Darwin^2, your use of a scientist's name to preach your disgusting hell belief is repulsive. What an insult to one of the greatest scientists in history to use his name to spread lies about him. You should be ashamed of yourself. You disgrace your religion.

"If you continue in your rants" What are you talking about? I'm answering questions. Do you want me to ignore questions that people ask me? What are you doing besides impersonating somebody who was thousands of times smarter than you are?

believer said "you say scientists have seen the evolutionary process, but are there any accounts of scientists or any one observing macro-evolution or discovering living examples of for lack of a better term the missing links required for macro-evolution to take place? wbmoore said "the fact is, there are many scientists who do not hold to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, anyone who pu...more

believer said "you say scientists have seen the evolutionary process, but are there any accounts of scientists or any one observing macro-evolution or discovering living examples of for lack of a better term the missing links required for macro-evolution to take place?

wbmoore said "the fact is, there are many scientists who do not hold to macro-evolution. Unfortunately, anyone who publishes such will be denigrated and will loose their jobs because it does not toe the party line."

Creationists define macro-evolution to be the development of new species from other animals.

Creationists accept evolution, but they believe there is some invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species starts looking too different from its ancient ancestors.

There are zero competent biologists who claim that the development of new species is impossible. There are exactly zero competent biologists who deny that all life is related and all life living today developed from other species.

The small handful of fake scientists who deny the facts of evolution (or what creationists call macroevolution) work for Bible colleges or the Discovery Institute. These worthless pseudoscientists have never contributed anything important to biology. The Discovery Institute has never discovered anything.

Wbmoore, your "anyone who publishes such will be denigrated and will loose their jobs because it does not toe the party line" is dishonest. Any biologist who could disprove evolution and could provide convincing evidence for the idea that evolution is false, would become famous. Other scientists would jump on it, wanting to share the fame. But the truth is evolution has been tested for 150 years and it has passed every test. An important point to understand is evidence is required for everything. If somebody says something must have been magically created but can't provide any real evidence for the magic, what do you expect a real scientist is going to do about it? The answer is the wacko's ideas will be ignored and/or laughed at. You got to have evidence. If you got it and if it can be tested repeatedly and successfully by other scientists, then it will be accepted. If there's no evidence for a new idea then it's going to be ignored.

Believer, the answer to your question is biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. For example, using DNA analysis they have determined that the closest non-human relatives (distant cousins) of humans are the chimpanzee apes. There is absolutely no doubt about this evolutionary relationship. If you deny this fact which biologists can see with their own eyes then you might as well also claim the earth is flat.

Don't believe me? Then google "evolution evidence" and get to work. I'm not interested in explaining science to the willfully ignorant.less

mathetes said "You continue to generalize about both sides and slander those with whom you disagree. It is a real shame you cannot seem to follow the forum rules. Your arguments would seem more rational without all that." I slander those with whom I disagree? You're making things up. That's called lying. The existence of creationists is an insult to the hard work and i...more

mathetes said "You continue to generalize about both sides and slander those with whom you disagree. It is a real shame you cannot seem to follow the forum rules. Your arguments would seem more rational without all that."

I slander those with whom I disagree?

You're making things up. That's called lying.

The existence of creationists is an insult to the hard work and integrity of thousands of biologists. To be a creationist a person has to believe virtually every biologist in the world is dishonest and incompetent. Creationists owe the biologists an apology.

mathetes, instead of spending your time lying about me, why don't you provide some evidence for your belief in magical creation. Also, why don't you explain God's technique when He created creatures out of nothing. Does He say "poof" or "abracadabra" or what? Does He wave a magic wand? I need evidence to accept your magic nonsense and you have nothing. Not one shred of evidence for your ancient creation myth. Your magical creation is nothing more than the wishful thinking of people too lazy to study science.less

"In short, I wasn't there. I didn't see it." The biologists can see it. They can see the entire history of life by comparing the DNA of living creatures. From DNA analysis they can see the history of life in amazing detail. You have no idea how incredibly powerful this evidence is. That's why I encourage creationists to get to work and study it. They can believe in God ...more

"In short, I wasn't there. I didn't see it."

