REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod

POSTED BY: LEADB
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 07:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19992
PAGE 4 of 7

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:41 PM

LEADB


Fred, no sweat; I was hoping if we got a bit more precise with our terms we'd get to a better understanding; and I know I'm much clearer. The 'hedging' bit is that I -know- I feel like I am hedging when I say 'generally' ( I suppose I could go even stronger and say 'universally' accepted ) as opposed to imply you -were- hedging. In any case, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 8:09 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

posted by Fredgiblet- *sigh* Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.


aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre right.. but atheists have a bias towards evolution because it fits their worldview(or IS their worldview). will you deny that some evolutionists are atheists? ill admit that not all are... just as not all IDs are creationists. the current collection of data goes both ways


Quote:

The only theological influence that evolution has is that certain specific beliefs are incorrect. By that measure you should be against geology for showing us that the Earth is ancient,


yah, but just how old? millions of billions of years? how can we possibly know that for sure.. sounds more like an educated guess, based on the evolutionary 'theory'

Quote:

astronomy for showing that the Earth revolves around the sun (contrary to popular Christian belief back in the Dark Ages),


the alleged references ive seen pertaining to a geocentric model of the galaxy are too vague in their context to be taken literally, and IMO do not contradict current scientific knowledge.

for example:

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever."
- Psalm 104:5

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth??Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?"
- Job 38:4-6

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved."
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

the earths "foundations" could be argued as its axis, position or relation to planetary siblings(aswell as its interior nether regions. otherwise there are no direct biblical references to the earth being stationary. their are many references to the day, and the 'apparent' travel of the sun and moon, but the context is always poetically metaphorical.

contrary to what secular society has believed, the bible actually had it right before popular science did

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place."
- Isaiah 13:13

"He hangs the earth on nothing." -Job 26:7


"Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night" -Jeremiah 31:35,36

"I will bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore" -Genesis 22:17

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured" -Jeremiah 33:22

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." -1 Corinthians 15:41

Quote:

physiology for showing that men and women have the same number of ribs and on and on


uh.. God took one of Adams ribs, not all mankinds. should i list what the bible DID have right?

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return." -Genesis 3:19

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" -
Genesis 2:7

biologically they were way ahead of their time

"A sound heart is life to the body" -Proverbs 14:30

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" -Leviticus 17:11

common sense now.. but it was science that once thought draining blood would 'relieve' sickness and disease

Quote:

The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.


i could say the same for you, especially since you dont know what the bible actually says, your just perpetuating popular myths circulated by secular society to undermine judeo/christian beliefs. it turns out we knew things before secular science did, such as the hydrological and meteorological cycles

"He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." -Psalm 135:7

"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man." -Job 36:27-29

"The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit" -Ecclesiastes 1:6

"To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure." -Job 28:25

how did they know that air had weight? pretty smart for a bunch of primitives... and they werent sacrificing live babies or worshipping gold and or elements like certain other cultures of the time. see... IMO the bible does not contradict anything we can actually prove, which is why im inclined to believe it right on a lot of other matters as well. its seems you are the one creating straw men to discredit, mostly for the sake of specific political motives























NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 8:47 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?



the flood. there is evidence that some of the highest mountains were underwater at some point, its possible the fossils may have been preserved in the sediment as it settled. this would explain the inconsistency in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer. now, according to this recent AP article, dinosaurs and mammals may actually have co-existed


Quote:


Dinosaurs' demise didn't spur mammalian evolution, study finds
Burst in new species happened before and after extinction.

By Malcolm Ritter
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, March 29, 2007

NEW YORK — Maybe you learned this in school: The big dinosaur die-off 65 million years ago was a liberation for mammals, and they quickly produced a bunch of new species that included ancestors of humans and other modern-day creatures.

Remember? Well, a new study says, forget it.


Scientists who constructed a massive evolutionary family tree for mammals found no sign of such a burst of new species at that time among the ancestors of present-day animals.

Only mammals with no modern-day descendants showed that effect.

"I was flabbergasted," said study co-author Ross MacPhee, curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

At the time of the dinosaur demise, mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats. The longstanding idea has been that once the dinosaurs were gone, mammals were free to exploit new food sources and habitats, and as a result, they produced a burst of new species.

