Fine, what's the alternative well tested theory in oppositiion that collectively explains all the evidence equally or better than the evolutionary theory/model? ID? hope you say that, b/c even one of the founders says it's not ready for schools (watch those youtube vids you'll see) heck, you can google it, 'phillip johnston ID isn't ready'
I just wanted to let you know that I a done talking about this. Its pointless, for at the core of it, the reasons I detailed in my last post. Creation science isn't even allowed on the ballfield, much less allowed to play the game. When your side decides to allow that, then, maybe it might be worth my time. But until then, its a complete waste of it. I don't particularly care for fascists and totalitarians, and thats what this reeks of.
There is a mountain of very good evidence out there against macroevolution. I'd highly encourage you to look into it, and at least try to have an open mind about it.
I wish you all the best, x. I will pray that God softens your heat to make it willing hear His voice, and to bring you into a saving relationship with Him.
"BTW, do you serioudly think that they are teaching kids the theory to that level of detail?"
no, but I wouldn't mind if they did. they teach it at the college level, so certainly it's understandable by highschool AP students and perhaps others if it's slightly dumbed down, or if they have some basics in biology. to understand the details in this instance of human chromosome 2 fusion doesn't even require a great understanding of genetics. Here is a college slideshow with .pdf to boot which is dumbed down for any laymans. it's all out there, you just have to look.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html
www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les3.pdf
No - they are saying "here's a theory that explans the origins of man. It says that things change over time, like a lion into a house cat or a chimp into a man."
Evolution doesn't suggest a lion turn into a cat or a chimp to a man, rather they both (boh cat and lion and chimps and man share a recent common ancestory. we didn't come from chimps and vice versa, it suggests we share common ancestry with chimps and therefore indirectly all living things on this planet. it suggests all living things are interelated.
"They are not teaching kids about chromosomal fusion."
could you imagine if they did? no offense, but people of your persuasition would likely freak.
As one wise president once said "there you go again."
You can't control or dictate the debate - and it is most certainly not decided yet. Your comments are just another clear indicator of the arrogance of your side of this debate.
There are litterally hundreds of questions that go directly to the core of the theory. The proverbial case has most decidedly not been clsed yet.
You also realize that no one is saying that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. Even at the most extreme (thus far) folks from my side of the argument at worst have argued that other theories should also be presented. It has been the evolutionists who have thrown a tenper tantrum and demanded that their theory, and their theory alone be taught in schools.
Emmaus, there are questions about the small details within the theory, but not the theory itself. questions like Gradualism or Punctuad Equilibreium and which is best that describes the evidence? or questions regarding how evolution plays out in development (Evo-Devo), certain aspects in genetics, but there is no geniune doubt the veracity or validity of the theory itself.
Put this into perspective, one of the leading proponets behind Intellegent Design, openly admits it can't yet be taught in schools as its not ready, it's not tested enough and certainly doesn't compare with how evolution explains all the evidence. and if you've not heard of Ken Miller, then you're missing out. - http://youtube.com/watch?v=h0nHB_ZVXHQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T9ZUFsLLHSs
BTW, do you serioudly think that they are teaching kids the theory to that level of detail?
No - they are saying "here's a theory that explans the origins of man. It says that things change over time, like a lion into a house cat or a chimp into a man." They are not teaching kids about chromosomal fusion.
Look, there is no attmpt on my part to be decietful. I think that your taking one point in which I have little knowledge in, and trying to convince me that somehow this proves that kids shouldn't be allowed to question things is just foolish. You've proved exactly nothing, except that I am lacking. BTW, I think at upon closer inspection, you'll find that this bill is more geared toward allowing folks to question, not giving them a pass. As far as I'm concerned, teach evolution in the schools. Just allow questions about the theory to be discussed. Thats exactly what this bill is about.
way to dodge my questsion, do you suppot the 'creator created the chromosomes that way' hypothesis as science or not?
"There very well could be a legitimate, explainable cause out there (that frankly, I just don't care enough to go out and find) "
And yet you so easily opt for AIG in sake of actual reserach....ok, at least you're honest there. you know what the natural explantion is, it's called a chromosome fusion (mutation). we've seen them in labs, we know they occur as naturally as huricanes and thus it's entirely illogical to inject a god/designer to attempt to explain it. it's like injecting a god to explain why and how a huricane forms.
"It's about kids not having to worry about flunking a class because they disagree with something."
Right, it allows them to reject the science and not have to worry about failing. Don't worry about failing biology kiddos, just say it's not fair for you to and we'll let you pass. how retarded. this is right up there with the 'let the kids decide' with regards to what they should be taught.
I wasn't talking about abiogenesis. Howard was saying that we are all crazy because we believe in a 6,000 year old universe, and look here - using that as a starting point, the US would only be 24 feet wide. I was responding to that comment, not making a point about abiogenesis. I was responding by saying that, by the same logic, those who believe in abiogenesis are equally as insane.