The biologists can see it. They can see the entire history of life by comparing the DNA of living creatures. From DNA analysis they can see the history of life in amazing detail. You have no idea how incredibly powerful this evidence is. That's why I encourage creationists to get to work and study it. They can believe in God if they want, nobody cares. But their creation myths have got to go. It's ridiculous to disregard what biologists can see with their own eyes just to cling to a thousands of years old myth.less

Daniel Paul said: My problem with your arguement is that you act like evolution is to be beyond question. How unscientific! You sound just like the dogmatic creationists.... "Just accept what we say without thinking about it because we say it's fact." I wouldn't ask anyone to accept anything without studying the evidence for it. Biologists call biological evolution a fact no...more

Daniel Paul said: My problem with your arguement is that you act like evolution is to be beyond question. How unscientific! You sound just like the dogmatic creationists.... "Just accept what we say without thinking about it because we say it's fact."

I wouldn't ask anyone to accept anything without studying the evidence for it. Biologists call biological evolution a fact not because they think it's a fact. They call it a fact because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

I'm talking about evidence you refuse to study and refuse to understand. I'm talking about evidence you don't even know about because you have made little or no effort to look for it.

I suggested earlier on this thread that creationists should google "evidence evolution" and get to work. Of course I don't expect them to do anything. Creationists have a long history of ignoring modern scientific discoveries. They never try to understand anything.

I don't accept the facts of evolution just because virtually every single biologist accepts it. I have been studying the evidence for several years. I plan to continue studying it for the rest of my life, but I have no hope of studying all of it because it's too massive and it's still growing more rapidly than ever.

Biologists have healthy disagreements about the countless small details of evolution, but because of the powerful evidence for the basic facts of evolution, they agree completely that evolution is the strongest and most important fact of biology.

On my side I have mountains of evidence and virtually the entire scientific community.

On your side you have some uneducated preachers and the wacko pseudoscientists and lawyers of the Discovery Institute, which has never discovered anything.

"ID says there was an intelligence at work but it could be an alien for all they know."

The ID nuts know who their imaginary designer is, the Christian God. The Discovery Institute doesn't like to talk about their magical designer for one reason: they are compulsive liars who are trying to disguise supernatural magic to look scientific.less

On Friday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote another letter to Gov. Jindal urging him to veto Senate Bill 733. The bill disingenuously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists. ... In short, there is virtually no controversy about evolution among research...more

On Friday, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote another letter to Gov. Jindal urging him to veto Senate Bill 733.

The bill disingenuously implies that particular theories, including evolution, are controversial among scientists. ... In short, there is virtually no controversy about evolution among researchers, many of whom, like you, are deeply religious.

What about intelligent design, which you addressed in your recent interview? Because it is not science, but a concept based on a religious belief, intelligent design might be an appropriate topic for a course on philosophy or world religions. But it has no place in a science classroom. From a scientific perspective, there is simply no way to test for the presence or absence of God or another "designer." From a legal perspective, intelligent design comes from a single religious point of view, and a federal judge appropriately ruled that teaching it in science class is unconstitutional.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Louisiana "creation science" law. Rather than step backward, look to the future by seeking to provide Louisiana students with a firm understanding of evolution and other essential scientific concepts so they can compete for high-skill jobs in an increasingly high-tech world economy. Asserting that there are controversies about these concepts among scientists—when in fact there are not—will only confuse students, not enlighten them. I urge you to protect the future of science education in your state by rejecting this bill.

http://tinyurl.com/5zc56uless

Whoops. I meant "Once life got a foothold here", not "One life got a foothold here".

schumacr asked "False how?". He was responding to the quote from Gould "Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false." He also said "... stop trying to use evolution to prove/disprove God." He also said &quo...more

schumacr asked "False how?". He was responding to the quote from Gould "Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false."

He also said "... stop trying to use evolution to prove/disprove God."

He also said "If you want to settle back and accept an eternal universe, go ahead, but when you do you throw out all your empirical science and accept it solely on the basis of faith. Collapsing universes, string theory, aliens seeding the earth, etc., are all nice thoughts but they have no real evidence to support them..."

schumacr, thanks for your comments.

You asked a good question. Why is creation science (also known as intelligent design creationism, also known as Bible creationism) false?

Biologists and biology teachers know creationism is false because the diversity of life has been explained by science. It's called biological evolution. Virtually all biologists accept the facts of evolution because of the evidence, especially the newer extremely powerful evidence from molecular biology, which I noticed has been explained repeatedly on this blog by agentorange and others.