The new study says that happened to some extent but that the new species largely led to evolutionary dead ends. In contrast, no such explosion of species was found among the ancestors of modern-day mammals such as rodents, cats, horses, elephants and people.

Instead, researchers report in today's issue of the journal Nature, they showed an initial burst about 85 million years ago, long before the dinosaurs' extinction, with another between about 55 million and 35 million years ago.

The timing of that first period of development generally agrees with the conclusions of some previous studies of mammal DNA, which argue for a much earlier origin of some mammal lineages than the fossil record does.

The second burst had shown up in the fossil record, MacPhee said. But he said the study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: Without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.

Other experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species. It challenges paleontologists to find fossils that can shed light on mammal history, said Greg Wilson, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

William Murphy of Texas A&M University, who is working on a similar project, said that no previous analysis had included so many mammal species.

However, he said, "I don't think this is the final word."

The study's approach for assigning dates was relatively crude, he said, and some dates it produced for particular lineages disagree with those obtained by more updated methods.

As for its interpretation of what happened when the dinosaurs died off, Murphy said, "I'm not sure that conclusion is well-founded."

John Gittleman, a study co-author and director of the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, said the researchers considered a range of previously reported dates for when various lineages split. They found that the overall conclusions of the study were not significantly affected by which dates they chose, he said.

Researchers should now look at such things as the rise of flowering plants and a cooling of the worldwide climate to explain why ancestors of modern-day mammals took off before the dinosaurs died out, Gittleman said. The cause of the later boom is also a mystery, he said.

The study's family tree includes 4,510 species, more than 99 percent of mammal species covered by an authoritative listing published in 1993. To construct it, the researchers combined published work that relied on analysis of DNA, fossils, anatomy and other information.

S. Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Pennsylvania State University, said the new work "pushes the envelope in the methods and data, and that's really important."

He said the demise of the dinosaurs might have affected mammal evolution by influencing characteristics such as body size rather than boosting the number of species created. Such changes wouldn't be picked up by the new study, he noted.

The researchers conceded that much more research would be required to explain "the delayed rise of present-day mammals."

"The big question now is what took the ancestors of modern mammals so long to diversify," MacPhee said. "Evidently we know very little about the macroecological mechanisms that play out after mass extinctions."




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:42 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. There is no need to show evolution at the kingdom level to demonstrate macroevolution as macroevolution is not defined as evolution at every level at or above species, just as evolution at or above species level.

You have more faith then I do. I want evidence. I’m not a fruit fly. So showing me that a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly does not demonstrate macroevolution. In order for the theory of Evolution to work as explanation for the diversity that exists in nature, you must be able to demonstrate how that diversity can emerge from natural selection. It’s actually rather critical. But there is no such evidence. And just because we find ourselves unable to produce that evidence or that evidence is impossible to produce doesn’t mean we can just assume the theory is proven. We don’t call the General Theory of Relativity proven, because we saw an apple fall.
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable.

Better?

A little. But proofs are for mathematics, not science.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:15 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

The distinction here is between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed. Macroevolution, the change in our collective gene pools over eons of time that we cannot directly observe, is still a theory, an explanation extrapolated from microevolution.

There are certain things science can prove, and the rest is just a matter of definition. If you define "God" as supernatural, then you have defined "God" as something science cannot prove. If you define "God" as any intelligent entity that willfully cause X directly observable phenomena, then that is a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and proven or disproven.

It appears to me that a confusion between the different definitions of God, evolution, intelligent design, and what not, is the root of our semantic wars.