"Blah, blah, blah - strawman! "
it's the truth, it's not my fault you're not applying evolution as it's actually attempts to describe. evolution was never suggested to explain life forming from organic molecules. It's mostly relevant to explaining how life diversifies and how it chagnes over time.
"So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?"
You think that because you can make a single point about something (which I personally know very little about) that this justified the complete shut down academic freedom? There very well could be a legitimate, explainable cause out there (that frankly, I just don't care enough to go out and find) for this phenomenon. I weep for my country if this is the point to which we have come.
This whole bill is based around students and teachers having the freedom to disagree, that's it. It's not about abiogenesis, evolution, chromosomal changes, or anything else. It's about kids not having to worry about flunking a class because they disagree with something. If whatever the subject matter is is an uncontravertable fact, then it is incumbant upon the teacher to do just that - to teach and help the kids to understand where they might be wrong. But, in the end, science does not trump the constitution, and the first amendment guarantees kids the right to freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Period.
Emmaus,
So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?
If it's not falsifiable, it certainly isn't science and 'god made it that way' isn't falsifiable. the only reply AIG had was 'the creator created that way'. totally unfalsifiable.
"to support virtually anything if read in a certian way"
Right, and that is why people don't read the Bible that way, like making a passage a metaphor when it isn't one. There are ways to read the Bible, such as context, that determine how to understand what something says.
"Evolutionary biology explains only the processes and methods on how life diversifies..."
Blah, blah, blah - strawman! Howard was talking about the mathematics of the size of the universe, and my comment was in response to that post. Once again. I'm saying that no matter what you argue, I can give you evidence to the contrary, which in reality, just brings back my earlier post about having retreaded this same stupid argument so many times before. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and its pointless.
agentorangex: Deflect, deflect, deflect - a lack of evidence is not evidence. You're deflecting. If you want to discuss the infallibility of the word, and its inpriration, bring it. You'll lose.
"Where does the Bible say that we should read Genesis as metaphor? "
Well, I think earl Churchc father St. Augustine had some meaningfull words regarding 'how to read' it, as one could, in such a large book(s) find virutally any passage to support virtually anything if read in a certian way. with that in mind, and that 14 books being dropped at Nicea, it makes me wonder why so many otherwise authoratative works/words from God were later chosen by mere men to not be up to snuff and removed. I guess in the big scheme of things it matters less as ultimatley, inspired by god or not, it was, in the end penned by men, falliable men.
" I'm asking, if we're suppose to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis figuratively, where does it say that? I mean, c'mon, Jesus himself was a young earth creationist! "
Well I don't recall the bible ever saying to take part A1 -F3 as literal and the rest as allogorical, however one should consider the time and area from which the book was penned. Issac Newton was a creationist too, and an alchemist......so, what's your point? appealing to authority over factual evidence isn't logical.
"Yeah, someone did the math about the probability of a single amino acid evolving, and you know what the probability was? 1 in 3.88 x 10^82"
Well, it's too bad b/c evolution isn't about the formation of life from amino acids, that is another realm of science known as Abiogeneis.
Evolutionary biology explains only the processes and methods on how life diversifies and changes over time. What it doesn't explain as a theory/model is how life originated (strawman), the origins of the unvierse (strawman) and other strawman we hear all the time.
"Are you just completely ignoring the snippet I posted? The author directly addresses one possibility that is NOT SUPERNATURAL"
"One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were CREATED with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns."
So, the author is suggesting the chromosomes were all 'created' virtually identically, again by 'you know who' and you're somehow saying that this isn't 'supernatural' how exactly?
Run this by me...how is appealing to the chromosomes 'created' isn't an appeal to the supernatural actions of god how again? Sorry but we can't falsify supernaturalism and thus it's not science, so....we can't teach as science.
agentorangex: "Didn't you ever consider all the other religions in the era around at the time genesis was being penned? most of which were elemental religions that refered to mutiple gods each having intergral parts within the overall creation?"
You've given me only alleged evidence that is external to the Bible itself, so, that's not gonna cut it. Where does the Bible say that we should read Genesis as metaphor?
agentorangex: "Historical huh..."
You completely ignored the question, and gave me evidence of something totally different. I'm asking, if we're suppose to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis figuratively, where does it say that? I mean, c'mon, Jesus himself was a young earth creationist! He believed in a literal reading of Genesis. And, if it's good enough for my Lord, it's good enough for me.
Howard: "..somebody did the math.."
Yeah, someone did the math about the probability of a single amino acid evolving, and you know what the probability was? 1 in 3.88 x 10^82. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/marcus.asp)
"One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns."
The banding patterns which are stained to give the Karotype doesn't matter, it's enitrely non sequitur to this point. Banding patterns don't even exist unless we stain them, they are visuallly helpful in identifiying genome sequences, but don't matter to HC 2.