I agree that evolution (or any other scientific fact) does not disprove God. It just makes God unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. There will always be other places to hide the God-of-the-gaps. Also, science does not care about whether God exists or not. Science is separate from religions. Science is neither atheistic nor theistic.

I'm not too interested in how the universe began, and that has nothing to do with biological evolution. The "aliens seeding the earth" is an idiotic idea in my opinion. There's still no consensus about how the first living cells developed, but the scientists working on this problem have a lot of good ideas. Until the problem is solved, it could be a good place to hide God until scientists chase it away. It seems impossible to me for life to not develop on a planet like earth. One idea is life developed from organic matter from the countless comets that crashed into earth 4 billion years ago. One life got a foothold here, scientists know that it eventually evolved into the millions of creatures we can see today, and even more creatures that are now extinct.

Please continue believing in God if you want, but creationism has got to go. It didn't belong in the 20th century and certainly doesn't belong in the 21st century. Biological evolution is now one of the strongest facts of science and with every new discovery it has become stronger.less

Daniel Paul, I don't care what Albert Einstein said. He was just one of thousands of scientists. I can't imagine Einstein invoking Mr. God to solve any scientific problem. I don't think he ever said "God did it". Einstein is dead. I'm interested in living scientists. I noticed even very religious scientists, if they are competent, never invoke God to solve a sci...more

Daniel Paul, I don't care what Albert Einstein said. He was just one of thousands of scientists.

I can't imagine Einstein invoking Mr. God to solve any scientific problem. I don't think he ever said "God did it".

Einstein is dead. I'm interested in living scientists. I noticed even very religious scientists, if they are competent, never invoke God to solve a scientific problem. A good example is Francis Collins. He's very religious, but he doesn't invoke Mr. God in the lab.

There is a wall of separation between science and religions. Religious scientists respect this wall. They leave their religious beliefs at home when they go to work. They know they can't invoke God for anything, because God can't be tested. If something can't be tested, it's not science.

Getting back on topic, scientists have been criticizing this creationism bill that was passed by religious extremists who know nothing about science. Scientists and science teachers are against this bill and many of them are contacting the governor to ask him to veto it.

The reason they are against this bill is because it gives bad science teachers the freedom to lie about biology and/or teach pseudoscience including religious creation myths like intelligent design magic.

Invoking intelligent design = invoking God = invoking magic. Magic is not scientific and it doesn't belong in science education.

After the Supreme Court rejected another Louisiana law in 1987, creation science was renamed to intelligent design. Since the creationists lost in court again in 2005, intelligent design has been renamed to "strengths and weaknesses" and "academic freedom" and "teach the controversy". Whatever the Christian extremists call their creation myth, it's still magic and it's still doesn't belong in science education.

"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"

-- Stephen Jay Gouldless

Daniel Paul: "Science without God is foolish." Translation: Science without MAGIC is foolish. You obviously don't even know what science is. Like most creationists, you would rather lie about science than study it. Why are creationists so afraid of educating themselves? The mountains of evidence for evolution are available to everyone to study. A person could google "e...more

Daniel Paul: "Science without God is foolish."

Translation: Science without MAGIC is foolish.

You obviously don't even know what science is. Like most creationists, you would rather lie about science than study it.

Why are creationists so afraid of educating themselves? The mountains of evidence for evolution are available to everyone to study. A person could google "evidence evolution" and spend the rest of his life studying it. The creationists refuse to learn anything. They just repeat the same lies over and over again, not caring that everything they say has been refuted a long time ago.

What if scientists invoked God to solve scientific problems? What would that accomplish? If they said "I can't figure out this problem so therefore it was God's magic", scientific progress would come to a complete stop.

Invoking God is giving up. Invoking God is saying "I'm too stupid to understand, therefore it was magic."

This is why biology teachers and other science teachers never teach idiotic religious ideas like intelligent design creationism. Invoking intelligent design = invoking God = invoking magic. Magic is a childish useless idea and it doesn't belong in science education.less

"Evolution requires a mechanism that increases genetic information and makes the organism more complex, something which does not happen in nature." This is another of many creationist lies. Look up "gene duplication". Look it. From DNA analysis biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. There's no point in denying what biologists can see ...more

"Evolution requires a mechanism that increases genetic information and makes the organism more complex, something which does not happen in nature."