To have a meaningful and logical dialogue, we need to start with some common ground definitions and premises. Otherwise, we're just arguing in circles about apples and oranges.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Finn
Quote:

And while speciation has been said to have occurred by evolutionists, there has never been a scientific record of any speciation occurring on the level that macroevolution requires, nor do evolutionists contend that such a record could possible exist since it would require ... prohibitively long time periods.
This is pretty much a fraudulent argument and has been specifically addressed MANY times over. One example: There is a clear fossil record of land animal --> whale. There is a time frame for that fossil record. This is a dead argument and should never have been brought up by someone who claims to know about science.
Quote:

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. .
This is another fraudulent argument. In one swoop Finn eliminates the fossil record, geological theory, radioisotope decay rates, and DNA families, alteration and selection and a whole raft of supporting scientific evidence, simply by closing his eyes and saying "I don't see evidence".
Quote:

I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this 1) macroevolution idea, ... (Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough) which is a wholly 2) improvable position ... when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. Now as a scientisti
TWO serious errors in one short sentence: There is evidence for macroevolution (see above). 2) SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. And here comes Finn, as a scientist no less, demanding proof.
Quote:

I understand the nuances here
No, you don't.
Quote:

but as a scientist
snicker ...
Quote:

For people who have other more important things to worry about ... what they see is 1) an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more 2) honest, and therefore believable.
Lets' see, what do we have here: 1) straw man 2) and TWO ad hominems.
Quote:

There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. ... people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their.
Except that - it is. Macro-evolution has a lot of evidence supporting it as a theory.
Quote:

And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.
HA HA HA HA ha .... can you say flip-flop ???

I'm getting tired of this.
Finn, you say you want evidence. Yet you ignore the ONE gene that keeps legs from developing in whales. (All it took was ONE genetic change to accomplish that.) You ignore the fossil record of land animal --> whale; DNA homologies, and, as SignyM pointed out - all of geology, chemistry, physics as well. Poof. All gone. AND as a scientist you demand proof.

Most impressive.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anti - OF COURSE dinosaurs and mammals existed at the same time. BUT they were not the mammals that we know today.
Quote:

mammals were small, about the size of shrews and cats.

So you will not find human bones intermingled with dinosaurs, for example.

Quote:

in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.
Alleged? Hmmm... what do you know about carbon dating? Anything?

AFA your alleged inconsistancies purporting to show creatures from different geologic eras in the same sediment: There are none that I know of. The famous human/dino footprints were analyzed in detail and found to be dino/dino footprints. OCCASIONALLY you may find some million-year mixups, as when bones erode from several layers and are co-deposited in the same spot. That's usually pretty easy to figure our because of the nature of the sediment and the location of the deposits.

AFA sediment on top of mountains: Did you know that satellites observe mountains getting taller? That the Himalayas are growing at about an inch a year? Over a 100,000 years that makes... let's see... about 8,300 feet. Huh. Imagine that!

It's as I said- it takes a very special person to ignore the evidence of their senses. And I don't just mean not being able to observe geologic-scale evolution up close and personal. I mean ignoring some very evident geologic processes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and deposition. (The one that I was within 1/8 mile of the epicenter when it happened- the Whittier Narrows quake- uplifted the area by two inches in one jolt.) And ignoring the fact that certain animal types simply aren't around anymore... even aquatic animals which would presumably have survived a flood.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

in nature, you must be able to demonstrate how that diversity can emerge from natural selection
Natural selection is not the ONLY path to diversity. I posted a whole bunch of mechanisms and a link or two. I agree with Rue- you just ignore stuff you don't want to hear about.

Scientist?


Not likely!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:20 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I'm getting tired of this.
Finn, you say you want evidence. Yet you ignore the ONE gene that keeps legs from developing in whales. (All it took was ONE genetic change to accomplish that.) You ignore the fossil record of land animal --> whale; DNA homologies, and, as SignyM pointed out - all of geology, chemistry, physics as well. Poof. All gone. AND as a scientist you demand proof.

I demand “proof,” because people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” But when I ask for this “proof” that clearly must exist if evolution is “proven.” The response that I get back is ‘science can’t prove anything.’ But if science can’t prove anything, then how is evolution “proven?”

It’s not me that is ignoring evidence. It’s you that wants to elevate evolution to the level of infallibility. Thereby making it religion. Perhaps, your faith is very strong too, but mine isn’t.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

people keep telling me that evolution is “proven
I call bullshit. WHICH people, Finn? Neither Rue nor I are saying that evolution is "proven" so take your straw man and compost it; at least then it'll be useful for something. What we ARE talking about is evidence and how you ignore it. Evolution is the most comprehensive, predictive explanation that we have for changes in living organisms that appear over eons. It is supported by evidence from geology, biology, physics, and biochemistry. As we learn more about gene expression and genetic divergence, we learn more about the mechanics of HOW this process occurs- and there is more than one pathway for speciation than natural selection. And the more we learn, the more the evidence supports evolution.

