Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law last week a measure that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.
The so called “Science Education Act,” the latest in a series of academic freedom bills that have swept across as many as six states, cruised through the state legislature with unanimous levels of approval.
Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.
The law will also help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.
While supporters of the measure say the recent measure is an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” are cherished, detractors say that the new law represents nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.
Americans United, which was just one among the many groups that tried to urge Gov. Jindal to veto the bill on the basis that it was a violation of the separation between church and state, blasted the new law in a series of statements.
"Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in ... classrooms," AU executive director Rev. Barry Lynn said, according to Reuters.
“Americans United and other groups contend that ‘supplemental materials’ are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.
Supporters of the law, however, say that the language used in the measure is clear regarding the separation between church and state.
“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” said Dr. John West, vice president for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.
West, who represents the largest intelligent design think-tank in the nation, emphasized that neither his nor any other organization’s views would be favored under the new law. The measure is about promoting fairness, he said.
"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," he concluded, according to Reuters.
RSS
.jpg)
Another Former Atheist NOW believes in God! "I've found God," says man who cracked the genome. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.
You can read more about it on the right-hand side panel of this featured site below in the section called "In the News."
ATHEISM is a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Its the afternoon here, I've just had lunch.
You are welcome steveh20. Have a good day today.
Thank you for sharing that star, I appreciated it.
Steve
steveh20
Life does exist after you are dead. You memory, your senses, and your ability to talk and reason do not cease to exist.
I knew of four people who died and came back to life. One was an associate at work who was a Jew. Before he died he did not believe in God; he was an atheist. He told me that when he died he said that he was traveling down a dark tunnel. Then all of a sudden he was brought back to life. After the experience he said he knew that there was an afterlife and that there was a God. He didn't know whose God to believe in. He searched all the major religions of the world and settled on Judaism.
The second person I knew was a personal friend of mine. She was a Catholic at the time; later she became a born-again Christian. She got hit by a car and died on the way to the hospital. At the hospital the doctors were able to bring her back to life. She experienced a heavenly place. There were streets of gold, beautiful flowers and etc just like the Christian Bible describes.
The third person was a stranger I met at a McDonalds while traveling from Houston, Tx to Ft. lauderdale, Fl. We were in line waiting to place our order. I felt compelled by God to witness to him the Lord Jesus Christ. He recounted to me how he died and had come back to life. Before he died he said that he was afraid of death. He said that he didn't believe in a life after death. When he died he went down a dark tunnel. He talked with a being of light that said that he could go to heaven if he lived a righteous life. Afterwards he was brought back to life. He said he now is no longer afraid of death, knows that there is a life after death, and believe he will go to Heaven if he lives a righteous life. Of course, this is false. What he encountered was Satan, who transformmed himself into an angel of light, to deceive him into believing that all he needed to do was live righteously to go to heaven. I told him that he needed Jesus to go to heaven. He said, "I don't need your Jesus." I just shook my head and asked God to save him.
The fourth person is a Baptist minister. His name is Don Piper. He gave his testimony in my Church of what he experienced in Heaven when he died. He was killed in a head on collision with an 18 wheeler. He was dead for 90 minutes before he came back to life. He recounts his experiences in a book he wrote entitled "90 Minutes in Heaven-A True Story of Death and Life". You can read something about his book at http://www.amazon.com/SELECTIONS-Minutes-Heaven-Inspiring-beyond/dp/0800719093/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215495214&sr=1-1
Dr. Rawlings wrote a book and made a documentary called "To Hell and Back". The documentary gives five testimonies of which 4 of them are from atheist, who died, went to hell and came back to life. All five became born-again. The documentary is well worth the watch. You can view it free at
http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/Rawlings/Dr_Rawlings_Near_Death_Experiences.htm
viking
Yes you are quite right, however I do not see that the absence of evidence means that anything is possible, I think your playing word games in this instance, unless of course you have some evidence by perchance?
Best wishes
Steve
Hi Steveh20,
Regarding One day I will be dead, the evidence seems to point (nde, etc..are not evidence) to there being nothing after that.
I will accept that there is extremely good evidence for the first half of this statement but I am unclear on the second half. Could you help me out with the "evidence" pointing to there being nothing after that. Remember in Science, law and logic the absence of evidence is not evidence.
*So evolutionists can work to have him fired?*
wbmoore,
Oh Touche~! looks like it's quite the contrary here. Gee, one must wonder why this instance of barring teachers wasn't highlighted in his stinker of a film?
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080707/fmr-science-director-sues-over-neutral-policy-on-intelligent-design.htm
*are you opposed to the open debate of evolution? And Why?*
Slacker, please comprehend the difference here. Dispute on the veracity of science and its evidences is to be done in the labs and universities of professionals, as they are working with the latest evidence first hand and know which instances are more questionable then others.
What isn't and shouldn't be done is to debate the issues in 4th grade science class. If you would like to bring forth actual articles of evidence, or lack there of, where you think it would be worhtwhile discussing why they should or shouldn't be taught as such in schools, by all means post them here. Let's get it out in the open already. You and others say there are weaknesses, so lets hear them already. CITE your stuff too.
*They declared war on us and attacked our country. They started it and we're going to finish it.*
Totally off topic, but to think this whole time their whole gripe with us was that we are in THEIR lands. Put this on its head, how do you think we'd respond if the Chinese, or Arabs or others by fiat decided to build huge military bases in our lands? Mighten we find these same acts as something to be offended by?
No toad, it is so we can validate what is what and if in fact mathetes is being truthfull or not. As far as we know he doesn't have a close friend who works in biology, let alone one who is published. How can we actually know until it's verified? Thus why I asked.
"if the person is published, lets have his name"
So evolutionists can work to have him fired?
*Come on, cccccccc, YOU passed judgment on a published,respected PhD*
Well, if the person is published, lets have his name. I know where to look for such articles (NSA, NSB,) so let's get the name so we can review his work(s). For all we know he's just like Jonathan Wells, who hasn't achieved a thing in biology and yet b/c he graduated with such a degree he is somehow a reputable person on the matters?
Slacks
My life has meaning because I give it meaning.
One day I will be dead, the evidence seems to point (nde, etc..are not evidence) to there being nothing after that so my life here and now counts for everything. So what do I do.....
I live as if each minute was my last (metaphorically) I love my wife, my kids, my friends, I try to bring no harm to anybody and deal with all fairly, to be a man of my word, I strive to understand the world about me and pass on the wonder to others...
If I get to refect on my life just before I die,if I can look back and see I at least tried in these endevours I will have spent my time well.
If your religion gives meaning to your life and reflects what I have written above, thats fine by me, this is not a contest.
Steve
Mathetes,
*So I would not call it land walking…*
It had limbs, it didn’t need fully digit formed limbs to actually move about on land, that is the point. All it needed was *good enough* limbs, it didn’t need fully integrated limbs for sprinting like current mammals or certain reptiles have. Partially formed nub limbs would have sufficed and provided at least some competitive advantage over others which didn't have such limbs. Even with such nubs it could venture onto land and exploit 1) new resources & 2) new habitats, thus furthering its evolution.
*We would need to know whether Tik. had a 2 or 3 chambered heart, etc. Let's call it an amphibian*
Ummm, ok. So you’re saying Acanthostega is a fish (and why) and somehow rationalize that Tiktaalik was an amphibian? Ok, but why, where is the drawing line with respect to both?
* It's quite different than any other fish or amphibian known today.*
Indeed they are, and that is exactly what the point is. Nothing today is quite like any of those, they were neither totally fish like nor totally amphibian like.
* Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History) in London*
Well, if he’s citing Goulds work, then obviously it’s not including more recent finds like Tiktaalik, thus why his quotes can be construed in such a manner. Had he known of this specimen and other recent ones, his views could be different. More evidence tends to alter ones views.
ccccccc: For the most part I agree with you on this one. Evolution is a fact, however every scientific theory (no matter how rigorously tested) has weaknesses . . . or opportunities if you want to call them that. It could be argued that we know more about evolution than we do about gravity so it could be said that the theories surrounding gravity have some weaknesses (or opportunities) and yet we're all still firmly planted on the ground. If we knew everything there was to know about evolution, it wouldn't make studying it very much fun anymore. We're learning more and more about it everyday. Cheers.
"Darwin gave us a freedom most people are not willing to accept. We have to be ethical without fear of divine punishment. We have to live a life of virtue for its own sake because there is no Heaven awaiting us. We have to accept our mortality and justify the satisfaction of living without the existence of an afterlife. No religion has ever given humans such unrestricted freedom, such a responsibility, and such a task. Darwinâ??s theory of evolution by natural selection gives humans, with their evolved brains, a capacity for self-examination, for wonder, for deeper meaning, and for the nurturing values that sustain us in our relatively short stay in this unbroken journey of life that now extends over three billion years. And that is why Darwin deserves to be called a Great Emancipator. "
Don't forget to put on the list of his great achievements that with evolution he takes away hope, drives people to believe they are worthless because like you said we all came from the same primordial soup and mean nothing to no one therefore we are worthless, and put on there that with that freedom we have from evolution we are free to destroy life everyday again because it means nothing right??? its amazing you say religion doesn't give you freedom, i feel free from sin, it sounds as tho hatred is driving you....
"They never get away with it because they always lose in court, but they continue to attack America's science education anyway. The creationists who constantly attack science education are traitors and they belong in prison."
So the question I have for you is this, are you opposed to the open debate of evolution? And Why?
"If the ignorant creationists had their way, the key concept of biology, evolution, would be removed from science classrooms. The result would be bored students who learn to hate science. That's just what the creationists want. They want their children and everyone else's children to hate and fear science just as much as they do. They want to replace all of science with their childish idiotic supernatural magic."
Oh look Bob's back....
"I thank God for Mr. Jindal..It is abut tim for students to be able to discuss both sides of this..the evolution theory is just that some ones appion not fact..so I think it is good that his mind is open to this. and give teachers something else to teach..I think Dp and occcc need a life...Gods life..yea!!!! "
The thing is TJ, this legislation isn't about teaching an alternate theory, it is about letting teachers and students debate evolutionary theory without fear of retribution from school administrators...
Just FYI, those of us who have ADHD tend to do several things at the same time! I use to run two computers at the same time in a prepress environment and would run 3-4 studios at the same time when I was in radio (what, you think they just sit there?).
tjeasterly--why thank you! This site has actually become somewhat of a hobby between taking care of my two kids still at home, voluteering at church and in the community.
It's kind of like finding someone worth playing chess with. Not all of us are young and spunky you know!
So, here's my question...isn't hope for the hopeless part of the foundation of the life given by God through Christ?
I thank God for Mr. Jindal..It is abut tim for students to be able to discuss both sides of this..the evolution theory is just that some ones appion not fact..so I think it is good that his mind is open to this. and give teachers something else to teach..I think Dp and occcc need a life...Gods life..yea!!!!
"Theodosius Dobzhansky was a noted geneticist and evolutionary biologist , and a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the unifying modern evolutionary synthesis."
He was an evolutionist bent on proving evolution was correct. What did you expect him to say. I know many reputable doctors and scientist which make the same type of statement concerning only through belief in God. So, what's your point. You have your 'experts' and I have my 'experts'. You have your science stuff and I have my science stuff. What's your point?
I don't believe evolution as a whole is a myth. It's even spoken of in Genesis. I have an open mind. Still, I believe in what I have experienced. This is why the Bible says to bear witness...be prepared to explain the hope that is in you.
ccccc-you have no hope...only your science. Your hopelessness comes through in each post as you slice and dice people instead of discussing logically. Even other evolutionists will not come to your defense. I am far less concerned about evolution than I am about your hopelessness.
"Dishonestly calling a research opportunity a weakness is exactly what I would expect from a uneducated creationist who want to pretends his childish creation myth might be true."
Perceived weekness is always a research opportunity. Someone who agrees with me rarely challanges me to research. The drive to support ones own beliefs is one of the strongest drives to research. It is also one of the strongest drives to grow ones knowledge.
...and there you go again...we could start posting 'evolution myth' but that would be rude!!! You cannot even absolutely prove to me that you exist. You could be a programmed response from a very powerful computer! Even if you called me I could deny your existance! I could say your entire existance is a myth. You would be hard pressed to prove me wrong. It's an old psyc game used to develop logical thought.
The flaw in your arguement is you assume you are correct based on data you have gathered which has convinced you. This is not a scientific arguement. You argue from passion and not logic. It works against you.
steveh20--the problem comes in when they go around flying airplanes into our buildings killing thousands. We tend to get a bit bent out of shape about things like that....
They declared war on us and attacked our country. They started it and we're going to finish it. Fool us once shame on them...fool us twice...ain't gonna happen unless Obama gets elected.....
ifeelfine72: "... and that's only if evolution is being taught for a week or more"
Unfortunately there are many incompetent high school biology teachers who teach evolution only as a separate unit, lasting only a week.
The best biology teachers know "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky), so they make evolution a major part of every single biology lesson every single day. That's the only correct way to teach biology. Making evolution part of every lesson makes biology more interesting and the students are more likely to love science instead of being bored by it.
If the ignorant creationists had their way, the key concept of biology, evolution, would be removed from science classrooms. The result would be bored students who learn to hate science. That's just what the creationists want. They want their children and everyone else's children to hate and fear science just as much as they do. They want to replace all of science with their childish idiotic supernatural magic.
They never get away with it because they always lose in court, but they continue to attack America's science education anyway. The creationists who constantly attack science education are traitors and they belong in prison.