In humane chromosome 2, with an extra set of teleomreres in the middle where they don't belong, and the normal set of telemeric ends and 2 sets of centromeres offset the relative center, one of which is inactive, it's clear factual evidence that 2 chromosomes were previously fused to form one. Centromeres and Telomeres stand out like sore thumbs due to their nature of long strings of repeditive base sequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html
"I meant what I was saying in the broadest context. Genesis, specifically Genesis 1 - 11 is not allegorical or metaphoric - there's simply no evidence to support that viewpoint. "
Historical huh, then why did we recently find this snake with legs fossil?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html
"What evidence do you use to explain that Genesis is allegorical or a metaphor? "
Didn't you ever consider all the other religions in the era around at the time genesis was being penned? most of which were elemental religions that refered to mutiple gods each having intergral parts within the overall creation?
the genesis creation story essentially kills the notion of people worshiping all the elementals and aspects associated with the 6 days.
agentorangex: "Well Miller brings it up b/c it's the only way creationists can't explain such evidence, there is no other way around it."
Are you just completely ignoring the snippet I posted? The author directly addresses one possibility that is not supernatural:
"One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns."
Duhhhh????
"...that has nothing to do with biological evolution and still YEC's can''t accept that either. this is bigger than simply evolutionary theory."
I meant what I was saying in the broadest context. Genesis, specifically Genesis 1 - 11 is not allegorical or metaphoric - there's simply no evidence to support that viewpoint. Instead, Genesis is historical, and should be read as such. I think that, perhaps, what you might be claiming is that we shouldn't read Genesis 1 literally. However, there is no reason not to. The book doesn't claim anywhere to be an allegory or a metaphor. It literally says that God created the universe and everything in it by speaking it into existance. I have no reason to doubt that what it says is the Truth.
What evidence do you use to explain that Genesis is allegorical or a metaphor?
Emmaus,
Well Miller brings it up b/c it's the only way creationists can't explain such evidence, there is no other way around it. it's 'god made it that way' or bust. and besides, it's entirely illogical to inject god into the equation of such facts anyway, as we've witnessed such mutations in the labs and know they occur naturally. so to add god into is entirely illogical and unfalsifiable and you I presume would have no problem teaching this as science, am I right?
"There is no other way. Otherwise, Genesis makes no sense."
Hello, ever hear of symbolic metaphore or allagorical literture?
"So, if you're a Christian, and you're an evolutionist, there there is a huge disconnect,"
No, you're it's not just evolutionary theory remember, it's also cosmology like how we know the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years old, that has nothing to do with biological evolution and still YEC's can''t accept that either. this is bigger than simply evolutionary theory.
agentorangex: "Look how AIG attempts to explain the factual evidence regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion. the only thing they can say is 'god made it that way'."
Uhh, you might want to read down a couple more paragraphs, x. AiG specifically addresses your exact criticism in the paragraph:
<snippet>
Blind to alternatives
While the evidence for a fusion appears consistent with the evolution model, Dr. Miller implies that it is inconsistent with ID or creation models. <i><b>He makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: <b>“That’s the way the designer made it.”</b></i> This statement reveals Dr. Miller’s inability to think outside his paradigm. As a creationist who finds chromosomal rearrangements fascinating, I can honestly say I never thought of that possibility. One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns.14 Since chromosome numbers vary within created kinds, it is not in the chromosome number where we should expect the most significant differences to lie, but in the coded information.
Although Ken Miller’s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. Furthermore, he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific.15 He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed. Thus, he is not able to distinguish between science and religious indoctrination.
</snippet>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes
agentorangex: Howard's specific statement was "Surely you don't think these uneducated people have any value."
My response: They aren't uneducated, they're the exact opposite - again, an argument from ignorance.
"...to worry about loosing faith over it like you and other YEC’s do."
You're presuming an awful lot to think, too, that somehow you are "challenging" my faith. Evolution or no evolution, it doesn't change the fact that God is God, and is in control. It doesn't change the infallible Word, nor the fact that God came to live among us and die for our sins.
However, to have an internally consistant view of the Word, one must, and I use that word specifically, believe in creationism. There is no other way. Otherwise, Genesis makes no sense. So, if you're a Christian, and you're an evolutionist, there there is a huge disconnect, and my argument would be that your science education far surpases that of your theology.
"What about cosmology and astronomy and physics, geology and paleontology. None of these can be taking by YEC’s as it challenges their faith."
Now you've just fallen off the reservation because it is now patently obvious that you understand nothing about creation research, specifically because all of these disciplines are directly dealt with by the organizations I've mentioned before. I'd highly encourage you to spend some time at AiG's website to see some of what their answers are to these very specific disciplines and how they fit into God's creation.
"How can you presume what I believe, I could be a Deist for all you know. "
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. (Matt 7:15-16)
I see your fruits, that's how I can presume.
"They are nothing if they are not educated."