This is another of many creationist lies. Look up "gene duplication".

Look it. From DNA analysis biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. There's no point in denying what biologists can see with their own eyes. If you have a problem with that, then complain to the entire scientific community, not me.less

"As I understand the LA bill, it will not introduce religion into the classroom." I noticed that creationists are 100% for this bill, and scientists and science teachers are 100% against this bill. What's the reason for these facts? "it will not introduce religion into the classroom" is lying. Another problem is the weaknesses of evolution are imaginary. It...more

"As I understand the LA bill, it will not introduce religion into the classroom."

I noticed that creationists are 100% for this bill, and scientists and science teachers are 100% against this bill.

What's the reason for these facts?

"it will not introduce religion into the classroom" is lying.

Another problem is the weaknesses of evolution are imaginary. It's like saying our planet's orbit around the sun has weaknesses. This bill is an excuse for incompetent biology teachers to lie about science.

You don't have to believe me. Ask any competent scientist.

There will be a trial. Like in the Dover trial, religious scientists like Ken Miller will testify against this anti-science creationism bill. Like in the Dover trial, the creationists will lose again, wasting more than one million dollars of taxpayer money.less

Since the statement in my previous comment was published by the New Orleans Geological Society in 1981, the evidence for evolution is thousands of times greater, and the newer evidence from molecular biology is as powerful as evidence can possibly be. Every year, as the huge mountain of evidence for evolution grows larger and stronger, the creationists continue to attack and lie about this evid...more

Since the statement in my previous comment was published by the New Orleans Geological Society in 1981, the evidence for evolution is thousands of times greater, and the newer evidence from molecular biology is as powerful as evidence can possibly be.

Every year, as the huge mountain of evidence for evolution grows larger and stronger, the creationists continue to attack and lie about this evidence they don't understand. The 21st century creationists, who prefer to live permanently in the Dark Ages, are causing great harm to their religion. Any intelligent child who loves science is going to look at the backward creationist hicks, and realize that Christianity is an obsolete idea for uneducated fools. The creationists cause more damage to their religion than any atheist ever could.less

Louisiana, which is perhaps the most backward anti-science state of America, has a long history of religious attacks against science education. In this statement from the NEW ORLEANS GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, published in 1981, Louisiana geologists complain about an anti-science education bill that was passed by the Louisiana legislature 27 years ago. I'm pretty sure this was the bill that was thro...more

Louisiana, which is perhaps the most backward anti-science state of America, has a long history of religious attacks against science education. In this statement from the NEW ORLEANS GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, published in 1981, Louisiana geologists complain about an anti-science education bill that was passed by the Louisiana legislature 27 years ago. I'm pretty sure this was the bill that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987. The Louisiana creationist traitors didn't learn their lesson, and they are still ignoring the Establishment Clause today.

Here's the 1981 statement from the New Orleans Geological Society. It's as accurate today as it was almost 3 decades ago. Just substitute the words "creation science" with "intelligent design". They both mean the same, and they are both non-scientific magical creation myths, believed only by gullible uneducated protestant extremists.

http://tinyurl.com/6bg9s6less

PART 2 OF 2 The process underpinning evolution - natural selection - has been widely and thoroughly documented. As in all areas of active research, scientists continue to debate the details. Yet these disagreements should not be misconstrued, as they have been by creationists, as evidence of fundamental problems with the theory. There is consensus within the scientific community about the overa...more

PART 2 OF 2

The process underpinning evolution - natural selection - has been widely and thoroughly documented. As in all areas of active research, scientists continue to debate the details. Yet these disagreements should not be misconstrued, as they have been by creationists, as evidence of fundamental problems with the theory. There is consensus within the scientific community about the overall validity of Darwin's theory. In fact, evolution is still evident today; with bacterial resistance to antibiotics and potential mutations in influenza that could impact avian flu transmission as examples that profoundly affect world health. Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is detrimental to the education of America's youth.

Creationists often argue that religious and scientific worldviews are incompatible, asserting that it is impossible to be both actively religious and accept the theory of evolution. However, many people, including prominent scientists, embrace both evolution and a belief in God. SfN strongly disputes the claims made by advocates of intelligent design that subscribing to a scientific view of the world is incompatible with religious experience.