Daniel, Please say thanks from me too. I am proud of him. And I am proud of my foster daughter who has signed up and is waiting to go to boot camp.
ifeelfine72 said: "The weaknesses of evolution (and there are a few) are typically so far over the head of a high schooler that they aren't really appropriate to the teaching of evolution with that age group. If you give students an open forum like that, most the supposed "weaknesses" will be things parroted from either ID talking heads or people with a high degree of misinformation. For example, talking about the Cambrian Explosion, "irreducible complexity" and so on - these things have been refuted time and time again and to give the opportunity for students to present the "weaknesses" of evolution only takes away from valuable classroom time. The caviat I might add would be that talking about the "weaknesses" take no more than 5-10 minutes and that's only if evolution is being taught for a week or more (giving 5-10 minutes in a week long session is more than fair given that even that amount of time could overstate the "weaknesses" and lend credence that there might be some real ones)."
ifeelfine72, Your comments were very good but I strongly disagree with your "The weaknesses of evolution (and there are a few)".
Please read these quotes:
This is from the blog of a biology professor: "Big exciting unanswered questions like the origin of life exist in science, but scientists said this first, and furthermore consider them research opportunities, not flaws."
From a newspaper article: "Evolution as a principle is not disputed in the scientific mainstream, where the term 'theory' does not mean a hunch, but an explanation backed by abundant observation, and where gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding."
Evolution does not have weaknesses. It has opportunities to learn more.
Evolution has "points for future understanding" and "research opportunities". Evolution does not have weaknesses.
Would you say our planet's orbit around the sun has weaknesses? No, of course you wouldn't. Our planet's orbit is a proven scientific fact.
Evolution is also a proven scientific fact and the evidence for it is so massive it can be called the strongest fact of science. If you say proven facts of evolution have weaknesses you are just repeating the lies of ignorant creationists.
There will forever be more to learn about the history of life and that's a good thing. It's what makes evolution so interesting. Claiming a proven scientific fact like evolution has weaknesses just because of some gaps in our knowledge is just plain dumb.
Dishonestly calling a research opportunity a weakness is exactly what I would expect from a uneducated creationist who want to pretends his childish creation myth might be true.
Definitely teachers should talk about future and current research that will eventually increase our knowledge of life's history. But calling research opportunities "weaknesses of a proven scientific fact" is just plain dishonest.
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/newsviews/darlin.html
If humans accept that they too have evolved, whatever purposes they assign, they do so by their own choice.
This means humans are free of revealed knowledge from a non-existent creator; they are free to make choices; they are obliged to learn and to think. They are responsible for their actions and values.
Darwin gave us a freedom most people are not willing to accept. We have to be ethical without fear of divine punishment. We have to live a life of virtue for its own sake because there is no Heaven awaiting us. We have to accept our mortality and justify the satisfaction of living without the existence of an afterlife. No religion has ever given humans such unrestricted freedom, such a responsibility, and such a task. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection gives humans, with their evolved brains, a capacity for self-examination, for wonder, for deeper meaning, and for the nurturing values that sustain us in our relatively short stay in this unbroken journey of life that now extends over three billion years. And that is why Darwin deserves to be called a Great Emancipator.
DP
I'm not saying I have any better ideas, what I am saying is that just because somebody does not agree with the way you go about doing something it does not mean they do not see there is a problem.
Thankfully we have the BBC, the best news broadcaster in the world.
Keep well.
Steve
Steve--having lived in a place where terrorists live (Zomboanga, Philippines) I can tell you there is only one way to deal with them. They want us dead. They don't want anything else. Either we die or they die. Their choice.
Iraq and Iran funded terrorism in the area I lived in and everyone knew it. That was in the mid 70's and they haven't stopped. I've seen it first hand. I could see the 2 factions of extremists lob mortor shells at each other at night. The plane my parents were suppose to be on was hijacked and blown up on the ground.
Why doesn't the media report stuff like this? They lie. They don't want people to realize just how dead set the extremists are and that killing them is the only way to stop them.
Maybe you have a better idea as to how to stop someone who is completely brainwashed into believing they must kill all westerners without question or compassion.
Daniel Paul
I tend to think that many American (and Europeans) understand that the terrorists would love to destroy western culture but don't agree with "some" of the ways America (and other countries) go about it. I think you have these two issues confused.
Regards
Steve
What is sad is that people loose their jobs for suggesting that there are weaknesses and disagreements within the scientific community concerning evolution. There is not safe environment to have a position that suggests it is wrong, or even that it might be right but that the evidence is not in yet. You have to toe the party line or get fired.
this is an embarrassment to the human intellect. no wonder one of the worst education states passed this bill.
daniel, the church I last pastored before coming to this position was right outside Fort Drum in Upstate New York and I was there when 9/11 hit. The 10th were some of the first units sent into Afghanistan and several of our families were military and I was prior military so I can truly empathize with what you said.
Thanks, believer. I will. We were at the Home Depot the other day. We had just gotten pictures done so he was in uniform. Someone came up to him and thanked him. It caught him a bit off guard but it made him feel proud!
Too many Americans don't understand the war on terror. It's so difficult for people to understand all the terrorists want is to eliminate western culture from the planet. It simply doesn't make sense to them.
Just another sign we have lost the concept of critical thinking in this country I suppose....
Thanks again....
daniel, please thank your son for his service to his country that allows us the freedoms we are enjoying today which is sadly lacking in so many other countries.
Hi, all! I try to respond to any replies to anything I have posted. However, my son has been on leave from the Army the past week and my wife's birthday was yesterday (talk about a real 'independence day' for her mother...) so I just wanted say sorry if I dropped a ball in a thread over the past week.
It's hard enough to keep up when I check in every day! Quite frankly, it's difficult to get a conversation with 'thinkers' in my neck of the woods. I think Jeff Foxworthy comes to our county to get new material.
We have a family who has been in these parts for 7 generations! I was talking with one from the 5th generation. He asked me: "Do you know why it's so hard for the law to get a convition around here? ...all the DNA is the same and there's no dental records!" ...and he and his are from here!
Thanks for the higher level of discussion! I am glad we live in a country where we are free to discuss, disagree and believe as we choose. Hope you had a good 4th!
ccccc--"Look, I did not slander anyone."
You seem to have a different dictionary from the rest of us....
"slander- the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage anothers reputation"
cccc-"A Bible quote and two Liars-for-Jesus websites"
See, the difference is I don't believe you are a liar. I believe we have different views on the same subject. I strongly believe what I believe concerning God and Jesus.
When Paul spoke to people in the book of Acts he used the example of "the unknown god" which they believed in and did so in their own temple! To do so he would have needed to have quite an understanding of their position. I have no fear at all of learning all I can about evolution. In fact, it's a hobby of mine. You, on the other hand, seem to have great hate of even accepting another position let alone learning about it. You would have to understand our Christian and other beliefs if you are going to 'play at our level' of discussion here.
Simply put you have a great prejudice against anything which isn't in the evolution camp. One can have different views without being prejudice. In fact, prejudice is opposed by both science and the Bible. Both simply appoach the discussion from a different foundational premise.
ifeelfine,
Hi yes I agree. In our curriculum we only expect our AP bio students to have the background knowledge and academic discipline to address these topics.
Man`s own science has proven that you cannot create "order" from "disorder" ; and "knowledge cannot create itself" , nor learning from it without having an original source of orderly knowledge to start from !!!
Viking,
My responses are numbered the same as your conditions:
1. It is fine to have a solid grasp of the actual science and workings of evolution theory, but you have put a condition that is self defeating, you have said that this teacher must acknowledge the overwhelming validity of the theory. That would be like saying, "You can criticize communism if you demonstrate that you understand that it is the best ideology to govern people by" or if you like, "You can criticize the existence of God, if you have demonstrated that you understand that the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe"
If I could offer an alternative condition, I would leave it the same without insisting that the teacher must demonstrate that he understands that evolution is overwhelmingly valid.
2. No problems, except I do not fully understand the last point. Are you saying that the teacher should understand that the theory of evolution cannot explain all phenomena related to bio-diversity, and thus some apparent "gaps" would appear, or that the theory can explain all phenomena related to bio-diversity and that there may be some minor gaps that the teacher ought to understand? My point is that the teacher should understand what evolution says, how it explains nature, but that if the teacher or scientist finds some major gap or lacking point in the theory, that this ought to be discussed and challenged. (Knowing that the theory of evolution may be true and we do not have the correct information for these gaps, or that it may be that the theory is false).
3. Accepted, if you agree that some revisions may change the face of a theory radically, or that some theories appear true when we have a certain limited information, but then are later shown false when we have better information (all theories do not simply get reinforced, some get dropped, others change a good deal)
4. Agreed.
http://tinyurl.com/6e5cfe
"Evolution as a principle is not disputed in the scientific mainstream, where the term 'theory' does not mean a hunch, but an explanation backed by abundant observation, and where gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding. Over time, research has strengthened the basic tenets of evolution, especially as advances in molecular genetics have allowed biologists to read the history recorded in the DNA of animals and plants."
Especially important: "... gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding."
A gap is not a weakness. It's an opportunity to learn more.
Also very important: "... advances in molecular genetics have allowed biologists to read the history recorded in the DNA of animals and plants."
Biologists can see the history of life when they compare the DNA of different species. They can determine evolutionary relationships. There is absolutely no doubt about the accuracy of evolutionary relationships as revealed by DNA analysis.
My point is the creationists, who have no understanding of the evidence from molecular biology, and who don't even know about this evidence, and who have no desire to learn anything about it, are wrong about evolution. Biologists know the creationists are wrong. Geologists know the creationists are wrong. Geneticists know the creationists are wrong. Paleontologists know the creationists are wrong. Any grammar school student who is interested in science knows the creationists are wrong. I know the creationists are wrong. Evolution is not a hunch. It's not just an idea. Evolution is a proven beyond any doubt fact. There is so much evidence for the idea that all life shares common ancestors and the evidence is so powerful, that it's fair to say biological evolution is the strongest fact of science.
Does evolution have religious implications? It sure does, but that's no reason to bury your head in the sand and hope reality goes away.
The creationists, unless they want to be laughed at for the rest of their lives, need to grow up, educate themselves, and face facts. The human ape species is not a special magical creation of Mr. God. All animals, including human animals, are just branches on a vast tree of life, and all life is related.
Study it. Understand it. Accept it. Or else be laughed at for the same reason flat-earthers are laughed at.
viking: I agree with you 95+% of the time on religious issues (based on what you write in CP anyway . . . I have a feeling we disagree some on the issue of homosexuality but that is a conversation for another day) but I do have a minor disagreement with you regarding the teaching of "weaknesses" of evolution (or rather maybe I just have one more caviat to add).
The weaknesses of evolution (and there are a few) are typically so far over the head of a high schooler that they aren't really appropriate to the teaching of evolution with that age group. If you give students an open forum like that, most the supposed "weaknesses" will be things parroted from either ID talking heads or people with a high degree of misinformation. For example, talking about the Cambrian Explosion, "irreducible complexity" and so on - these things have been refuted time and time again and to give the opportunity for students to present the "weaknesses" of evolution only takes away from valuable classroom time. The caviat I might add would be that talking about the "weaknesses" take no more than 5-10 minutes and that's only if evolution is being taught for a week or more (giving 5-10 minutes in a week long session is more than fair given that even that amount of time could overstate the "weaknesses" and lend credence that there might be some real ones). God bless.
cccccccc
I'm glad I wasn't trying to impress you then.
Chris 333 sorry for the long delay in responding,
you asked.
So you are saying that is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to point out any weaknesses in Evolution Theory, and possible counter explanations?
My answer to this would be a conditional yes with the following provisions.
1. If the teacher has a thorough and solid grasp of the actual science that demonstrates the overwhelming validity of the theory of evolution and has first presented this to the students in the context of the curriculum.
2. The Teacher has an actual evidence based understanding of the gaps in the theory of evolutions capacity to describe and explain all phenomena related to bio-diversity.
3. If the teacher presents these gaps in the context of the scientific method where we are always exploring new evidence to refine and revise scientific theories to make them more powerful in their ability to describe, explain and predict observed phenomena.
4. the Discusion/presentation of any counter explanations is restricted to evidence based scientific theories related to the observed phenomena and in this context the general rules of science are reinforced. Such as the requirement that for an alternate explanation or natural phenomena(or scientific theory) to be considered valid it must be based on evidence and must do a better job of accurately describing, explaining and predicting all of the known phenomena related to the topic.
The thing is that no law is required to permit this and that's not what this law actually does.
you post
"Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized."
I find this statement to be incredible on its face regardless of what one believes about the validity of the theory of evolution. The existence of this law far from brining "and end to allegations...." will in fact embolden those teachers who seek to substitute their judgment of how they should discharge their instructional responsibility as employees for their employers lawful directives. This is underneath a liberal agenda law granting the employees (teachers)the right to disregard the lawful directions of the employers (the schools) in the carrying out of their job functions without fear of consequence.
JonnyBlad,
A Bible quote and two Liars-for-Jesus websites.
I'm not impressed.
"In other words, if there is a question about the validity of evolutionary theory, by either the student or the teacher, then it should be allowed and considered within the classroom."
You are forgetting, or perhaps you are denying, that there are absolutely no questions about the validity of evolution. All life has evolved. That's a proven beyond any doubt fact. Biologists debate the minor details of evolution, but they all agree about the basic facts of evolution.