Just b/c they are educated, in secular universities or not, doesn't mean the work theh churn out fits with the observed evidence and therefore by defacto passes peer review. Jonathan Wells (IDC) is educated too, but his work of 'Icons of Evolution' had many errors in it as well.
"There are also hundreds of credentialed scientists from around the workd who contribute to creation research, both for AiG"
Look how AIG attempts to explain the factual evidence regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion. the only thing they can say is 'god made it that way'. that is entirely unfalsifiable and thus not science at all, and yet likely you'd have no qualms about teaching such non-science in public classes right?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes
“Evolution is your belief system, it is your god.”
Ha – what a crock! No, it’s not. Evolution is a process according to science and it like other realms of science I accept and I do so easily b/c I don’t have to worry about loosing faith over it like you and other YEC’s do. Evolution is hardly the only problem for YEC’s to reconcile. What about cosmology and astronomy and physics, geology and paleontology. None of these can be taking by YEC’s as it challenges their faith.
Putting ‘faith’ into a theory of science is not logical either. ‘faith’ is defined as accepting a given proposition despite lacking or contradictory evidence. Well, with science the facts, observations and evidence support the conclusions and thus there is no element of faith involved, it simply is.
“But, the reality is, it won't happen. In order for it to, you'd have to admit to the very possibity that God does exist, and that He's in control.”
Um, one can still be a gap creationist, day age creationist, progressive creationist, OEC, theistic evolutionist, Deist, Pantheist and still accept both God and evolution (and all those other conflicting sciences).
“And, knowing very well that you probably won't do that, we'll just continue this very banal argument in which no one wins”
How can you presume what I believe, I could be a Deist for all you know. Put another 'creationist myth' in the garbage.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html
Howard: Your ignorance proceeds you - AiG is an organization with literally dozens of people with post graduate degrees in scientific fields from secular universities. They are nothing if they are not educated. There are also hundreds of credentialed scientists from around the workd who contribute to creation research, both for AiG and other creation-based research organizations. To say otherwise is silly, simply silly.
agentorangex:
Here's the bottom-line with me - I've argued this same weary argument wtih dozens of folks like yourself, both PhD worldy-wise and educated people, and those who were dumber than a box of rocks. And, in the final evaluation, it comes down to this: Evolution is your belief system, it is your god. You put all of your faith in it, because it takes at least as much faith to believe in what you believe in as what I believe. We can go back and forth all day long, punching and counter-punching, but, in the end, no one will be convinced of anything new. You see, for you to believe in what I believe would take a work of the Holy Spirit Himself and the very Word of God ("Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2).
If you truely want to blow my socks off, let me know that you can agree that what I believe in (from the creation perspective) is just as scientifically based as what you believe in. That would be a huge shock. But, the reality is, it won't happen. In order for it to, you'd have to admit to the very possibity that God does exist, and that He's in control. And, knowing very well that you probably won't do that, we'll just continue this very banal argument in which no one wins.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (1 Cor 1:18-25)
"It's been impossible for organizations to get peer-reviewed because evolutionists own the process. You can't play ball if they won't even let you on the field."
Organizations like ICR and AIG, yeah, and it's b/c of what they are putting out. just like any other scientists who attempt to puhlish peer reviewed work, if it doesn't past muster it gets rejected. and even if it does pass, it still must undergo further critique and it could still be shot down. they can't plau ball b/c they aren't even attempting to use actual data that is supported, that's why.
Good grief Emmaus. Answers In Genesis claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Surely you don't think these uneducated people have any value.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about - ;->
It's been impossible for organizations to get peer-reviewed because evolutionists own the process. You can't play ball if they won't even let you on the field. Instead, they've created their own processes for peer review.
Emmaus,
I find it somehwhat ironic the only source you pull from is AIG, when none of their work passes scientific peer review and consequently aint worth a bleep.
“Nearly all mutations cause a loss, not a increase, of information. “
Define ‘information’ in the context of genetics, so we’re on the same page. You should know, virtually all mutations are neutral, only a small % are harmful or helpful. A mutation in the genome is simply variation and since we know we can remove large amounts of pseudo genes from an organism prior to development and it having no ill effects, most of a genome isn’t even required to build an organism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10978293
There are not only point mutations (a single base pair mutation), but also duplications, deletions, translocations and fusions of huge genetic sequences. Now, with a given section duplicated, this new duplicate section can in the future be modified without harming the organism and result in new information for the organism to build new traits from. Case in point is the bacteria identified after mutations to be able to digest nylon, a completely synthetic and new material that didn’t exist till the 1930’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
"we have at our disposal nearly 4 dozen dating methods to know the age of the layer we are inspecting" Yes, perhaps. But, there are good reasons to suspect that these dating methods themselves are flawed (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp and also the RATE project's http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/thousands_notbillions.html).
As for your walking fish, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp.
Why is it called the Evolution Academic Freedom Act? Why not also have a Gravity Academic Freedom Act? It's obvious this bill was invented for religious reasons. The author of this bill, Senator Rhonda Storms, is a very religious Baptist, and she knows absolutely nothing about science.