In many cases, it takes a SINGLE gene to make large changes. There is a SINGLE big-head gene that differentiates our head from chimps, just as there is a SINGLE gene change that stops whales from developing legs. The fact that you have more in common with a chimp than you do with a woman of your own species should say somehting about how clsoely related we are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:40 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre right..



None of evolution disproves a creator, they simply show that the creator didn't act they way that certain religious beliefs hold that it acted.

Quote:

but atheists have a bias towards evolution because it fits their worldview(or IS their worldview).


Atheists are not going to be biased towards or against evolution because they are atheists, rather being atheists frees them from the religious dogma that prevents them from accepting the evidence for evolution. Additionally an atheist is much less likely to be listening to the enormous boatloads of crap regularly shoveled by the anti-evolution side, and are much more likely to check the facts (and I use the term loosely) that come out of the anti-evolution camp.

Quote:

will you deny that some evolutionists are atheists?


Sure, but at the same time there's a lot more Christians that accept evolution, so by that measurement evolution would be a Christian belief.

Quote:

ill admit that not all are...


The vast majority aren't (at least in the U.S.).

Quote:

just as not all IDs are creationists.


Really? I'm not aware of anyone who supports ID that isn't a creationist.

Quote:

the current collection of data goes both ways


Only because literally everything can be justified by ID, one of the reasons its unscientific.

Quote:

yah, but just how old? millions of billions of years? how can we possibly know that for sure.. sounds more like an educated guess, based on the evolutionary 'theory'


Uh, no. The age of the world (and the universe) are an entirely separate issue from evolution, the age of the universe was not decided because evolution needed a long time span, it was decided because that's what the evidence shows.
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Quote:

contrary to what secular society has believed, the bible actually had it right before popular science did

"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place."
- Isaiah 13:13

"He hangs the earth on nothing." -Job 26:7


"Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night" -Jeremiah 31:35,36

"I will bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore" -Genesis 22:17

"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured" -Jeremiah 33:22

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." -1 Corinthians 15:41




Vagueness and obviousness does not scientific accuracy make.

Quote:

uh.. God took one of Adams ribs, not all mankinds. should i list what the bible DID have right?

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return." -Genesis 3:19

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" -
Genesis 2:7

biologically they were way ahead of their time

"A sound heart is life to the body" -Proverbs 14:30

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" -Leviticus 17:11

common sense now.. but it was science that once thought draining blood would 'relieve' sickness and disease



Vagueness and obviousness again for the most part. As for bloodletting, calling it the fault of science is just wrong, bloodletting was practiced for at least a few millenia, long before science became an area of concerted study. The fact that we lacked the scientific knowledge to disprove the theories behind bloodletting doesn't actually mean anything.

Quote:

Quote:

The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.


i could say the same for you, especially since you dont know what the bible actually says, your just perpetuating popular myths circulated by secular society to undermine judeo/christian beliefs.



It's actually irrelevant to my point, consider that at one time those passages about geocentrism were taken to mean that the universe was geocentric as an issue of religious dogma. When it was shown that that wasn't true it took decades for the passages to be reinterpreted as not supporting geocentrism. Reality did not match up with the religious beliefs but the believers insisted that it was reality that was wrong.

As for the "myths" they may not be what the majority believe today, but they are all beliefs that were held after they were demonstrated to be false.

Quote:

it turns out we knew things before secular science did, such as the hydrological and meteorological cycles

"He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." -Psalm 135:7

"For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man." -Job 36:27-29

"The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit" -Ecclesiastes 1:6

"To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure." -Job 28:25



This is actually somewhat interesting. The knowledge of certain parts of meteorology would be essential to any agricultural society, but I can't really say what should or should not be obvious in this regard.