The only teachers who have a question about the validity of evolution are creationists. Creationist biology teachers are not qualified to teach biology. They should be ridiculed, fired, and never allowed to teach any science again anywhere. It's not fair to students to be stuck with a moron creationist biology teacher.
I'm still looking forward to the expensive trial the Louisiana taxpayers will have to pay for. The creationist losers will lose again. If they think they can get away with sticking their total ignorance of science into America's science classrooms, they are crazy.
To help you understand read this: "In other words, if there is a question about the validity of the earth's orbit around the sun, by either the student or the teacher, then it should be allowed and considered within the classroom."
If a student claims the sun circles the earth, the teacher can explain why the student is wrong.
If a teacher claims the sun circles the earth, the students should demand that the teacher be fired immediately. The students should also laugh at the teacher and call him or her a moron.
If a student claims evolution is false, the teacher can explain why the student is wrong.
If a teacher claims evolution is false, the students should demand that the teacher be fired immediately. The students should also laugh at the teacher and call him or her a moron.
I can't imagine anyone more incompetent than a creationist biology teacher. They exist, and they should be fired. Every single one of them should be thrown out the window. It's just not fair to students to have a teacher who knows nothing about the subject being taught.
"Allow intelligent design into science textbooks, lecture halls, and laboratories, and the cost to the frontier of scientific discovery--the frontier that drives the economies of the future--would be incalculable. I don't want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before."
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Agentorange,
Thanks for the reply, I am doing well, though I have taken some time off of Christian Post.
First, I would like to say that I am not at all against evolutionary theory taught at schools, and it is noted that an in depth explanation of the workings of the theory should not, and cannot, be discussed in a highschool setting.
That being said, it should be made open to children and teachers, to present valid arguments against evolution, and discuss weak points and possible alternate theories that might explain these weaknesses (within or outside of evolution theory).
In otherwords, if there is a question about the validity of evolutionary theory, by either the student or the teacher, then it should be allowed and considered within the classroom. This is true of virtually all other subjects (excepting possibly mathematics, and this is only because most questions can be answered with a readily made proof, but even in math methods can be challenged).
My only gripe is that critical thinking should be the most important thing we teach children in primary and secondary school, and in order to develop critical thinking skills we must be able to challenge everything (within reason).
Two further points:
1) Yes it is agreed that college is where a real working of evolutionary theory and what not can be discussed, but this shouldn't prevent us from allowing younger students to voice their ideas.
2) I also agree that religion should be kept separate from public schools, at least in the teaching material. This is not to say that God should not be discussed in classrooms (I am all for it, especially in philosophy or religions classes), but that no religion (or lack thereof) should be specificallyendorsed or spread within the school (this includes atheism).
Always a pleasure, agentorange
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools†Romans 1:23
http://polemos.net/Creationism.html
http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html
"I'll wait for the rational discussions with AO, Steve, and Viking, each of whom has taught me much, for which I'm thankful."
But you're still a creationist. You obviously learned nothing. It's also obvious, like all other creationists, you don't want to learn. It's impossible for a person to be a creationist in 2008 and not be willfully ignorant. The information about evolution is massive and easy to find on the internet and other sources. There is no excuse to be a creationist in the 21st century.
"Look, I've tried to be nice and suggest that you not slander people you know nothing about, and not to make generalizations ("all scientists believe...") when such are obviously not true."
Look, I did not slander anyone. I just stated a fact that any educated pro-science person would agree with. Anyone who denies the basic facts of evolution is not qualified to teach biology. Creationists like yourself don't understand this fact, because creationists know virtually nothing about evolution. If they understood it they wouldn't be creationists. If they educated themselves, they could understand it, but they have chosen to be willfully ignorant.
I suggested you visit any biology blog and ask them. You could say "Can a creationist be a competent biology professor?" I guarantee you that no matter how many biologists you ask this question, the answer will be a very strong NO. It's just not fair to any student to have a biology teacher who doesn't understand the most important concept of biology. Anyone who has a PhD in biology and denies evolution, is a total joke. I can't imagine anything more disgraceful. Of course your friend has an excuse. Educated in Alabama, the center of the Bible Belt.
A recent poll showed that one out of every six high school biology teachers is a creationist. That means out of every six high school biology teachers is not qualified to teach science.
The only correct thing to do that would be fair to students is fire every single one of these incompetent biology teachers. Instead Louisiana passes a law that lets these bad teachers preach supernatural magic in a science class. That's disgraceful and that's why there will be an expensive trial.
By the way, while visiting a biology blog to ask about the competence of evolution deniers, why don't you ask them to explain evolution to you. Better yet, why don't you do your own research, being careful to avoid the professional liars for Jesus. I'm serious. Educate yourself! You disgrace your religion when you deny one of the most important facts of science. You also disgrace your country and the human race.
Viking,
I saw you posted just before I signed off. Brother, forgive me for the earlier post. You are correct in your assessment - his unapproved action was as bad as a physician prescribing a drug off-label. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I trusted the first article that popped up when I googled, and I should not have. I can understand why that pastor would defend one of his flock, but you're right: it hurts his credibility. Merci bien, mon ami.
cccccccc,
My colleague went to the Univ of Alabama, known worldwide for its excellent Bible-thumping program. NOT! However, before you get all dismissive again, I know he has research partners at both institutions you mentioned, as well as others overseas. You? Oh, that's right, you don't want to talk about it. "Science is not my career, but I have been studying evolution for several years." Oh. Well, of course you have the credentials to judge PhD's.
Look, I've tried to be nice and suggest that you not slander people you know nothing about, and not to make generalizations ("all scientists believe...") when such are obviously not true. If you want to continue, have at it. I give up. I'll wait for the rational discussions with AO, Steve, and Viking, each of whom has taught me much, for which I'm thankful. Mon amis, bon soir. Passez un bon temps demain.
cccccc,
sorry buddy I am not going to come to your defense. I am happy to discuss my understanding of evolution and how nothing in it contradicts my belief in God. I refuse to engage in supporting the insulting and ridiculing of persons simply because they might disagree with me. I will point out that your posts regarding competent biologists agreeing with you represent circular reasoning. You state all competent biologists agree with you. This is of course to you a true statement since you define any biologist who disagrees with you as not competent. Unfortunately as I pointed out earlier your credibility and your ability to convince anyone of the validity of evolution are completely undercut by your tactics. In fact ironically I believe your conduct actually harms the efforts of those seeking to promote the acceptance of evolution.
At any rate when it comes to unfounded generalizations and heaping abuse on people you will have to stand on your own. I will have no part of such conduct.
Just for the record...U of Tenn is not in the buckle of the Bible belt. I've got Bob Jones U practically in my back yard....
U of Tenn is no Harvard or MIT...in fact, Berkley is no Harvard or MIT so can we just throw out their evolutionary dogma? Sounds good to me.... :-)
Actually, it was an evolutionist who posts here (very non-Creation and I believe he just might be an athiest) who pointed out the difference beween evolution as science and Darwinism.
You must have missed that one (like that's hard to do with the amount of posts here)!
"I capitalize God because I don't want my comments deleted."
I don't delete any messages but my own! Besides, if we wanted to get rid of you we'd just turn you in and have your IP blocked! I like having you around. You seem to be a blunt stone to sharpen my faith on....
By the way, respected by who? Creationists? Vanderbilt is nothing compared to Harvard and MIT. The best universities in the world would laugh at your incompetent friend.
mathetes, Science is not my career, but I have been studying evolution for several years. I KNOW evolution is a proven fact. I KNOW we share common ancestors with the other ape species. I know these things because unlike you, I understand the evidence. Your friend should be fired, but since he works in the Bible Belt, he's probably set for life.
If you're so worried about education and experience (by the way what Bible college did your everything-is-magic friend go to?), why don't you visit any biology blog and ask real biologists what they think of your friend's disgraceful ignorance of biological evolution.
Did you read that quote from Behe's Lehigh University? What part of "The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years." don't you understand?
Come on, cccccccc, YOU passed judgment on a published,respected PhD. Surely you must have many degrees behind your name. On this forum we have IT engineers, school principals, lots of profs and teachers. Quit hiding behind your momma's skirt ("everyone thinks so") and show us your qualifications for judging a respected member of the academic community.
ON TOPIC COMMENT:
It's interesting that the Discovery Institute supports the Louisiana creationism bill. The Discovery Institute is a Christian creationist organization. Their purpose is to spread lies about science and attack science education.
There will most definitely will be a trial, just like in 1987 and 2005. The creationists will lose again. Nobody doubts they will lose. You can't attack science education in this country and get away with it.
I hoping the Louisiana taxpayers have to pay millions of dollars for legal bills. The everything-is-magic creationists in other states need to understand that if they attack science education it's going to cost them a lot, and in the end they will accomplish nothing. Creationists need to understand our Constitution, including the Establishment Clause, is sacred, and nobody will ever be allowed to violate it.
Vanderbilt University is in Tennessee, which is in the Bible Belt. That would explain why they employ a quack biology professor who denies the most important concept of biology.
"And just what qualifications do you hold that allow you to pass judgment on a PhD biologist who did research and taught at Vanderbilt?"
He should be fired. Any biologist or biology professor who doesn't completely accept the basic facts of evolution deserves to be fired.
You don't need my qualifications because virtually the entire scientific community agrees with me. The creationists should not be teaching biology because it's not fair to students to be stuck with a teacher or professor who uses supernatural explanations for the natural world. That's not science.
I compare a person who denies evolution to a flat-earther. Neither is qualified to call himself a scientist.
Don't agree with me? Then talk to Viking. I'm almost certain he agrees that a biologist who denies evolution is a disgrace to his profession no matter what degree he has or where he teaches.
An example is the evolution denier Michael Behe. He has tenure at Lehigh University so he can't be fired. The entire biology department of Lehigh is ashamed of Behe because Behe has ruined their reputation.
Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
I said earlier: "For God's sake, it's called evolution, not Darwinism."
Daniel Paul replied: "first you don't believe in God so why do you say For God's sake and capitalize it? Second- several evolutionists on this site have been quite clear there is a difference between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution in and of itself does not denote 'origin' in and of itself whereas Darwinism 'origin of species' does."
"For God's sake" is just an expression that doesn't require any religious beliefs.
I capitalize God because I don't want my comments deleted.
When I'm extremely grateful for something, I (very rarely) say "God bless you" which is the highest possible compliment from an atheist.
Only creationists call evolution "Darwinism" which annoys me very much. We now have thousands of times more information and a much better understanding of evolution than Darwin could have ever imagined possible. Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong, and that's one reason you will rarely hear a scientist use the word Darwinism. However, Darwin's most important concept, natural selection, is now stronger than ever, so scientists give him a lot of credit for that idea.
An exception to what I just said is Richard Dawkins. He unfortunately does occasionally use the word Darwinism, but he lives in England, not America. The English don't speak English very well in my opinion.
cccccccc,
"Your biologist colleague, who doesn't accept evolution (or what creationists call macroevolution), is not competent. I repeat, your friend is not competent. He's a disgrace to his profession."
And just what qualifications do you hold that allow you to pass judgment on a PhD biologist who did research and taught at Vanderbilt? Seriously, I'd really like to know. What are your degrees and what do you do for a living? Time to put up or shut up, cccccccc.
"You sure like to use the terms "liars" and "lying" a lot. Any intelligent person would acknowledge that there are competent biologists and other scientists who do not accept the ideas of evolution/common ancestry of all things. The proof is out there to be read for yourself, and I have mentioned in these forums a biologist colleague who does not believe in evolution (the "macro" kind). So when you say, "Every competent biologist in the world agrees evolution is a fact." - that would be... wait for it... a lie."
I don't necessarily accuse anyone here of being a liar. However, it's obvious many people here get their information from liars, including the compulsive liars of the Discovery Institute.
I'll say the same thing about Answers in Genesis. Every single person who works there is a compulsive liar. Some pro-science people disagree with me. They think the people of Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute are honest but just plain stupid. I agree about their total lack of intelligence, but it's pretty darn obvious to me they intentionally lie about everything, including dishonest quote mining, withholding information they know about, and a lot of just plain lying.
Your biologist colleague, who doesn't accept evolution (or what creationists call macroevolution), is not competent. I repeat, your friend is not competent. He's a disgrace to his profession.
I stand by my statement: "Every competent biologist in the world agrees evolution is a fact."
Viking, you agree with me, don't you? Do you agree that any biologist who denies the basic facts of evolution (including the close relationship between chimpanzee apes and human apes), is a disgrace to his profession?
I assume you do agree, Viking, because you have common sense, and you understand the evidence. Perhaps you can explain to mathetes and the other flat-earthers here why any biologist who denies the most important concept of biology, evolution, is incompetent.
Oh I've been around reading the posts here, I just figured I had contributed enough to the debate. Plus I thought you were doing a good enough job that I didn't need to say anything. ^_^
All this talk about fish and amphibians has made me hungry; I going to find some catfish or frog legs for dinner. If you want to call them fish with leg-like fins, or tetrapods that had gills and probably did not leave the water, it matters not to me.
I will leave you tonight with what I thought were interesting comments by Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History) in London:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. … Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.†I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.†(Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. p. 89)
“As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.†(Ibid.)
“If you ask, “What is the evidence for continuity?†you would have to say, “There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.†(Ibid., p. 90)
Welcome back, Shucks! You were missed, you know that, right?
AO,
In your 1:57 p.m. post, you said, "Tiktaalik didn't have fully formed limbs, however its limbs would suffice for land walking."