The Society for Neuroscience supports the teaching of evolution, and opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms. Education about evolution is essential to our future competitiveness as a nation, so it is imperative that an understanding of this fundamental scientific theory be shared with the school children of America. The mixing of faith or religious belief with the scientific method is not a sound lesson for our children's education.less

PART 1 OF 2 Hundreds of scientific organizations have published statements supporting the proven scientific facts of biological evolution. This statement was published today. Thursday, 19 June 2008 Society for Neuroscience statement on Evoltuion and Intelligent Design Recognizing that the principles of evolution are fundamental to understanding and studying the origins and diversity of...more

PART 1 OF 2

Hundreds of scientific organizations have published statements supporting the proven scientific facts of biological evolution. This statement was published today.

Thursday, 19 June 2008

Society for Neuroscience statement on Evoltuion and Intelligent Design

Recognizing that the principles of evolution are fundamental to understanding and studying the origins and diversity of living things, the Society for Neuroscience opposes the assertion that teaching intelligent design theory is a valid scientific alternative to teaching evolution in science classrooms.

The theory of evolution is accepted with remarkable consensus throughout the scientific community. The evidence in its support has accumulated over the past 160 years-from fields as disparate as paleontology and genomics-and is overwhelming. Scientific advances in the field of evolution, as in every other field of science, are obtained on the basis of respectful debate, the continuous search for truth, and meticulous investigation to accept or reject ideas supported by evidence. In this regard, education on evolution and on science in general provides tools for a better understanding of ourselves and the world and also provides individuals with a language for universal understanding, mutual respect, and tolerance.

Intelligent design is the most recent attempt by creationists to undermine the theory of evolution in the science classroom. Thwarted by past legal decisions upholding the separation of church and state, proponents of intelligent design have resorted to masking their religious beliefs with the pseudo-scientific language of this theory. By invoking "intelligent forces" to account for biological diversity, however, intelligent design presents a theory that is as supernatural and unscientific as the traditional creationist one. In fact, intelligent design theory runs counter to the established principles of science in that it is not based on evidence or testable through the scientific method. Intelligent design is not science, and has no place in the science classroom.less

This "Evolution believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that." is as dumb as this "Gravity believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that." Daniel Paul, you don't even know what science is, but that doesn't stop you from making a fool out of yourself. All branches of science, including biological...more

This

"Evolution believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that."

is as dumb as this

"Gravity believes in no Creator and therefore views all science as pointing to that."

Daniel Paul, you don't even know what science is, but that doesn't stop you from making a fool out of yourself.

All branches of science, including biological evolution, say nothing about your Christian Sky Fairy. Science could care less if there's a Mr. God or not. There is a complete separation of proven scientific facts like evolution and childish idiotic religions like Christianity. Please respect that separation and keep your insane religion out of science education.less

36 to zero. The Louisiana state senate contains the most backward politicians in America. Every single one of them is an uneducated anti-science hick. The rest of the world is laughing at the voters who voted for these morons.

"Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, covers quite well the limitations of Darwinism to only the micro level (one or two changes to a gene) and the inability for randomness to carry on the continuous changes in the face of irreducible complexity." Behe's irreducible complexity is a joke. Real biologists laugh at Behe. Irreducible complexity means "Behe is too stup...more

"Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, covers quite well the limitations of Darwinism to only the micro level (one or two changes to a gene) and the inability for randomness to carry on the continuous changes in the face of irreducible complexity."

Behe's irreducible complexity is a joke. Real biologists laugh at Behe.

Irreducible complexity means "Behe is too stupid to understand how something evolved, therefore it was poofed into existence by a magical sky fairy."

Guess what, magic is not science and Behe is not a real scientist. He's a wacko who makes a living lying to his gullible Christian customers.

"the inability for randomness"

Natural Selection is NOT random.

Natural Selection is NOT random.

Natural Selection is NOT random.

Natural Selection is NOT random.

Understand? No, probably not.

What works accumulates. What doesn't work disappears.

Now do you understand?

Mutations are random, but non-random natural selection selects what works. If something doesn't work the animal drops dead before reproducing. If something does work, it's likely to spread throughout the species. Minor changes accumulate and life gradually changes over vast periods of time.

I know creationists are too lazy to study science. It's too bad. They don't know what they're missing.less