Perhaps Senator Storms would like to give biologists the freedom to explain the mountains of evidence for biological evolution in Sunday schools.
I suggest Florida's politicians who know nothing about biology should let scientists make decisions about science education, just like they let mathematicians make decisions about math education.
An organization of scientists explained why this bill will harm science education. This was published by Scientists & Engineers for America:
"Florida Senate support for teaching creationism"
"The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill by a vote of 6-4 that would protect teachers who include creationism in their lesson plans from being reprimanded by school officials. The bill is a direct response to the State Board of Education decision in January to make teaching evolution mandatory. This is some scary stuff."
"Lawmakers going out of their way to ensure that religion can be infused into science lesson plans only serves to highlight how important it is for scientists to get more involved in the political process. The bill falls short of directly placing creationism into classrooms, but it paves the way for bad science teachers to inject their personal religious views into their lessons. This is an embarrassment for the state and the country."
“It is a well known fact that one can skew a phylogenetic tree of many different classes of organisms depending on the genes one chooses to make the tree.”
Riiiight, but when Cladistics, phylogenetics, hybridization, and protein analysis and others all point to the same conclusions, well YEC falls short there.
“Again, this is falsified in the geologic record. No demonstrably "transitional" forms have ever been found.”
You’re hilarious, you say that in light of Tiktaalik being brought up. None huh, what are these?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
Emmaus,
how exactly is it an assumption when we have at our disposal nearly 4 dozen dating methods to know the age of the layer we are inspecting?
"The YEC viewpoint also predicts that this particular creature, namely a fish, would be found in the strata, namely becuase it was buried there in the flood. "
Tiktaalik isn't a fish pal. look it up, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Look at the link from PBS I gave earlier, it's not a fish, not fish is anything like it today.
"the mutation rates per generaion are predictable" - this assumes that mutation rates are constant (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp).
Nearly all mutations cause a loss, not a increase, of information. To argue to the contrary is simply silly. Mutations cause a loss of information in DNA vis-a-vie nucleotides. For a very good answer to this question, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine.
agentorangex: The prediction, though, starts with an assumption - that the strata somehow represent a geological "timeline" dating back billions of years. The starting point is fallacious - it assumes facts not in evidence. The YEC viewpoint also predicts that this particular creature, namely a fish, would be found in the strata, namely becuase it was buried there in the flood.
This again speaks to my argument that we're both dealing with the same set of facts. The difference is how those facts are interpreted.
"For instance, your first prediction is also a prediction of YEC. "
Well, not exaclty. you see, YEC's contend a 6000 YO earth and universe and therefore since genetics are literally a living track record like fossil they show how old a given population is based on its genetic diversity and our genetic diversity doesn't point to 6000 years at all, more like 160,000 years and to Africa. So, you might wonder how is the age known? the mutation rates per generaion are predictable and known at a given rate per generation and therfore its easy to establish how old a given lineage is.
"How does evolutionary theory explain the fact that there is a loss of genetic information over time"
First define 'information' in terms of genetics so we're on the same page, and no there is evidence that information is lost. Mutations every generation result in variation of an organisms genome and over time such mutations remove and replace both protien coded genes. In this sense this becomes psuedo genes which are highly redundant and server no biological fuction for the organism. this has been shown in rats, mice, and flies where large amounts of pseudo genes are removed prior to development and it doesn't affect its development or health at all.
generally most traits are polygenetic, so a single gene isn't normally responsible for a sigle trait.
Emmaus,
The finding of Tiktaalik in specifically the location where paleontologists thought it should be is a flasifiable prediction that reafirmed the theory of evolution.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3416_05_220.html
agentorangeex,
Thank you for your post.
Prediction 1: a universal genetic code. - This is also a prediction of YEC. However, it is well-known that various genera have modified versions of the genetic code, such that expression of genes in heterologous systems can be problematic.
Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species. - Also a prediction of YEC. It is expected that organisms reproduce "after their kind", such that felines are always felines, canines are always canines, etc. This is what we observe in nature. Darwin's finches are still finches, near as we can tell.
Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies. - This has been falsified many times in the literature. It is a well known fact that one can skew a phylogenetic tree of many different classes of organisms depending on the genes one chooses to make the tree.
Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record. - Again, this is falsified in the geologic record. No demonstrably "transitional" forms have ever been found.
Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates. - The YEC position is that the geologic column represents order of burial during the Flood of Noah. Therefore, "out-of-place" fossils are not unexpected. However, there are documented cases of anachronistic fossils based on the uniformitarian view of the geologic column.
Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges. Many "vestigial" organs/tissues are now being linked to functions, such as the appendix. It's not clear if "vestigial" organs are on their way "up", or are simply on their way out of function due to the Curse.