Padian's article says, "The structure of the limb joints and the enlarged ribs of Tiktaalik show that the animal could flex enough to clamber about, at least in the shallows, and perhaps a bit on land, although its skeleton was not otherwise broadly adapted for that purpose."
So I would not call it land walking, especially since the Univ of Chicago does not think the front limbs could support it on land, only enough to do a push-up in the water.
As for fish vs. amphibian (vs. tetrapod):
"But by this criteria amphibians are fish to you then, as they spend their pre-adult life in water and generally don't live out of water or far from it or can't b/c they live and reproduce there. They cannot live permanently removed from living in water."
I gave you a quick answer because I could not go into detail at the time. No, I do NOT think fish are amphibians. There is more to it than habitat and locomotion. We would need to know whether Tik. had a 2 or 3 chambered heart, etc. Let's call it an amphibian. It's quite different than any other fish or amphibian known today.
I do find it interesting that animals such as Dolphins or Platapus are exceptions to the mammal class but the Tiktaalik and Acanthostega cannot be exceptions to fish classifications.
Seems like because they fit into the evolution theory they are kept seperate. To me they could've been no more than a species that lived and died with no evolution/adaptaion involved.
AO,
You still say, "in which case you would agree Acanthostega had more developed limbs so certainly they would be more adequate (as least over other fishponds) for land dwelling than Tiktaalik were."
No, I do not agree. Did you read the second paragraph of the first post?
"Additional features from the spine, ribs, pelvis and tail corroborated the notion that Acanthostega would not be able to support itself on land. ...Acanthostega, with its four limbs, pelvic girdle and assorted other features, was clearly a tetrapod, but it probably never left the water." (Devoniantimes)
Acanthostega had gills and probably never left the water. Even with four leg-like fins, I would still call it a fish.
* Tiktaalik and the other forms were actually akin in many respects to the ancient lungfish and coelacanth species that survive to this day. For this reason, they are better described as representing the “emergence of vertebrates onto land.*
In other words, the group Tiktaalik belonged to was akin to that of the mudskipper,lungfish which can venture out of the water at least for short intervals but not live there permanently. Exactly what should be expected at this stage.
*T. roseae had nearly square, narrowly overlapping scales on its dorsal area, and it retained primitive features such as bony fin rays, which are lost in animals that mainly walk on land. In general form, it had a broad, flat skull with dorsally facing eye sockets, a long, crocodile-like body (some specimens reach almost 3 metres, or 10 feet, in length), and limbs that were intermediate in many respects between fins and legs. The forelimbs, for example, showed a common pattern of a central limb axis bifurcating at each new joint into two bones, the anterior one being smaller and generally unbranched and the posterior one being robust and branched. However, in Tiktaalik there was more branching on both axes, and it is tempting to see in this pattern the beginnings of bones that eventually would become some of the forearm and hand bones of tetrapods. The structure of the limb joints and the enlarged ribs of Tiktaalik show that the animal could flex enough to clamber about, at least in the shallows, and perhaps a bit on land, although its skeleton was not otherwise broadly adapted for that purpose. The fin rays covering the ends of its limbs and its flattened, streamlined body plan indicate that Tiktaalik retained the ability to swim. Its long snout and lack of gill covers suggest that it snapped up prey rather than inhaling it as fishes do.*
Kevin Padian
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1219621/Tiktaalik-roseae
* Could Tiktaalik walk or live on land?*
But by this criteria amphibians are fish to you then, as they spend their pre-adult life in water and generally don’t live out of water or far from it or can’t b/c they live and reproduce there. They cannot live permanently removed from living in water.
Mathetes,
Acanthostega, a fish still?
*From all I have quickly read (Harvard, Univ of Chicago), no, it did not have limbs for walking on land.*
When I say fully formed, please understand this is in relation to the other species being used, Tiktaalik, in which case you would agree Acanthostega had more developed limbs so certainly they would be more adequate (as least over other fishponds) for land dwelling than Tiktaalik were. I don’t mean they were fully formed and perfectly adapted for long distance walking, they were merely *good enough* to allow for quasi motion. What kind of fish have limbs like this and can breath air though? A mighty off the wall odd fish if you ask me. It’s fair to say that those earliest fishapods used these limbs more so in the swallows then purely for immediate terrestrial motion though.
Please refer to physiological appendages, which allows for it to use terrestrial locomotion, namely it’s pectoral and rear joints and digits on each limbs. This Tiktaalik didn’t have. You’re right, Acanthostega likely couldn’t venture very far or fast with its limbs, but these limbs were adequate to allow it to move somewhat on land, either between shallow pools or adjoining lakes and streams. That evolution site you listed, mentioned it couldn’t perhaps walk in typified reptile style, however it also, unequivocally called it a tetrapod and not a fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
AO,
(continued)
You asked me to elaborate about Tiktaalik. I thought the Britannica folks did pretty well:
“However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition†or are a “missing link†between fishes and amphibians. Tiktaalik and the other animals looked nothing like conventional ray-finned fishes such as trout and were not closely related to them; likewise, the first tetrapods on land were nothing like familiar amphibians of today such as frogs and salamanders.†(Encyclopedia Britannica, “Tiktaalik roseaeâ€Â)
From the Univ of Chicago:
“Could Tiktaalik walk or live on land? We think the answer is not entirely, but this may change as we analyze the fossils we have or Tiktaalik and find more specimens in our on-going Arctic excavation. Judging by the structure of its front fin and shoulder, it is clear Tiktaalik was capable of using its fin to swim as well as to prop itself up in a push-up position.†(The picture on the page showed Tik. pushing up with its front fins to break the water surface with its snout.)(http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html)
Ergo, it is a fish.
AO,
First, thanks - you push me to learn more. My next project: study the material on cetaceans.
I said the previous post was off the top of my head, and it was. Since lunch I tried to research Aganthostega; of course, there is a great deal of material on the fossils and some is highly technical, but I will try to answer your response:
“So you are saying Acanthostega is a fish then?â€Â
Yes.
“It had gills, but fully formed limbs for terestial walking.â€Â
From all I have quickly read (Harvard, Univ of Chicago), no, it did not have limbs for walking on land. To wit:
“Additional features from the spine, ribs, pelvis and tail corroborated the notion that Acanthostega would not be able to support itself on land. Since it was essentially contemporaneous with the apparently more terrestrial Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, like modern-day dolphins and whales, may have secondarily lost the skeletal features needed for life on land. This possibility, however, is undermined by the presence of internal fish-like gills. (It also breathed with its lungs.) Acanthostega, with its four limbs, pelvic girdle and assorted other features, was clearly a tetrapod, but it probably never left the water.†(http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html)
And this from a pro-evolutionism (for want of a better term) web site. So I stand by my original assertion.
*Evolution in and of itself does not denote 'origin' in and of itself whereas Darwinism 'origin of species' does.*
No, some refer to it as darwinism simply b/c he is the one most cited as first coining the notion of biological chagnes over time. Just like how the initail views on gravity we equally defined as *newtonian gravity* or *einstienian physics*. This however is wrong as in all cases as knowledge is continually gained and new evidence is tested against founding ideas. Darwinism makes no more sense than newtonian gravity or einsteinian physics as each of these have more evidence and testing than simply the original coiners of their prevailing time.
*evolution* as it pertains to biology relates to the diversity of life either within or amongst populations. it describes both the changes in populations and changes from one population *species* to another. so, very much in this manner evolution does denote origins of species as it details how such mechanisms give rise to species in the first place.
Note, newton didn't get it all right with respect to gravity and neither did darwin with respect to biological evolution, therefore to call it by their name is horrid logic.
Evolution is not science. It is religion masquerading as science. Science measures what is repeatable. Evolutionists simply try to explain incomplete data with an obvious bias to try to explain away God. They essentially look at something and make stuff up to meet their preconceptions, rather than experiment to determine how things work. They often find that later discoveries totally invalidate previous stories made up to describe what has been found.
"For God's sake, it's called evolution, not Darwinism."
cccccc-first you don't believe in God so why do you say For God's sake" and capitalize it?
Second- several evolutionists on this site have been quite clear there is a difference between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution in and of itself does not denote 'origin' in and of itself whereas Darwinism 'origin of species' does.
Common, ccccccc- even I know that!
mathetes,
So you are saying Acanthostega is a fish then? It had gills, but fully formed limbs for terestial walking. What an odd interhabitat design, no.
The mudskipper doesn't technically walk, it merely jolts, stutters and flippantly moves about. Howerver, this is land locomotion and provided the right habitat such a feature could be advanced in short, small, successive stages to allow something like Tiktaalik to become a fully walking and swimming amphibious tetrapod. Tiktaalik didn't have fully formed limbs, however its limbs would suffice for land walking. Tt would be something if we never found such fossils, as it would make the notion of fish to ambhibian evolution more speculative. But the fact that we do find them and in specifically where we aught to find them geologically fits *just so* with evolutionary theory. Why would that be?
There is a great story to be told in the rocks, and the story is one of uniformity in complexity with each succession in each layer relative to the next. We can find a persuasive succession where prior to X layer not a single fish is found, not even primitive fish. We find simpe chordates, but nothing like a modern fish. And then upon the next layer we do find fish, but they are jawless fish and still not our modern fish. modern fish with functioning jaws and verterbrates don't show up till later, now why might this be and why is it always uniform?
The same can be said with the appearnce of the earliest amphibians and reptiles and later primitive mammal like reptiles. Why, in the 200 plus years have we never found this uniformity in succession out of order? Why can't we find cetatian fossils with ichthyosaur fossils?
AO,
Sorry I haven't answered your question. Off the top of my head, I would say if it has gills and cannot support its weight on land on its primitive "legs," I would probably classify it as a fish, like those we see today. I confess I've never seen a lungfish walk; only read descriptions. But flopping across the ground is not quite the same as walking. If it does not have gills as an adult and can walk on legs, I would say it's an amphibian.
Sorry so short; I have a lunch meeting I can't miss. Look forward to your response.
mathetes,
Hi. Earlier you had stated Tiktaalik to be *(2) it is still just a fish* and I replied, could you please elaborate on why you deem it as so. Thank you.
FYI, Acanthostega had gills like a fish but were enough to allow it be a primitive tetrapod breathing on land, though it was abviously amphibious. If it had gills, why isn't it a fish? I am trying to find out where you draw the line on fish and ampbian.
cccccccc,
You sure like to use the terms "liars" and "lying" a lot. Any intelligent person would acknowledge that there are competent biologists and other scientists who do not accept the ideas of evolotion/common ancestry of all things. The proof is out there to be read for yourself, and I have mentioned in these forums a biologist colleague who does not believe in evolution (the "macro" kind). So when you say, "Every competent biologist in the world agrees evolution is a fact." - that would be... wait for it... a lie.
ShuckCreations,
The author of that book is from a prestigious college......but *mechanical engineering* is hardly a scientific qualification to consider the author as on par with cell biologists from othre reputable universities, no? I mean, by this rationale we should take the word or advice of a car mechanic over a heart surgeon regarding a triple bypass operation. Would you honestly consider the input from a scientist on the matters of theology over say a cardinal or pastor? of course not, but that is basically what you are asking here.
Quick question or survey to those who have read biology, genetics and paleontology textbooks. I would like your answer with an explanation regarding which model makes more sense with the evidence. Darwinian Gradualism or Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium. This is an active legit debate that is ongoing in the science community.
I favor the gradualism model, as it is readily observed and demonstrated in labs and in the wild. However, for some the fossil records do not support this and so they prefer the PE method to explaining why the emergence of sister species appears, geologically speaking, fairly without earlier forms. I will explain why I prefer gradualism later following your answers. Star, shucks, chris, believer and all others feel free to comment on this.
If you have genuine examples of said weaknesses in the theory please don’t simply list a book. That is an intellectual cop out. State the argument of weakness within the theory, cite it and use references, but do NOT quote it verbatim from the source. Hawk, this means you. My intentions are to actually increase the knowledge here and demonstrate the validity or error in common arguments regarding evolutionary theory. Use your own words, be articulate and formulate why X is wrong with respect to the theory.
ShuckCreations,
i can not help but to chuckle just a tad, I mean their arguments of a shrinking sun, sodium concentration rates, mammoths freezing, aren’t these some of the arguments sites like AIG says not to use? All one need do to refute such claims is look up talkorigins.org
Viking, in a previous comment I quoted the National Center for Science Education:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."
There's a big difference between saying "evolution has weaknesses" which is lying, and saying "there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution".
Biologists have disagreements about many of the countless details of evolution, but that's not a good reason to say evolution, one of the strongest facts of science, has weaknesses.
The creationists incorrectly think evolution has weaknesses, therefore let's throw it out and replace all biology textbooks with the Bible.
Every competent biologist in the world agrees evolution is a fact. Nothing is proven in science and all ideas can be modified or thrown out if new evidence requires it. However, some ideas, like the idea that the earth orbits the sun, and the idea that all life evolved from common ancestors, have so much overwhelming powerful evidence, they are called facts. Facts that everyone knows will never be disproved. The explanations will be modified if new evidence requires it, but it's fair to say the basic facts of evolution will always be accepted facts.
Chris333,
I trust you are doing well my friend. Take for a second to consider how little evolutionary biology is taught at present in most public schools. The scope and sheer volumes of texts of evolutionary biology and all its closely related sciences are large enough to fill easily many years of course work and requires added research and testing to validate and for these reasons it can’t be realistically squeezed into a high school biology course. There simply is not the time or resources.