Quote:

how did they know that air had weight? pretty smart for a bunch of primitives


the Greeks knew a hell of a lot too, but they got enormous amounts wrong as well. You've shown a very small amount of impressive knowledge, but I'll bet that if I could be bothered to wade through the bible I'd find just as much that's flat-out wrong. It's no where near worth it to prove a point to you though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:46 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

The distinction here is between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed. Macroevolution, the change in our collective gene pools over eons of time that we cannot directly observe, is still a theory, an explanation extrapolated from microevolution.



I've covered this just a few posts ago, Macroevolution first off is simply an arbitrary imaginary line, there is no actual weight to it. Second speciation is an example of macroevolution and has been demonstrated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” ...It’s you that wants to elevate evolution to the level of infallibility. Thereby making it religion."


Not me. The one thing I keep saying over and over is that SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

Evolution has been tested many times in many ways - from fossil evidence through geology though radioisotope tracing through DNA through biochemistry (that one gene in whales that keeps vestigal legs from developing) - and so far is supported as a theory.

But science advances on the graves of previous theories. In fact, EVERY current theory slew the previous one, or remodeled it drastically. Space ether - pppst - it's gone. Relativity, so far holds up. That's how science advances.

So no, I don't think evolution has been proven, and by the nature of science it will never be proven. What it has been is TESTED, what has been gathered is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE which SUPPORTS the theory.

And those are what religion specifically lacks. And since you continually confuse the two, I suspect your understanding of science is lacking as well.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:49 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I demand “proof,” because people keep telling me that evolution is “proven.” But when I ask for this “proof” that clearly must exist if evolution is “proven.” The response that I get back is ‘science can’t prove anything.’ But if science can’t prove anything, then how is evolution “proven?”



By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:02 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?



the flood.



You mean the flood?
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

Quote:

there is evidence that some of the highest mountains were underwater at some point


Indeed there is, but they weren't mountains when they were underwater and in fact the evidence that is used is nothing like what we would expect from a Flood. Fossils of shells wouldn't have been found after being submerged for only a year as the height that the creatures with shells would have to have climbed would be far too great for the limited mobility of the type of creatures found at the peaks.

Quote:

its possible the fossils may have been preserved in the sediment as it settled.


Sediment would have settled to the valleys not on the peaks.

Quote:

this would explain the inconsistency in current dating methods in regards to fossils spanning alleged eras in time, being found in the same geographic layer.


I'll assume you meant geologic, and I'd like some evidence of this. Dating methods have been abused frequently by anti-evolutionists, one of the more popular methods is using carbon dating on samples that any competent geologist should know are far to old to carbon date.

Quote:

now, according to this recent AP article, dinosaurs and mammals may actually have co-existed


As sig said, mammals have been around for a long time, all humans are mammals (except possibly for some lawyers) but not all mammals are human.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:13 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Not me. The one thing I keep saying over and over is that SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING.

Yet, somehow you seem intent on criticizing me. But Fred was the one who claimed it was “proven.” Why haven’t you said anything to him? If this is so important why hasn’t anyone but me and Leadb said anything about it. What it looks like to me is that, despite your claim that you believe that science can’t prove anything, you and signmy and sarg are only willing to use that against me, because you perceive me as criticizing evolution, but the one person who should have said something to, you ignored? Why? It’s actually obvious. Evolution is infallible. You can praise its infallibility by claiming that it is proven, but you can’t criticize it, because that’s a sin.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:19 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

I’m not sure what you meant. Although, I don’t actually think it makes sense for something to be partially proven or proven to some extent. It’s either proven or it’s not.

But I’m not trying to pick on you, Fred, you just put yourself in a bad place. I actually would not have made such a big deal of your comment, if it hadn’t of been for how other people jumped on me because I criticize it. So don’t take it personally. What’s going on here is not that I necessarily disagree with you on Evolution, because I don’t think I do. (Although the word “proven” irks me, that’s true.) People are angry at me, for criticizing what they view, on some level, to be infallible dogma.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Finn, what you said was
Quote:

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it.
We're criticizing you for ignoring evidence. You keep raising questions which have already been answered. As for Fred saying evolution was "proven"... he's already clarified more than twice that's not exactly what he meant.


So- Is evolution "proven"? No. Has it been disproved? NO. Is there "evidence" for creationism? No! Whatever arguments are made for creationism doesn't even fall into that category! (If this were a trial it would be called "heresay").