Prediction 7: Atavisms - Again, not proof of evolution. Turtles with 2 heads are decidedly *less* fit in the wild. This is not evidence of genetic advancement; instead, it's an example of disregulation of genes (which is almost always a bad thing).
agentorangex: You've posted a terrifically large amount of information in a short amount of time. I can see that you're very passionate about what you believe, and that's good - so am I.
I would like to ask you one quick question: How does evolutionary theory explain the fact that there is a loss of genetic information over time, yet, in order to have a higher-level species, as predicted by macroevolution, it would require a gain of genetic information?
agentorangex: How do these predictions specifically and uniquely fit the theory of evolution, and not YEC? For instance, your first prediction is also a prediction of YEC. Namely, that a Creator God has used the same "building blocks" in all of creation. As of yet, no falsifying evidence has been found on this front! Again, this is just another example of how the facts are the same, just the interpretation of those facts is the difference.
All of these features and predictions can also be explained by YEC/Creation Science.
Back to you ;->
Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.
Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.
Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.
Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.
Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.
Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."
Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.
Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.
Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA." - even if latest findings indicate that perhaps up to 20% of what we though was "junk" isn't that still leaves a lot of "junk")
Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.
Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.
cont...
Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.
Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as traces of gill formations in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g. nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.
Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.
Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.
Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.
Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).
Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should show statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are not related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.
Emmaus,
I was just going to point those same things out. I've spoken with many of the scientists at AiG, and they are very thoughtful, critical thinkers. It's just like the "evidence" for a 4.3 billion year old earth - the assumptions which go into radiometric dating are completely unprovable. Add to this the fact that C14 is routinely found where it should *not* be (coal and diamonds), and the evidence starts to look tenuous, at best.
Emmaus, you want some predictions which are falsifiable on evolution? here you go, enjoy.
Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.
Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.
Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.
Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.
Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphibian intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.
Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.
Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.
"Also, AiG has a pretty technical response to your claim about fused chromosomes"
No they don't, all they say is 'god did it' and that's it. that's not even a falsifiable statement.
Emmaus, Tiktaalik wasn't a lobe finned fish, it had partally developed limbs with figners. get a clue. Creation Science is an oxymoron, you can't even find a single scientifically peer reviewed article they publish b/c they don't pass the level of critique.
I quickly skimmed a response on AiG's site related to tiktaalik - looks to me that, like all of the other "transitional" forms, this one is not "transitional" at all (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp). I would also argue that finding a fish buried in rock does not necessarily rise to the level of a "prediction" since the prediction itself pressuposes materialistic causation. I would suggest that YEC also predicts that fish would be buried under layers of rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard). Again, I would suggest that this is further evidence of my earlier claim that evolution and YEC use the same facts - the difference is in the interpretation.
Also, AiG has a pretty technical response to your claim about fused chromosomes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp).
I know of 2 Evolution predictions that came to pass:
One was the existence of Tiktaalik which was theorized to exist, and the strata it would be in were determined, prior to the fossil being found. The Paleontologists found it in the right strata and it had transitional features associated with it.
Second, an issue about Human evolution from apes arose when it was discovered that Humans had 23 Base pairs, while other ape species had 24 Base pairs. This would be direct evidence against Evolution. A theory was postulated that if humans were descended from Apes, then our chromosome must have fused 2 chromosomes together. This was supported by direct observational evidence of the fused chromosomes.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Note these are not the only 2 predictions and unfortunately I am at work and can look for more later. I will also look into www.icr.org and www.answersingenisis.org more when I get off of work tonight.
ifeelfine72: I'm actually in no way threatened by evolutionary theory. Folks are entitled to believe, in my opinion, whatever they want. My argument here is more to the point that was trying to be made that evolution is science, which creation research isn't. I find that, to put it mildly, laughable. The entire gist of the attached article is that evolutionist want to shut down debate, and perhaps more to the point, control it. They do this by making all sorts of silly claims about ID and creation science.
With regard to your claims about evolution, let me turn the tables a bit: What does evolution predict, and how is it falsifiable? Now, please, be honest, and don't answer a question about macroevolution with evidence for microevolution. Changes in kind are agreed upon even by YECs.
Emmaus: Clearly YEC have rejected the evidence because the evidence says 4.5 billion years old, YEC say 6,000 years old - I would call that a rejection of the evidence that Protesilaus outlined.
Just out of curiousity, if YEC is science, then tell me some predictions that it makes that can be proven or are falsifiable.
And not one YEC here has ever adequately taken into account ERV's.
Look, I'm a Christian, I get it, you feel like the facts of evolution will somehow dispell the Christianity and prove the Bible false - I get that you feel that way. But it is just not the case, lots of evolutionary scientists have no problems rectifying their faith and the science. Ken Miller, one of the more famous evolutionary biologist, is a devout Christian. As is Francis Collins who might be one of the greatest geneticists of all time.
Take the advice of one of my favorite Biblical verses: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things and hold fast to that which is true.