But lets presume we did devote such time and resources required to teaching such thorough courses in high school, this would no doubt be objected by the overtly religious mostly But by doing so it would demonstrate how wrong creationists are in their view of the theory and they think certain things are wrong, impossible many of the things of which creationists openly decry as wrong, impossible or fictitious.
Only college level courses really devote the time and resources required to perform such a thorough education in evolutionary theory and this is primarily why only those in such fields and others whom attend college or read such evolutionary texts generally understand the concepts of the theory. The alternative is having fools who overlook how the contexts of words like theory are applied differently in science. All aren’t needed to fully understand evolutionary theory, but to only understand genetics and nothing in paleontology leaves one do question the fullness of evolutionary theory and its explanatory prowess.
For this reason we must teach what WE KNOW and can validate via science research, and not simply what we yet do not know or do not fully understand within the confines of a given theory. There is no time or sense in teaching things that we don’t fully understand; it would be like musings in speculation. I think we should discuss the theological implications of using the *designer dun it8 hypothesis, after all it is ID folk who are the continually dragging god into it and therefore we should talk about the consequences of doing so.
creationscience
creation science
Those two words don't belong in the same sentence.
Creation = magic.
Magic is not science.
I've said this before but it's worth repeating. The creationists are destroying their religion. Any intelligent young person who hears a Christian say magical creation is scientific is not going to want to have anything to do with Christianity. The creationists are advertising their total ignorance of science. They are attracting uneducated people to their religion and they are scaring away people who are able and willing to think.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ = Liars for Jesus.
Have you ever tried studying scientific discoveries as explained by the scientists who made those discoveries, instead of getting all your information from professional liars?
"calm down of course there are weaknesses and gaps in our understanding of evolution."
Biologists have much more work to do. I know that. It's still incorrect to say evolution has weaknesses, which is the lie the creationists keep spreading. Just because biologists don't know every single detail that explains the history of life (they never will), that's no excuse to say evolution has weaknesses.
Would you agree our planet's orbit around the sun has weaknesses? Of course not. The earth orbits the sun. That's a fact. Also, all life evolved from common ancestors. That's a fact. The creationists are lying when they say evolution has weaknesses. Our not having a total 100% understanding of exactly how each creature evolved is not a valid excuse for creationists to say evolution has weaknesses.
Weaknesses in evolution = false.
Weaknesses in our understanding of evolution = a bad way to describe the fact biologists will be forever learning more about the history of life.
The creationists hear the word "weaknesses" and they use that as an excuse to pass bills that let incompetent biology teachers lie about science and/or teach supernatural magic in a science class.
"For God's sake..."
Teeheeheehee! Excuse me while I chuckle at the irony of that statement ccccccccccccccccccccc.
"In other words allow them to challenge Darwinism."
For God's sake, it's called evolution, not Darwinism. Darwin has been completely dead for 126 years. Did you think there's been no scientific progress for more than a century?
Challenge evolution? They might as well challenge the idea the earth is not flat.
Why not educate yourself? Learning about science won't kill you.
Does it not bother the uneducated Christian extremists that virtually every biologist in the world completely accepts the fact that all life is related and all life evolved from ancient creatures? Do Christian extremists know their magical creation idea requires the rejection of virtually every branch of science? Don't the creationists realize they are sending a loud message to the rest of the world that Christians are afraid of science and unable to understand science?
The problem is the big business in America called Lying for Jesus. Their gullible customers are willing to believe any nonsense that justifies their childish everything-is-magic fantasy world.
Chris333 sorry for not answering sooner and more fully have to go right now but will respond later. I consider your question sincere deserving of a sincere and thoughtful answer.
cccccc,
calm down of course there are weaknesses and gaps in our understanding of evolution. That is why it has continued to be revised by scientists study biodiversity for the past 150 years and will continue to be revised as new evidence emerges. You don't do science any credit by refusing to acknowledge scientific progress. Just because there is not a better scientific alternative to evolution at present does not mean we have perfect understanding or that a superior understanding will not emerge as we continue with scientific investigation. When you fall into the trap of overstating your claims you undercut the validity of your position. For someone who believes in Science and rationality you certainly let yourself be led around by emotional overreaction.
Hey c(1)c(2)c(3)....c(k) how about you check out this book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creations and the Flood:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
I figure since you love science sooo much you might like a book that shows the scientific evidence for Creation & the the Flood! It also has a lot of these weaknesses that you claim don't exist. ;)
Enjoy! <3
"So you are saying that is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to point out any weaknesses in Evolution Theory, and possible counter explanations?"
What weaknesses?
Name one.
Your imaginary weaknesses were invented by everything-is-magic Christian creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute which has never discovered anything and Answers in Genesis which claims the entire universe is 6,000 years old.
The proven scientific fact of evolution has weaknesses? That's like saying the idea that our planet orbits the sun has weaknesses.
Your evolution weaknesses are only in the imagination of people who know nothing about biology. These people, every single one of them. besides knowing nothing about science, believe that a fairy poofed creatures into existence.
Like I have said before many times, wouldn't it be nice if the Christian extremists actually studied science instead of complaining about it. How hard would that be? Why don't the Christian extremists actually try to know what they're talking about instead of making fools out of themselves and disgracing their religion.
If the Christians don't want to study science, I respectfully suggest they shut up about what they obviously know nothing about. Let science teachers do their jobs. In return scientists won't think in your churches.
Viking, you might want to defend your religion from ignorant creationists who are trying to destroy it. There is no greater threat to Christianity than the creationists who are trying to prove Christians are uneducated and not capable of understanding anything.
logic,
We will all be waiting for your answers to my question, but I willl leave the door open to any others who wish to take it up. Enjoy your break folks.
viking,
So you are saying that is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to point out any weaknesses in Evolution Theory, and possible counter explanations?
The lawmakers who passed the bill said that it was for, "Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized."
In other words allow them to challenge Darwinism.
“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to intelligent design, to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.â€Â
-- National Center for Science Education
"why would you care about this debate?"
I don't debate. I just come here to give Christians a hard time. Everyone has to have a hobby, right?
OK, you accept modern science. That's all I really care about. The Creator/God/Jesus/Salvation business doesn't really interest me that much, except that I often wonder why people believe it, even though it's all obviously made up. Especially the salvation business. What's there to be saved from? If you are suggesting people can go to a heaven, I couldn't believe that in a million years.
I'm convinced people are nothing more than animals. We are smarter but other animals have their advantages. Humans are not the big deal some people think they are. It's crazy to think we are the favored species of some God who is going to save us from something. It's also crazy to think our planet is special. If there is a God (another crazy idea) there's no reason to believe He even knows we're here. Or if He does know we're here, I can't imagine Him giving a damn about us, except maybe to laugh at us. People who believe in Mr. God sure like to pretend they know a lot of things about Him, even though there's no evidence for His existence (except wishful thinking and wild guessing).
Anyway, to heck with this theistic stuff. I like science. You like science. Now if only the other Christians here could learn to appreciate what scientists have accomplished instead of denying their amazing discoveries.
One more thing. I like the idea that there's a natural explanation for everything, even though we may never know what all the natural explanations are. Invoking God, even if God is only invoked to invent natural processes and get the universe started, just adds an unnecessary question - what created the creator? Invoking God for anything is just wild guessing. It's pointless, and in a way it makes the universe less interesting. I like the challenge of trying to understand what really happened without any supernatural intervention.
ccccc,
no I don't think you are dumb I just think you were so filled with anger (what for I'm not sure but that's ok) that you didn't read the actual posts before you reacted. Thanks for taking a moment to slow down.
Re your questions about the supposed conflicts between Christianity and the theory of evolution. It's really quite straight forward. Theistic evolution accepts all valid science in relation to bio-diversity including the theory of evolution. It also accepts all the other valid science in relation to astrophysics the age and formation of the universe etc. But where science ends, the origin of the natural universe, we see what Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and many others often refered to as Providence, or the God of nature or more specifically the Creator. We see for now let us say this being as being outside of or before (those are aproximations not mathematically accurate) the natural universe. We see all of the wonderous processes and dynamics of this natural universe as having their origin in this Creator. This means that in setting the universe into existence the creator also created or set inevitably within the natural universe among other things the processes of evolution. No as you call it "poofing" required. This can also be thought of as providential creationism. A little different than what you are used to thinking of. Secondly those who accept theistic evolution and are also Christians do not read the old testament (Genesis for example) as intended as literal Physical history of the Universe. Rather in general we read this as inspired by the creator as revelation of spiritual truth. I won't go into translation issues and arguments since they are not germain to this discussion.
Ok now given those pieces now comes the hard part for the unbeliever the belief in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. I would be happy to minister to you further on this if your mind and heart are open. In the mean time you might ask yourself about the alternative to a theistic view of reality. For example if the natural universe is the sum total of all reality then why do you care about this debate. What I mean is unless engaging in this somehow increases your reproductive opportunities from an evolutionary point of view it would be maladaptive behavior. Another question you might ponder is do you think mind exists. In other words do you believe that what you think of as your self is just an illusiory reflection of varying physiological states or do you think that you as a sentient self actually has some inherent reality. If you do where does that come from if not then why would you care about this debate?
viking: "However I do know I have an unshakable faith in God and at the same time I accept the scientific validity of the theory of evolution."
For some reason, viking, I had no idea you were on the side of science. What a terrible misunderstanding and of course it was my fault.
You need to work on the God thing, but who cares about that? What's important is you are not a flat-earther who denies modern science like most people on this blog.
As a Christian, you might have better luck than myself and other atheists making other Christians understand how wrong they are about magical creation.
I know there's millions of Christians who accept evolution and I thank goodness they support science instead of attacking science. However, I often wonder how they solve the religious implications of evolution. If Mr. God is not needed to explain something as complicated as the diversity of life, it's hard to imagine what else He would be needed for. Also, if people are just one small twig on a vast tree of life, the Christian beliefs don't make a whole lot of sense, do they?
Anyway, I never realized before you were on the side of science, therefore I must be even dumber than I thought I was.
Logic - have a great time(jealous), remember unless there are thrusts or overfolds, the fossils get older as you work down through the strata, :-)
viking- crikey, your on the ball.
Steve
This bill was passed for religious reasons by religious people who know nothing about biology. Despite their denials, this bill is an obvious attempt to get away with violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It's also an obvious attempt to dumb down the teaching of proven scientific facts that conflict with the Christian creation myth.
There will be another trial and the science-ignorant religious extremists will lose again, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars.
"Many of us are fed up with scientific ideas not being able to be challenged."
Translation: "We don't like it when proven scientific facts conflict with our childish belief in supernatural magic. We want to force biology teachers to teach the idiotic magical creation stories in the Bible."
Here's a wild and crazy idea. The Christians could study biology instead of complaining about it.
Chris333,
I would agree that every scientific theory should be subject to challenge and revision based on new evidence. In order for the Einstien's theory of relativity to be accepted it had to be shown that it was a more comprehensive explanation of the natural world that was demonstrably consistent with observations. So far no such competing theory that surpasses evolution has been concieved of. However even the most cursory examination of the scientific record shows that far from scientific rigidity those who study biological diversity are constantly revising the theory of evolution as new evidence comes forward.
No law is needed to do this it is happening all the time. The problem is that this law doesn't do this. What it does is permits employees to not follow the work related directions of there employers and to be immune from any consequences. This is the equivalent of passing a law that says lawyers will be free from consequences if they counsel their clients using alternate theories of law not recognized in our courts and demonstrated repeatedly to be invalid.
Those challenging the institution of Evolutionary science are not always doing so because of fear that the Christian concept of God and the theory cannot coexist. Many of us are fed up with scientific ideas not being able to be challenged. All scientific theories are up for debate, I mean, what if someone had said that time cannot possibly be relative because overwhelming science at the time said that it was constant? Just because everyone believes something and it seems right now doesn't make it impervious, thus a bill allowing a scientific theory to be challenged should be extremely simple (unless we want to make our children into a bunch of mindless sheep who dare not question the institution).
Mathetes,
You know I respect your comments so I hope you take this response in that light. you are right that one article does not tell the whole story. you present some quotes from Freshwater's pastor. While he may sincerely believe the statements he made they are documented to be wrong in both photographic and written evidence.
You cite the pastor's claim that neither the student nor his parents complained. When in fact the opposite is true as documented in court filings and reported by local newspapers. Below is part of a statement sent to the press by the parents.
We are religious people, but we were offended when Mr. Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of our child. This was done in science class in December 2007, where an electric shock machine was used to burn our child. The burn was severe enough that our child awoke that night with severe pain, and the cross remained there for several weeks. … We have tried to keep this a private matter and hesitate to tell the whole story to the media for fear that we will be retaliated against.
also court documents show
The boy's parents complained to school administrators, who say they told Freshwater not to do it again. Four months after the family complained and just after they hired an attorney, school officials told Freshwater he had to remove all religious items from his classroom, including a personal Bible he had on his desk. Freshwater has refused to remove his Bible but did take down the other items. http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/06/18/bible_teacher.html?sid=101
At best Freshwater's pastor was naively trusting in Freshwater and sacrificed his own credibility in consequence. At worst he is complicit in attempting to justify the actions of this person.