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:33 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, we're criticizing you for ignoring evidence. You keep raising questions which have already been answered. As for Fred saying evolution was "proven"... he's already clarified more than twice that's not exactly what he meant.

Yes he did clarify it, to his credit. But not before you criticized me with this ‘science can’t prove anything’ stuff. If you really believed that, then why didn’t you criticize Fred when you had the chance? Why me? Simple, because I appeared to be criticizing the dogma. You can say evolution is “proven,” but you can’t criticize the supposed “proof.”



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:37 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've covered this just a few posts ago, Macroevolution first off is simply an arbitrary imaginary line, there is no actual weight to it. Second speciation is an example of macroevolution and has been demonstrated.

Maybe I should have steered clear of hot button words and said there is a difference between observed evolution and inferred evolution (paleoevolution). Certainly speciation has been observed in certain situations, but the extent of speciation required by paleoevolutionary theories ranges from conjecture to extrapolation.

Meaning, no, it is not an imaginary line that there is a difference between macroevolutionary theory and macroevolutionary observations (which would include microevolution as well).

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Finn: I ammended my post to QUOTE you. The part where you sweep away all kinds of evidence with a wave of your hand.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:48 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: I ammended my post to QUOTE you. The part where you sweep away all kinds of evidence with a wave of your hand.

I didn’t wave my hand. I was typing.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of the things you all seem to forget is that not all science can be reproduced in the lab. Geology. Meteorology. Cosmology. Evolution. Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific. Those theories are judged on the basis of how well they explain all of the observations, and whether they are predictive of other phenomema.

Evolution ties together a lot of data rather nicely AND it's predictive. The more fossils we gather, the more genetics we study, the better and better the theory looks. The trend is not favorable for creationists, who will eventually have to isolate themselves from many aspects of reality.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Mathematical and logical proof - starting with a premise one can show a logical outcome.
Quote:

CAUSAL
So I can still coherently claim that God is beyond scientific proof or disproof

ROCKETJOCK
Proof positive of science's inferiority to faith!

SIGMANUNKI
Historically speaking, things that have been thought to be acts of God have been proven to have a natural explanation. Just because we can't prove it today, doesn't mean that this isn't true.

ANTIMASON
as far as our origins, you cant prove that we came from apes

YINYANG
although it isn't possible to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of a deity
The only reason that science would be unable to disprove an aspect of god is if that aspect were to lie completely outside of reality and to have interaction with reality. Thus, by claiming that science cannot disprove

CAUSAL
implicit claim that science is the only way to know anything isn't something that the sciences can prove!
by claiming that science cannot disprove the existence of your god

ANTIMASON
it definitely shows another side of colonial America that proves to be inseparable from our system of government

SERGEANTX
Do you 'believe' in prime numbers? They can be studied, notions about them can be hypothesized and proved or disproved.

REAVERMAN
I say that if you want to homeschool your kids, you should have to prove to a college that you can teach up to college level.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA
To prove God would be to destroy her/him/it/them/insert personal version of supreme deity here
Science on the other hand, cannot exist without proof. It builds upon and edits itself, and relies fundamentally upon empirical, repeatable, independant confirmation of fact.
If one proves god, then they eliminate the need for faith, and if one eliminates faith,
Therefore one cannot prove religion in terms of science and science cannot be proven in terms of religion.

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito
evolutionist run with this as “proof” that cows evolve into whales

RUE
SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING
Any argument that either demands scientific proof or claims victory on the absence of proof

REAVERMAN
You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we haven't been studying it long enough to see profound, obvious changes that would utterly destroy any shadow of a doubt (I'm sure though, that even if we do find such proof, there would still be a bunch of jackasses trying to convince everyone that it's not true).

FREDGIBLET
Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

FREDGIBLET
Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god
The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god

FINN MAC CUMHAL
It takes a real leap of faith to say this has “proven” macroevolution. It has not, and anyone can see that. If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

FREDGIBLET
scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity

FINN MAC CUMHAL
But if we decided that because we can show an apple falling to the earth had “proven” the Theory of Gravity, then there wouldn’t be any reason for Einstein because Newton has already “proven” it.