Well, I would suggest things like Answers In Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), or the Insitute for Creation Research (www.icr.org). I guess to better define it, it would be an organization that is specifically doing it's own scientific research on creation, not just commenting on it.
What is the classification of a legitimate YEC organization?
Protesilaus: I can see that you're putting forth a lot of information. However, that's really not what I asked. You specifically said that these evidences were rejected and not at least explained by YECs. I'm asking for your evidence of that rejection. Where do you see a legitimate creation science organization rejecting this data and not explaining it?
Radiometric dating of meteoric impacts, Radioactive decay, Solar System formation modeling, Carbon dating, Mutation estimation (of living material for there emergence), Red Shift of galaxies (with the speed of light information), Pulsar information all point to the universe and our Earth at much older than 6,000 years. They converge on the current estimation (and yes it is an estimation). Their are many different manners of measuring the time it took the Earth, the Solar System, Galaxies and all to form, and all of these put the universe much older than 6,000. All of the Earth models put it much older than 6,000. One specific example, YEC postulate that the Flood could have accounted for the formation of Geological structures without any evidence of the Flood or that the Flood would be capable of this. If the YEC want to put forth a scientific model about the formation of the universe being 6,000 years old, it must explain the entire observed Phenomenon, otherwise it is not a better fit than the current scientific model. There is a lot more going on then starting points. If it was just an argument of starting points, then scientists would have said “Hey the Universe is 4.5 Billion Years Old, lets make all of our evidence support that”. If the evidence pointed to 6,000 years, then science would have accepted it.
"The YEC point of view continuously throws out evidence that does not support their point of view. Any method of dating the age of the earth or the stars are routinely dismissed, not explained away but dismissed. "
Protesilaus: What do you use as evidence for your claims here?
The case you are talking about is the Sternberg case that I referenced in my post. He was not fired or dismissed.
The YEC point of view continuously throws out evidence that does not support their point of view. Any method of dating the age of the earth or the stars are routinely dismissed, not explained away but dismissed. This isn't an issue about viewpoints. Why would a scientist cling to the idea that the universe is billions of years old if the evidence didn't support it?
Also I do not see the fact that there is no evidence against evolution being a strong man. The only thing important to Science is evidence. And yes, Science does not allow Super-Natural Explanations, but that is because, if it did Science would not work. If at any point we cannot rely on evidence then it would be impossible to make predictions about the future.
"Amazing that these folks believe that it's acceptabe to stifle dissenting opinion about their paltry theory. They truly are blinded by their own pride and insecurity."
It isn't a dissenting opinion, it is the accepted and standard scientific theory of life.
Protesilaus: But, the problem is, you've just made our argument for us! There are legitimate scientists out there who are questioning the theory on valid scientific grounds. Then, they find themselves losing their jobs, getting castigated, and evetually getting thrown out of the scientific community! That's what the movie "Expelled" documents.
Here's a good example: In the movie, they show a gentleman who works for the Smithsonian as the editor of a scientific journal. This guy is no friend of ID or creation science. However, he chooses to publish an article questioning Darwin's theory. He then finds himself ridiculed, chastised, and eventually, he loses his job. All of this because of his choice to publish an article.
This is what the folks here are railing against. This type of thing should not be happening.
That is not my quote; I said there is no scientific evidence against evolution as a whole. This is not a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that Evolution did not take place. If there was the whole theory would have to be reworked or replaced, like every other theory in science. Science changes all of the time, if Evolution did not have strong evidence to support it, it would have been replaced. Scientists are not promoting an ideology and we don't revere Darwin.
Secondly, specifically the information on Richard Sternberg is completely false.
More information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy
At the very least it is a lot more complicated then stated in the movie.
Evolution - the sacred cow of secular humanism. Without it - men who detest the mere idea of God, might actually have to admit that it is possible that God exists.
Amazing that these folks believe that it's acceptabe to stifle dissenting opinion about their paltry theory. They truly are blinded by their own pride and insecurity.
Protesilaus: To claim that there is no evidence against evolution is, in a way, a strawman. You can build up your own argument for your opponent, and then knock it down. The Young Earth Creationist view and the evolutionist view are just that - views. We both have and use the same data. The difference is how we interpret the data. The evolutionist view has a bias in their view of the data toward naturalistic explanations of the data. The YEC view allows for supernatural explanations. The real question is which explanation of the data best fits the data. For many, the answer to that question is the YEC viewpoint. To argue that YEC doesn't explain the data is an argument from ignorance.
Protesilaus,
I pointed to the interviews of what happened to people who opposed Evolution in the movie. I'm not claiming all the comments made about ID nor Evolution in the movie are accurate or correct, but you cannot deny the personal stories that are shared in the movie.
By the way, it's a logical fallacy to state "there is no evidence against Evolution".