In regards the question of abuse I would ask you to view the photograph of the injury to the student's arm at
http://ap.google.com/article/
ALeqM5g1SluWTuZ9ddhhJI06SSqutTwstgD91E6U3O0
Also if you follow up on the device itself you will find that the manufacturer specifically warns against bringing it in contact with flesh. The device is a leak detector which has legitimate use in a science classroom of which branding students is not one. The fact that he got away with it for 20 years does not absolve him of this abuse it only shows that the school was delinquent in their duty. As a High School Principal if I allowed this to have occurred not only should the teacher be fired I should be as well.
agent and steve: good comments but we've still not resolved the issue. The world must keep on waiting. LOL
BTW no time for counter point.
To all: God bless, I'm rock houndin' till the 18th and I'll be device free.
p.s. for those who don't know, rock houndin' is slang for my hobby (finding and collecting fossils, rocks and stone tools)
Believer/Daniel Paul
I don't know about secular humanists and why they do or do not do what they do. However I do know I have an unshakable faith in God and at the same time I accept the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. Daniel Paul "I think you meant to say If evolution IS wrong then there is a god and they have to answer to him" otherwise the statement doesn't make grammatical sense. That aside I don't see how it follows. Long before there was any theory of evolution there were many persons who were atheists who denied the existence of God. Am I wrong in that? If not how would proving the theory of evolution wrong in any way change someones disbelief in God. Also help me understand how an acceptance of evolution justifies a disbelief in God. I know yes some grandson of Darwin said evolution makes God unnecessary. But if I were to say that Newtonian Physics made God unnecessary would my stupidity make it anymore true?
daniel, I totally agree evolution is one of the foundational cards in the house of secular humanism without it the whole house comes tumbling down.
".if evolution isn't wrong then there is a God and they would have to answer to Him"
huh? regardless if evolutionary theory is correct or not doesn't negate the existence of god, just like gravitational theory doesn't impact the existence.
"This, I think, is the central point we creationists have been posting all along."
Naaaa, creationists only object to evolutionary theory so vigorously b/c of the possible theological consequences in their minds. they equate if 'evolution = true then god lied' in a rough manner.
"overlay fossils with the data extrapalated from the gene theory."
put the link up, I'd like to see it, it doesn't even sound correct in content, or perhaps you're not explaining it fully. If it's not cited or doesn't use reference you needn't bother putting it up.
I spent some time at the youtube stuff (I'm at someone elses computer). One was talking about DNA and using current DNA to determine past DNA. Although it is an interesting science and theory...it would seem to have the same ability to make it say what you wanted just like the theory of surveys and statistical quality control.
It's an interesting science but the man on the video himself said he was going to overlay fossils with the data extrapalated from the gene theory. If a Christian did this to 'prove' creation he'd be laughed out of the scientific community!
"shucks, they sure are protective about their theory aren't they. "
Truth be known...if evolution isn't wrong then there is a God and they would have to answer to Him This has been the basis of the pursuit of evolutionary theory from the beginning. Anything that shakes the house of cards is "off limits" in the science class. That means it's not treated as science. This, I think, is the central point we creationists have been posting all along.
Viking,
Since you mentioned the fired science teacher here as well as the other article forum, I will post this in both places.
It seems much was left out of the article, or at least other reporters were able to learn much more (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062407.html). Freshwater did mention ID once some time back, and after being told not to do that, he has not mentioned it again.
The students volunteered for the demonstration of the Tesla coil, as they have done for over 20 years. Neither the student nor his parents complained to anyone (the alleged incident happened in December); makes one wonder if they were not recruited.
I will not defend any abuse, but the demonstration using volunteers does not sound like abuse. Given the other charges (he led a closing prayer at a meeting of the FCA which he sponsors), I tend to think it more about his religious beliefs/practices than any abuse or even poor teaching (note the last paragraph).
Gord bless you guvnor.....
But I am sure it was an artful dodgey. (wink)
logic
Thats not really true, the fossils allow relative dating
but not absolute.
A couple of examples come to mind, the first is tribolites, we don't find them in strata younger than Permian, so if we do find trilobites we can say that the stata is older(we can use further fossils to narrow down the period) than the Triassic that follows the Permian. Another is amonites, within Jurassic strata when it is broken down into smaller layers we only find certain types (which are known as zone fossils)of them so agin we can give relative dates to parts of the strata.
Geologists use other geological features to relativly date strata a good examples are dykes which cross cut beds, when this occurs we can with confidence say that the strta were deposited and that the dyke which cross cuts the strata is younger, that is it was emplaced later.
In fact this system (fossils and other structures) is so good it is used to find the rocks were oil might be, its the only system oil companies use.
So we can indeed say we don't find trilobites in, Triassic, jurassic, creatacous,quantary, rocks because they are younger than the Permian. Nothing circular about that.
This all started with the cutting of the canals in the 1700's in England, its a fascinating story.
Steve
P.s Flagged myself, upon re reading decided the English was a little dodgey.
*fossils date the layer, layers date the fossils.*
Ha, no they don’t. We don’t date the fossils directly, we date the mineral layer deposits in which they are imbedded and found and based on radio metric and other combined techniques we can relatively give an approximate age of said fossils in layers. The age of layers provide an approximation on when geologically X organism was fossilized.
*fossil "A" should be found in layer "A", layer "A" should contain fossil "A".*
Indeed this is quite simplified, for it is dependent not on single fossils but on specific groups of fossils and how we do not for instance find mammal fossils from the Devonian layers. We only find specific fossils and specific groups of organisms in specific layers. This uniformity and succession in organism complexity from layer to layer is a well-known fact in paleontology, this is just how the layers and fossilized organisms are organized and based on this knowledge we can make such falsifiable predictions on where we should look for particular similar ancient life.
SteveH20: fossils date the layer, layers date the fossils. fossil "A" should be found in layer "A", layer "A" should contain fossil "A". This description is an over simplification but does represent the circularity of the method.
p.s. I and my family own/study one of the largest private fossil and ancient human arifact collections in the state. It covers about 2500 sqare feet.(but that doesn't make me an expert)
viking
Good comment
Steve
Hi all,
unfortunately regardless of the intent of the law the practical effect will be to give support and greater opportunity for teachers such as John Freshwater. Here is a living example of where this path leads. Now some may say there have been abuses on the other side where persons have been discriminated against in employment because of there religious beliefs. That's why we have laws and means of redress so that such person's may be made whole if they are actually discriminated against. But with a law such as this how will the children, parents and community be made whole. When such a teacher hides behind such a law as a shield for their actions. Some may say No, no! we would not protect that kind of teacher. But the evidence of this site shows other wise. If you go to http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080623/christian-
teacher-fired-over-alleged-cross-burning-incident.htm
you will find an abscence of condemnation of this persons conduct and even one post commending him as being persecuted for Christ's sake. If we as Christian's do not stand up against those who would use the cloak of Christianity to abuse children do we not surrender the authority to speak on this issue.
“overall nonfunctional of pseudogenes is also not established.â€Â
It’s not? So, what is the function of all those ERV’s in us and other species then? What qualitative purpose do they hold for us for protein development? And if they do hold value for development, why are they shown to be identical in loci placement between us and Chimps? We can be certain of one thing, no one wants ERV’s to be functional, for if they were, well they’d put the hosts life in jeopardy. Darn designer had to create such pests for us.
Also, we’ve seen in labs how RNA viruses reverse transcribe their code into their hosts DNA genome so it’s not a question of ‘how’d it get there’ we know how. When the ERV is not fully expressed, generally from its own replication errors, (darn designer couldn’t do better than that?) and doesn’t afflict the host it lays dormant, and if the virus inserts itself into the germ line of the genome it will be passed on every generation.
logic
Can you explain what you mean by the circular method concerning fossils and strata.
Thanks
Steve
P.s Studying fossils and rocks as clues to ancient enviroments must be one of the most intresting things I have ever done, if you ever get the chance, do it.
"nothing/big bang/primordial soup dunit" hypothesis (which is also something science can't falsify)’
Ah, but the big bang and the origins of the cosmos has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. First, the big bang wasn’t nothing becoming something, the something (singularity) was already there as energy/matter, it simply hadn’t expanded yet in 4th dimensional space/time, until the inception of our universe. And the soup is merely a hypothesis for earthly life origins, it is not the only one, but again I must reiterate the origins of earthly life don’t negate evolutionary theory as not matter how life got here or got started evolution can still occur. However life got started here, it evolved and continues to evolve regardless.
’Regarding the chromo2 fusion you and I both know the research is subjective,â€Â
Subjective, on what grounds? How is our genetic similarity to chimps and Bonobos over all other animals subjective? 98.3% is subjective? How is our virtually identical karyotype banding patterns across all chromosomes subjective? How are an extra set of Telomeres and Centromeres in our 2nd chromosome subjective? The great apes have an extra set of chromosomes, so as Ken Miller puts it, ‘if evolution really did occur, and we share common ancestry, we simply must account for the 1 missing pair of chromosomes, and scientists knowing this had to make a bold prediction that we should find evidence for this’. And the evidence of human chromosome 2 fusion in the past is such evidence. These things simply are, and as facts they must be explained, so explain them using the ‘ID being made it that way’ as a scientific explanation.
agent: The point of this ED act in LA is to "help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized."
If that is a problem for anyone I would be persuaded that they are an evolution fascist.
agent: Yes paleontologist expect to find certain fossils in certain rocks. Thats established as the circular method that has been popular with them.
It is a fact that some ID proponents are not Christians and THAT was my point. BTW some evolutionist are(christian)
As to the error in using "God dunit" as a hypothesis, it is just as valid as the "nothing/big bang/primordial soup dunit" hypothesis (which is also something science can't falsify)
Regarding the chromo2 fusion you and I both know the research is subjective, yet has not been established and the certainty of orhtologous pairing of retropseudogenes and overall nonfunction of pseudogenes is also not established.
Sorry slacks, can't agree with you, at the heart of this is a desire to replace evolution with another explanation for the biodiversity on this planet,no matter how it is dressed up, angels of light comes to mind.
Steve
To Steveh20: "Your right Shuck, now the other side of the evolutionary theory can be taught, at last children can learn......well, blowed if I know.
Maybe somebody would like to tell me what the alternative is (clue: this is diffrent to just saying evolution has short comings, an alternative theory must be put forward)"
Thats not what this law is in place for, it isn't in place to replace evolution, it is in place to prevent teachers and students from being blacklisted for speaking out against evolution. It isn't replacing anything, nor does it need to....
*how does one tell the difference a transitional form and a dead end on the evolutionary tree? Sure, they are unusual creatures, but without prior evolutionary assumptions, how does one tell the difference?*
I'll give you a hint, it's comprised of 4 base digital chains and is the dominant biological pathway for reproduction. Yup, DNA. We can for instance use current DNA samples from living organisms and comparing them to other extant ones we can deduce their evolutinary relationships, how recently they were close for instance. It also fills in some of the details that normal organization according to nested heirachy and clads doesn't do as well at. One such example is how our and chimps DNA can be analyzed and in detail show our common lineage. This isn't merely the fact that we and them, and bonobos share the most similar genetics relative to all other animals. It's the fact that there are smoking guns in our genes which show common ancestry, the evidence can't really be explained any other way.
You're right though, the fossils in themselves don't directly reveal, at least when the samples are small, which ancestors went on while others were dead ends. We can however review which species existed and when and where and how other very similar groups of species appear later on in the fossil record. The hominids are such an example. Through these we can deduce lineage or evolutionary cousins which evolved at the same time and dead ends. This requires a robust record though, so not all groups are adequetly presentable for this.
We can be sure of one thing though, we are still around b/c all of our past ancestors reproduced, and this is the same for all other life. The older fossils we look at the more strange and alien they are, many consist of exinct high orders of animals, not just species.
AO,
I do not think that God gave us the Bible instruct us in the details of science, but I do believe that it is true whereof it does speak. Not because the human authors were smarter than everyone else, but because God spoke through them. Where the Bible does interact with archeology and other areas, it has been shown to be true.
RE: Tiktaalik and Ventestega - when looking at a fossil, how does one tell the difference a transitional form and a dead end on the evolutionary tree? Sure, they are unusual creatures, but without prior evolutionary assumptions, how does one tell the difference?
I'll look for your answer tomorrow. It's been a long day. G'night.
logic,
Ah, I missed the #. But this is also the same person calling them 'fishapods'. Still, are we to think this is the last of such fishapods to be found? If paleontology has shown us anything, it's that over time the record becomes more fleshed out and based on it we can make deductions on what we should find in certain geological areas.
*Academic ID proponents do not invoke God as creator, they simply acknowledge an intelligent being as the uncaused cause of the universe*
Ummmm....this 'intelligent being' sure has all the hallmarks of god(s). If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...yeah, it's a duck. Just who do you think you're talking to, a 5 year old? Most anyone can see right through that and know who 'you know who' you're subliminally refering to. Are we to belive these ID advocates are publically championing 'litte green men' as a plausable creator for the universe, life or other currently unexplained things? No, they most certainly aren't. You and I both know they who they are talking about when they refer to and ID being and a particular ID being at that.
Logic, surely you see the error in using the 'god/ID dun it' or 'god/intelligent designer/being made it that way' as a scientific hypothesis. After all, how can we ever falsify some agent didn't indeed create X in that way? Say for instance, the evidence of human chromosome 2 fusion and ERV's, how does the 'Intelligent designer/being' hypothesis scientifically explain such evidence?
No matter how we could have possible found the evidence for it, 'god dun it' or 'designer dun it' is ultimately unfalsifiable and utterly intellectualy worthless. You might as well invoke pixies too.
AO,
I really need to go home sometime tonight before my wife gets worried, but I'll try to give you the short answers.
"why must the days refered to in genesis be taking as literal days, and not merely as interpretations of symbolic, deeping meening words?"
Short answer: because the text of Gen. 1 is simple Hebrew narrative as evidenced by the waw consecutive. It's the same type of narrative you find in other OT books: Exodus, Nehemiah, etc. It simply means what it says.
"plantary systems arent' created in a day, and yet you want us to really consider it tenable?"
Sez who? I know that's the prevailing scientific theory, but that is not what Genesis 1 says: Day 1 - God made the heavens (space), earth, time, and light. On Day 4 He made the sun, moon, stars, and seasons.
Yes, I would love for you to consider tenable what God says in the Bible. Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
agent: My last post is not meant to be condescending. I hadn't realized mathetes had already pointed the citation out.
"We ain't done yet Son"? Maybe, but I am. At least for tonight.
mathetes,
My state of whence it came it simple. Consider the lacking knowledge from that era and its more understandable why the things related to science and why they got them wrong. it's not their fault, they couldn't possibly have known of evolutionary theory or other sciences.
*(2) it is still just a fish.*
Whaaa!? When did this happen? Ok, so to you it's a fish. but why? I mean what fish do you know of which have partial limbs with digits? and what fish have such an amphibian head and tail and air breathing lungs but fish scales?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktallik
agent: I did cite the quote. The post began with the citation, but I'll be more specific Nature (the magazine) 440 (the issue).
mathetes,
ok, why must the days refered to in genesis be taking as literal days, and not merely as interpretations of symbolic, deeping meening words? plantary systems arent' created in a day, and yet you want us to really consider it tenable?
darn, I deleted my post on accident
AO,
Re: ID - you got me mixed up with someone else. I haven't been talking about ID.
But you got me with "Oh course, that would also require the reading to actually consider from whence the bible comes from." I'm REALLY curious to hear (1) how much reading you have done in this area, and (2)your opinion on this one.
AO,
I thought logic did give the citation in his 5:49 p.m. post: Nature magazine #440. And I know you did not just appeal to future findings as proof - you are too smart to make that kind of logical fallacy.
I hear what you are saying about Tiktaalik, but (1) it is a fossil, not necessarily an "intermediate" of anything, and (2) it is still just a fish. I don't have any problem admitting the fossil or the fish existed (or may still exist - remember the "missing link" Coelecanth? Oops, it's still alive!
ifeelfine,
Did I challenge you? I though I only asked you a couple of questions. BTW, I did notice you chose not to answer them. I'm still interested in the answers, when you get some rest and feel like answering them. Sweet dreams.
ifeelfine, neither mathetes or I called you anything and certainly not a heretic, to the best of my knowledge no one has challenged your belief in theistic evolution. What I did challenge you on was your implication that if one believes the creation story as recorded in the Bible they are calling God a liar and they make God into a side-show magician since you believe evolution is true and the creation story presented in the Bible is not. So these thoughts of anyone calling you a heathen, heretic, or atheist are purely self-conjecture on your part unless of course it could be the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in your life.
logic,
*mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin*
Indeed they do, however they are fish, not amphibians and yet they perform something most creationist decry as impossible for current and past lobe finned fished to do.
*has remained limited*
Won't bother to cite that will ya? More likely their statement means that there is still other future finds which will no doubt fill in other gaps from lobe finned fish to primitive tetrapods, so in other words, 'we aint done yet son'. Funny how their research and earlier findings of these primitive tetrapods lead them directly to the area and geological time in which they would most likely find Tiktaalik, no? I mean, if evolution is wrong, wwhy do they only find certain very common species in this region.
*Why is a fossil's existence counter to creationism? *
Oh the whole thing about certain species like Tiktaalik, and other such intermediates that exist, shouldn't according to the idea that no species is the ancestor of others.
logic: Thank you, heretic was the word I was looking for. And you are a little incorrect, the overwhelming majority of folks who subscribe to ID are Christian.
Believer: My views regarding theistic evolution haven't been challenged at all. Please, feel free to challenge them. Until then, I'm going to bed. Yawnnnnn.
ifeelfine: Regarding this debate, technically it has only been implied that you are a heretic. You are correct that some ID proponents are other than Christian. Academic ID proponents do not invoke God as creator, they simply acknowledge an intelligent being as the uncaused cause of the universe. As to the implications of evolution or creation, if one does not believe it to be a possibilty then niether are its implications.
ifeelfine, you are the one who brought the God is a liar and a side-show magician into this discussion in the first place. I have simply been responding to your posts. I don't hate evolution because I do believe in for lack of a better term micro-evolution, but I do not believe in macro-evolution. But if you are having a hard time having your views challenged or being held accountable for statements you make in your posts then as the old saying goes if you can't take the heat then you need to get out of the kitchen.
believer and mathetes: Then why don't you call the folks that believe ID heathens and atheists and all the other things you directly or indirectly call me? After all, they are "calling God a liar" as much as I am? It really isn't about that is it? Its really about hating evolution and the implications you think it has for your faith. Isn't that right? You actually believe some of the things atheists say don't you? "If evolution is true, then God can't be." That's what your fear is, isn't it?
mathetes, if you haven't yet go to the opinion site and read a column from our friend viking. Thanks for your support on this one, be blessed as you serve Him, believer
ifeelfine, I believe that the universe was created in thousands of years as opposed to billions of years. So if that makes me a young earth creationist I guess I am.
iff,
So which is the truth: theory of evolution or the Bible?
iff,
I do not remember God putting the year in the Bible. But I suppose I would closer to that view than anything else. Where would you put millions of years in Genesis 1 without doing violence to the text?
mathetes and believer: are you young earth creationists? IE do you believe that the entire universe, our planet and all life on it is 6000 years old +/-?
ifeelfine,
We believe the Bible means what it says or we believe it does not. Theistic evolution is not a perfect compromise, for it calls the word of God in Gen. 1 a lie. The theory of evolution contradicts Genesis 1, so which is it? Which do you believe is right?
ifeelfine, by the way I was just scratching the surface when it comes to describing the awesome God of the universe whom I serve, now if I wereto lower myself to your standard of taking cheap shots I would say well at least I don't serve a god who sits around twiddling his fingers for billions of years watching life and mankind evolve into existence like the god of theistic evolution did. Please note that the gs are in lower case to make my point.
ifeelfine, I am not the one calling God a side show magician, the God I serve raises people from the dead to include His only Son Jesus Christ, the God I serve can not only forgive me for my sins He has saved me from my sins and has a place reserved for me in heaven, so for Him to create this universe in six 24 hour days is a piece of cake in fact it's so easy for Him all He had to do was speak and there it was. Plus I do believe the factual inerrancy of the Scriptures based on the definition of inerrancy as opposed to your opinion of inerrancy.
believer: with all due respect to you, it appears as though you are the one who insults God by reducing Him to something of a side-show magician.
As for the inerrent word of God, you claimed yesterday to believe that the truth of the Bible was inerrent, not the facts (remember the red or purple robe). Which is it?
The point I am trying to get across is evolution is not the only possibilty and that we should not be "soup nazis" in the kitchen of science. NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN FOR YOU!!
No I'm not laughing at all, as Dr Johnson said "A man who tires of london has tired of life".
With that, its time for bed...goodnight everybody.
Steve
steveH20: perhaps I should have typed "intelligent designISM" which does not ascribe to any particular religion.
steveh20, I just want students to have a chance to hear various views on a very important question of where and how did life and mankind begin. Now I know you guys who are far more qualified in the sciences than I am will be tempted to throw questions as to the validity or lack of validity of these other views and as I told agent for a majority of them my answer would be "ya got me!" so there is no reason to even go there. By the way did I ever tell you London was my favorite city and now every time I watch a Dicken's classic or (please don't laugh) Mary Poppins with my wife I enjoy them even more.
When it comes to creationism, which religion is it in particular that the children should hear from logic, the OT is not the only religious document with views on the origin of the universe. I'm guessing that as you want both sides taught then all will be okay? That would be consistant with your view.
Steve
steveH20: "hoping for some honesty" At the end of the day I would like to see both THEORIES critically analyzed, because that is what evolutionISM and creationISM are. Each one is a belief, a different interpretation of the evidence.
agent: In Nature 440 the discoverers of tiktaalik (daeshler, shubin, and jenkins)comment that despite the dicoveries of titaalik and other lobe fin fish that "our understanding of major transformations at the fish-tetrapod transition has remained limited" in other words the smoking gun for the transition from fish to tetrapod does not exist.
believer et al
But what is this other side people keep going on about. I have asked again and again what is the alternative but not one person will answer. Because others will not I at least try....
If the theory evolution is incorrect in its interpretation of the evidence then either:
1. An entity created all species etc... exactly as we see them today
or
2. Supposed gaps in the fossil record etc..are were an entity stepped in and created species etc..this then looks like increasing complexity as one moves up through the biostratigraphic column.
I think that sums up the alternative views to evolution.
Now ladies and gentlemen, is that what you at the end of the day (take your choice ) want taught in class. Be honest this time, don't "twist and turn like a twisty turney thing" (quote is from a Mr E Blackadder) come clean, fess up, fess all.
Regards (hopeing for some honesty)
Steve
agent:tiktaalik most likely no different than similar species alive today. ie the northern snakehead and the walking catfish (Clarias batrachus) are air-breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch Anabas testudineus not only breathes air and "walks" on land but is even said to be capable of climbing trees. Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods or transitional species. They are simply interesting and specialized fish.
AO,
You said, "The fact that Tiktaalik and other intermediate amphibians exist at all is counter to creationism, so it must be somehow explained in their views, but good luck with that. Rationalize it for us."
Why is a fossil's existence counter to creationism? I'm afraid you've lost me with that one. And why would I need to rationalize it?
agent, I have never been opposed to evolution being taught in the classroom. My desire has always been to allow it to be challenged and to allow other sides of the issue to be presented. But before you begin sharing why my desires are not worthy of being brought into the scientific arena I realize this is an area where I am a total minor leaguer and you are a major leaguer so there is no need for you to go there.
*we've gotten way too cought up in whether or not evolution is right or wrong*
Ya, if you say so. Earlier you were all to happy to remark on *huge gaps* in the fossil record or the Cambrian Explosion, only to be shown how in one instance the gaps aren't so huge after all. I wonder how many bible classes they teach about species like Tiktaalik?
*science course it must be unbiased which means teaching all aspects of life and how it began.*
But there is where you got it all wrong, evolutionary theory does not describe, nor does it intend to describe, how life began. this is paramount to why so many lack the basic understanding in biological evolution as they don't even understand how it is applied. It only describes how/why life diversified and not how it began, hence why Darwins book was origns of species and not orgigins of life.
believer,
and you guys sure will do anything to ensure evolution isn't taught in schools? now, why might that be? perhaps it has something to do with beaing fearful of the theological consequences.
Shux,
No, pick whatever you want, and critique it here. Let's be civil about it, pick an item and we can go over where it falls short and why it does not or should not be used for evolutionary theory. If it still stands after critiqe we can say it is fair to be used. Fair enough? =)The examples I give are generally good ones, so you likely wont find good counter scientific evidence for not refering to say, human chromosome 2 fusion, or ERV. Such evidence simpy can not be infered any other way but by acknowleding evolution in the past, but of course, as they say the devil is in the details as it requires actually reading up on why this is so.
Such evidences shouldn't be critiqed in classes, as Ifeelfine has already noted this would lead to bascially telling them what we yet don't fully understand, which is not really teaching much. It would be like talking about the sun and how little we know about nuclear fusions prior to knowing they fuse atoms and in our absence of evidence inkvoked magic to supplant our ignorance. Nothing personally gives me more authority over you, regardless the evidence is there and studying it reveals facts which we can then form predictions and models behind.
*Have you been on a team that discovered one of these fossils you point to?*
No, but this is entirely moot. Science evidence and facts don't simply rise and fall based on who found them, they rise and fall in accordance with evidence for them, and their continued testing and critique. The fact that Tiktaalik and other intermediate amphibians exist at all is counter to creationism, so it must be somehow explained in their views, but good luck with that. Rationalize it for us.
shucks, they sure are protective about their theory aren't they.
Anyway, we've gotten way too cought up in whether or not evolution is right or wrong. I only wanted to say that for a proper science course it must be unbiased which means teaching all aspects of life and how it began. I don't feel there's any more discussion needed on the subject so I'm bowing out. Later guys.
Okay I get it. I can only critique evidence given by you and only if it's for evolution. What gives you anymore authority on the subject than I? Have you done a thesis on the subject matter? Have you been on a team that discovered one of these fossils you point to?
Shux,
No, what I meant was you go out and critique said evidences. as in find the faults in the discovery of Tiktaalik, HC2, ERV, etc. you do not honestly think anyone would take your word only after you openly admit to not being an expert, so show why such evidences are wrong. otherwise what you are offering is mere hearsay musings, like *huge gaps* you are not specific.
"Critique it all you want, that is what science is about - learning."
HA! Which is what I've been saying since I started commenting this morning. Thank you for reiterrating that. I'll say it again...ALL sides of evolution should be taught. The inconsitoncies, the gaps, the fossil records, the unexplained, the assumed branches. If we want our children to learn it must ALL be critiqued. Thanks again for saying what I've been trying to this whole time.