Firstly JoshGilman if Expelled is your best evidence, then your evidence is sorely lacking.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled
Secondly ShuckCreations, simply stated, there is no scientific evidence against Evolution as a whole. The fossil evidence is not complete, and will never be complete, since it is unreasonable to assume we will find a fossil of every animal that existed everywhere. Every fossil we found fits evolution nicely. Also the molecular evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Topekan, it was established in Kitzmiller v Dover that ID proponents had a religious agenda in supporting ID. It was also shown that ID was a "evolution" of creationism. Also the Discovery Institute's wedge document showed the religious implications.
Simply, if Science is taught in public schools then students should be shown the consensus of scientific information of our time. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen.
If this law is enacted, then teachers in Florida will be free to teach creationism from other religions other than Christianity. Creationism is nothing but evidence of fear that the Christian god doesn't exist. Where is your faith?
I think it's "very bad" that there has to be some type of government action to ensure people the right to their own ideas! How absurd! You have to have a law to be able to share your ideas. What's that document called that we already have.......... Oh yeah, the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!Outrageous.
Protesileaus, just what religion would Congress be establishing, or, what religious practices would be stifled if Florida included ID in their curricula? You make a specious argument.
Any person with an ounce of intelligence should not be afraid of other opinions/views, to oppose this act is to oppose discussion/debate-as far as I know America is a free country and the truth has a way of revealing itself. IN JESUS NAME
Once again, Protesilaus, this is not to impose ID on students. It is to allow the contradictory SCIENTIFIC evidence that is against the theory of evolution. Science cannot be biased it must look at all sides. You can't teach something in school that is a form of propaganda. I'm sorry but students need to learn about all aspects not just what the state tells them to learn.
1. Any child who knows absolutely nothing about Evolution nor ID/Creationism can say "I believe in Evolution"
2. Any child who knows absolutely nothing about Evolution nor ID/Creationism can say "I believe in creationism"
Currently, 2 is not applicable because opposing Evolution is socially wrong. The new movie "Expelled" best addresses this issue with overwhelming evidence via interviews, stories, etc. of what happens when scientists, not just creationists, follow their studies which oppose Evolution. Just like a student can make assumptions between missing fossil patterns so can one make assumptions with ID/Creationism.
The point is that there is nothing wrong with this law. Those that say it allows people to escape Evolution, so be it! This IS a free society, or it used to be, and if a person chooses to not believe Evolution then that's wonderful for them. Evolution is not a fact, and therefor should be challenged. How a person goes about that is up to them.
My 2 cents.
First I would simply like to state I am a Skeptic/Agnostic/Atheist.
This bill would allow any student to make any claim about Evolution and not be marked incorrect. This is definitely not good for education, since the students would not be required to learn anything. They simply can claim that they believe they are right and it would have to be accepted. Secondly, if a teacher did decide to teach Creationism/ID it would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Modern Biology is intertwined with both the theory of common descent and Evolution. Medical testing on animals would not work without common descent and all of modern genetics is proof of Evolutionary principles. Florida would be looked at as not accepting of science and would lose biotech jobs because the companies would think that the public is less knowledgeable in science.
Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. It is a theory about the process, but one that is supported by all of the evidence and all of modern science. As for your comments on Neuroscience, there has been a lot of research on consciousness, and it seems that it is completely interwoven with the brain. Macro-evolution is seen in the fossil record as well as through molecular (DNA) evidence. Also we have seen speciation with modern “ring species”.
If a scientist came up with a theory that explained all of the evidence better than Evolution, they would be awarded the Nobel Prize. It would make their career not ruin it. ID isn't given time because it isn't aligned with scientists world view, it makes no predictions and explains no phenomenon.
"Opponents of the bill, however, argued that it was unconstitutional and nothing more than a masked agenda for the promotion of religion in schools."
May I ask how exactly this is unconstitutional?? I don't understand how this is at all completely related to religion either. I know intelligent design is religious but there are plenty of other scientific explanations out there as well and often ones that discredit evolution and/or even support ID. Again, how can teaching all aspects and views of science be unconstitutional?
Oh and I thought this was funny:
"...and it’s bad for the constitution,” said Rebecca Steele, Tampa regional director of the American Civil Liberties Union..."
A person in charge of standing up for America's freedoms and liberities is trying to shut down the freedom of speech, religion &/or education. HAHA!!
LOL. They are trying to scare floridians about losing biotech jobs for ruling against the antiquated theory of Darwinism. Science do not need to believe in common ancestry of living things in order to excel in science or make discoveries. Darwinism is dead along with atheism.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Evolution is just a theory for a process. It has no answer for what the origin of that process was. How did life originate? Nothing in science comes close to explaining it, and what pathetic responses are offered up are just that...pathetic. It wasn't "lightning" hitting a pile of acidic goo.
Science cannot explain where the consciousness resides or where it originates, either. Science offers very little in the way of explaining anything about the big picture. All it offers up is a theory (and not a very good one) for adaptive changes within species. Macro evolution has never been proven in the fossil record, there is no example of one thing changing into another thing, and they still have no answer for the so-called "Cambrian Explosion".
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.