Shux,
*Do we even need to go into how reliable those kind of resources are to begin with.*
We sure could if you wanted to. After all, Wiki was deemed to be on par in terms of accuracy with Encyclopedia Britannica. Don't take my word for it, Google the articles for it. Wiki is but a reference, not gospel, so it is important the read refers to the linked articles mentioned.
*What about hard data?*
Sure, again refer to some of my vids or those I've posted over and over, like human chromosome 2 and ERV, and their sources and its there. The vids are merely an illustrative way of providing the evidence in a manner more digestible. if one is so inclined they can find the Nature articles and based on that and other findings they can come to their own conclusions. Go ahead, check my work. Critique it all you want, that is what science is about - learning.
ifeelfine, what you are saying is that if a person believes that the Word of God is the God-breathed, plenary, inerrant Word of God they call God a liar because you say evolution is the way mankind came into existance. As a person who believes that the Word of God is the God-breathed, plenary, inerrant Word of God, what I am saying to you is by you promoting evolution it is you who are calling God a liar.
Orange, I'm not claiming that I'm not an expert to avoid personal critique. I'm citing that because it's the truth and I don't know all. But what I do know I have posted and I'm sorry I don't have the time here at work to find news articles, wikipedia documents, or youtube videos to prove to you something that is pretty widely known. Do we even need to go into how reliable those kind of resources are to begin with. How about you post some reference to actual research. What about hard data? If you're going to be that technical about it let's see it! All I've ever seen you post is nonsense. I could gather information off of the web and make such claims as well.
I am not doubting that this is documented just making a point that if you require substantial evidence from me I need the same respect for you.
Believer,
Ifeelfine is referring to his belief that god created the universe and therefore all things indirectly derived from it. Not that he thinks god created all the species all magically and instantly, rather he’s saying god created the matter and forces of the universe which provided the means for evolution to come about and run its course. Surely it's more detailed, but the key is, he thinks as some well known scientists do that god had his part in it. Just like Ken Miller and other scientists think.
believer: How am I calling God a liar? I don't get that.
ShuckCreations,
I don’t mean to hammer you, but you can’t on one hand play as if you know what you’re talking about and then to avoid personal critique just retort that you’re not an expert. The evidence is there and available for study by all; simply saying they don’t exist is more or less what you implied and this is not so. There are gaps, but not overly huge ones all over where we can’t deduce evolution in the past. Some lineages are more complete compared with others as we've found more of their fossils and where they evolved. cetations being one example.
Ok, you might want to read beyond just the headline. Read into the article and you’ll see the headline is SARCASIM over the fact how it fills in a gap one held by creationists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
Earlier you’d stated there are *huge gaps* in the fossil record, fair enough. I asked for you to be specific, so far, nada. Which gaps? To which I replied with one such instance (lobe finned fish to primitive tetrapods), which fills in a small gap within the large gaps you insist on. Now, by adding this one specimen (Tiktaalik) from the evolution of A –Z, it fits somewhere in the relative middle between lobe finned fish (A) and amphibious tetrapods (Z), how exactly does it create another gap?
Look Ma, another one of those gaps gets filled…..again@#!!
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/ventastega.html
ifeelfine, you are the one who is saying God is a liar and please do not call yourself a creationist. As you said to shucks you can't have it both ways either you believe in creation as taught in the Word of God or you believe in evolution. If you want to believe in evolution that's your choice, but please don't cheapen God or God's Word in the process.
Lol I knew I'd get hammered on the expert thing but the truth of the matter is I haven't studied paleontology, I studied physics and semiconductors. Regardless of my knowldege on fossils I can still make intelligent observations. There are gaps, which may or may not be filled, in the fossils and there is a possiblity that the fossils held so dear weren't even constructed properly. Even your link says there are gaps "../tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php"
Watch out! Children may actually learn how to think for themselves!
AgentOrange is right Shuckcreations. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim some kind of moral / intellectual superiority and then when backed against a way say "I'm not an expert."
Frankly I'm surprised at how many folks claiming to be Christians are willing to lie (omission, commission, fraud, subversion are all forms of lying) to get some kind of creationism taught in schools.
I've made no apologies for the fact that I am a creationist, my creationism just happens to be theistic evolution (evolution exactly the way science is finding it to be just with the guiding hand of God). I still believe "God did it" - just not the same way you do. The facts of evolution are too overwhelming to ignore. You can either believe God is a liar or not, I choose to believe He is not . . . okay, I'll get off my soapbox now! :)
Shucks,
“sSPECIFICALLY LAUNCHEDâ€Â
Right, they launched an effort to find such an fossilized organism (just like all other fossil expedictions) and based on past searches and finds this tells them where they should be most likely to find X organism. In this case, a primitive tetrapods.
‘When research is begun with a bias,’
No, the research wasn’t done with a bias. This fossil, Tiktaalik was discovered in principle due to how well we understand the nature of geology and paleontology and based on this information we can make predictions. One such prediction is WHERE and WHEN geologically we should look to find such a organism like Tiktaalik. This is the same type of basic deduction in logic we use to find fossils of the ancestors of whales and dolphins or hominids. You can’t just sit and dig randomly and expect to find such specimens, you need to know WHERE to look to begin with and much of knowing where to look comes with past digs which haven’t been fruitful.
‘I'd be interested in knowning how the fossil was foundâ€Â
Like all others, they dg carefully and meticulously, and in Canada is where they found it. Refer to the vids on its discovery, it’s all there. How they found it, in what location, and how it was organized/situated. I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t scattered.
‘Debate what?â€Â
Debate the evidence which people like you say don’t or can’t exist. I hear it all the time from your side. ‘ Oh, those gaps are so huge, no fossils exist, the 2nd law refutes evolutionary theory’ and on and on. And then , just like you, they follow it up with ‘well, I am not an expert in paleontology’ as if to excuse their lingering ignorance in the matter. And when I cite vids which use sources and references suddenly the opposition asks foolish questions like you just did. ’Debate what’
Enough to know eveolution is the best description for the bio diversity on this planet :-)))
Steve
steveh20, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering. I have had my fair share of physics. What classes have you taken??
Ok, seriously back to work I go...
shucks
Maybe while we are at it we could teach a non biased view of chemistry and especilly physics, its high time a non biased view of the standard model was taught....
Steve
My Gov. is better than your Gov. Jindall 2012!
shucks: pot, this is kettle, kettle, this pot
shuck: You're not suggesting a "non-biased view of evolution." You're suggesting teaching ID or something like that or at the very least planting some seeds of doubt on evolution when in reality, those seeds don't really exist. Evolution is the model that best explains the FACTS. What is another model that explains the facts? If one is out there, let us know.
Anyway guys, I need to get back to work. Obviously y'all don't want to get out of your biased mindset. How do you ever expect young minds to grow if we don't allow them to challenge something and learn from it?
"Today in math, we'll teach what I don't know."
Isn't that exactly what a proof is for?
agentorangex,
"This creature is called Tiktaalik roseae, and it was discovered in a project that was sSPECIFICALLY LAUNCHED to find a predicted intermediate form between a distinctly fish-like organism, Panderichthys, and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega."
Taken from one of your links. I find it interesting that my point is shown perfectly here. When research is begun with a bias, especially when funded, they WILL find their results. I'd be interested in knowning how the fossil was found. If it was put together or perfectly preserved in that arrangement.
Time and time again, orange, you post these youtube videos and ask us to debate them. Debate what? Some kid with a computer put a video together that may or may not be altered? I've watched these before and like I said previously there is very little variance between the evolution of the skulls shown (I'm at work so I'm assuming you posted the same video you always do).
steveh20,
I've already answered your question. I'm not suggesting an alternative but merely a non-biased view of evolution. For minds to think critically they need to see both sides of the arguement.
shuck: There are no pro's or cons to evolution, just things we don't know or understand yet. There hasn't been a single piece of evidence that has not fit into the current model of evolution.
Should we teach the "other side" to all of the sciences then? Teach what we don't understand about gravity? Why don't we teach what we don't know about all of the subjects in school. "Today in math, we'll teach what I don't know." Sounds kind of silly, don't you think?
AO
Good vids
Steve
shucks
What are these diffrent examples that could be taught, what are the alternatives that could be taught for the bio diversity on this planet. I have asked this question to you before but you don't seem to want to answer it. Please do. If not evolution then what?
Regards
Steve
ShuckCreations,
Which major gaps are you comlaining about? Be more specific please on which gaps and for which species you're refering to.
Is the record for all animal fossils incomplete? yes, but that is not to say we don't have actual intermediates between major groups of extinct and extant orders and deduce their shared lineage.
Shucks,
“I've posted it on here before guys. Like the fact that there are huge missing gaps in fossil recordsâ€Â
Yup, all those big gaps, that most laymen don’t know such fossils examples for, oh the irony.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/transitional-fo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
“there's still no explaination to what is commonly known as the Cambrian Explosion.â€Â
By no explanation, what are you referring to? The Cambrian Explosion from the early Cambrian isn’t, repeat IS NOT, the first signs of complex multicellular life. Complex life was already apparent (per the fossil record), it however hadn’t diversified into the major phylar to the degree that we see in the CE. But since you’re fond of the CE, and using it as if it was overnight, let it be known this little explosion occurred over a period of 55 million years. Yup, that’s some overnight explosion all right.
"I don't see what the problem between this and the fossil record and evolution is?"
They don't, necessarily, just giving different examples to studies that could be taught alongside evolution. The fossil gaps are a completely different animal, no pun intended. You can say we just haven't found them but I say what if you never do?
I no I'm no expert on the fossil study, but by observation the fossils usually used to show our evolution seem to look like a human's skull today that underwent serious trauma. Back in the day times were rough. Considering the amount of violence/war and the variety of human sizes/shapes I have a hard time seeing what these fossils are supposed to prove.
shucks, I'm glad you know what the Cambrian explosion is, I don't see what the problem between this and the fossil record and evolution is?
If you want to believe that God was behind this incident(which out of intrest occurred over millions of years) thats totally fine by me.
Thanks
Steve
No problem M, I'm asking the question, if not evolution, then what to replace it with as an explanation for the bio divdersity on this planet? Its a fair question. Lets have some striaght answers instead of avoiding the elephant in the room :-))
Steve
By the other sides I mean to say the cons of evolution. You cannot show a theory without both sides. I know exactly what the Cambrian Explosion is supposed to be. It was a time when life essentially evolved exponeitaly fast. If God were to have used evolution this suggests that he definately had a hand in it!
And Darwin may have said that 150 years ago but it has yet to be explained. What's so funny about models having to be updated jsut shows how little we truely know about this world.
Steve,
Perhaps it just early here, but I did not understand something: "we need an alternative to teach the kids not just shortcomings in evolution"
I know in my classes evolution was taught uncritically, without weaknesses. Should we not discuss them? And why is an alternative necessary?
Sorry I am slow. Look forward to help with this.
shuck: I asked what the other side of this "science" was, I didn't ask you to try to refute evolution. Your comments show exactly why a law like this is so dangerous.
As for your Darwin quote, Darwin lived 150 years ago, he got many things wrong, its why the term "darwinism" is so ignorant, there is no such thing. Its also one of the great things about science, when a model better fits the evidence, it can be used. Right now, there is no better model for the abundance of life than evolution.
Shucks, can you explain to me what you mean by the term Cambrian explosion. The reason I ask is that having studied it in geology courses I find that the term is used by some with out actually understanding what it means, they seem to think that before this time there was no multicelluar life when of course there is in the fossil record, for example the Edicurian fauna which were in existence for 60 - 90 Ma before that time. Darwin would not have been aware of such things so his quote is quite in order with his understanding.
On a completely seperate note I find it interesting that people quote him as if somehow his word was the be and end all on this subject, as if it was some sort of holy scripture, its not a view I hold to myself.
Regards
Steve
P.s remember the clue, we need an alternative to teach the kids not just shortcomings in evolution, put forward your theory please, you have not done that yet.....
P.p.s Flagged myself
I've posted it on here before guys. Like the fact that there are huge missing gaps in fossil records or that there's still no explaination to what is commonly known as the Cambrian Explosion. I think Darwin himself said it best:
"There is another allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." Darwin, The Origin of Species. p. 348
shuckcreations: Would you care to explain the other side of this "science" to us? It sounds like you know it so well.
"The law will also help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks..." That would likely include the intelligent design creationism pseudoscientific "textbook" titled "The Edge of Evolution," also known as "Pandas 2" after its predecessor publication which was made famous in the 2005 Dover trial (Google "cdesign proponentsists" to see what this is all about). "Pandas 2" is, oddly enough, closely associated with the organization that drafted the template for the new Louisiana law (which has also been considered by legislatures in Florida, Maryland, Michigan and several other states). Can you say "conflict of interest"? And Pandas 2's author has been disavowed by his employer, Lehigh University - see www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm .
Your right Shuck, now the other side of the evolutionary theory can be taught, at last children can learn......well, blowed if I know.
Maybe somebody would like to tell me what the alternative is (clue: this is diffrent to just saying evolution has short comings, an alternative theory must be put forward).
Steve
I'm all for teaching the positions of "first causes" and the like, but that belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.
If any of these students want to become biologists and wish to cling to creationism, they'll be in for a rude awakening.
Fantastic! Regardless of religious teachings the other side of the evolutionary theory can be taught as well. If we don't teach these kids both sides of the science how can we expect them to learn and think for themselves? As long as states don't aprove of this type of Act then all we're doing is essentially brainwashing students into believing one thing. Hear hear!!