SIGNYM
As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing

FINN MAC CUMHAL
Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

SIGNYM
demanding that everyone take cyanide to prove that it's a deadly poison

LEADB
In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'. -Several- people have used the work 'proven' above, and this seems to wrankle Finn.
it would be better to avoid the word 'proven'

SERGEANTX
Agreed, but the facts supporting them can be proven. The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven.
So, asking for proof of a theory doesn't really make sense. You can disprove, or weaken, a theory with facts that contradict the theory's explanations.

FREDGIBLET
My point was that they no longer attempt to prove that gravity exists ... not to prove it's existence
Evolution, particularly "micro"evolution and natural selection have been proven to around the fullest extent possible in the scientific system where absolute proof is unattainable
I'll add to that that "macro"evolution has been demonstrated, but since you want pedantry I'll refrain from using the word "proven". OK?

ANTIMASON
aspects of evolution dont disprove a Creator, youre

ANTIMASON
the bible does not contradict anything we can actually prove


And just because we find ourselves unable to produce that evidence or that evidence is impossible to produce doesn’t mean we can just assume the theory is proven. We don’t call the General Theory of Relativity proven, because we saw an apple fall.


CANTTAKESKY
Microevolution, the change in gene pools over time, is a well proven fact that have been directly observed.
There are certain things science can prove
that is a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and proven or disproven.

There are TWO posters who use the word proof, or prove, regarding evolution. One person who says macroevolution is proven is FredGiblet, but he uses the word in the sense of logical proof. If (according to Finn) micro-evolution is proven, and macro-evolution is a series of micro-evolution events (a premise to which Finn does not initially object), then macro-evolution is proven. The other person is CTS who seems to think that proof is possible, and so has spent many words and many threads demanding proof of global warming, of vaccine safety and efficacy etc, and decrying the lack thereof.

I have no objections to FredG's use of the word in a logical argument; and have spent many words myself trying to explain to CTS that proof isn't a valid concept in science.

My acceptance of the concept of 'proof' and FredG's use of it is conditional on its use in a mathematical or logical argument. In no way do I treat evolution as a religion.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Finn has a bee in his bonnet. I don't know what it is ... it's not the Creationist/ ID bee... but it drives him to post the most ridiculous things sometimes.
Quote:

I was typing
Whatever.

---------------------------------
Bless'd are the cheesemakers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Meh -

Maybe he lacks intellectual company and so comes here to test his arguments.

Edited to add - My guess is he works with military engineer types and technicians and then goes to visit his grandmother in the evening - which is a loving thing to do. But I know engineers and military people and their work environment, and much as I loved my grandmother, I can imagine that neither party is a source of this kind of debate.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well I take back what I said about Finn. Banging my head against the wall is not conducive to logical arguments.

Sorry Finn!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying inferred evolution was meaningless or non-scientific. Though it doesn't mean scientific inferences and extrapolations hold NO weight at all, anything inferred does hold LESS scientific weight than evidence that has been directly observed and gathered through more rigorous means. It stands to reason that those theories need to be interpreted with more caution than theories with more rigorous support.

I think that is an important distinction die-hard evolutionists often forget. Not all evidence is equal. And most of paleoevolution is comprised of less rigorous science than other fields of evolution. A bit of caution, skepticism, and conservatism isn't unreasonable.

Perhaps my scientific approach is simply more cautious, skeptical, and conservative than people who speak with more certainty on this board.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I know when scientists try to test various theories - like gravity, the speed of light and the nature of 'space' - and they can't test it in the lab - they make predictions. Maybe if light passes by a really large source of gravity it will bend. And they look for fortuitious events - a distant star passing near in-line with a black hole for example. But no one has 'seen' a black hole - it's really just a mathematical construct. No one really knows the distance of that star - it's just infered from other measures. And for sure no one 'sees' light be bent by that gravity.

These kind of predictions and observations DO carry weight - the same as when you check something out in the lab. Since MOST of science is either too large, too small, too far away, takes too long or some combination of characteristics, that's what gets done. That's how most of science progresses.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Perhaps my scientific approach is simply more cautious, skeptical, and conservative than people who speak with more certainty on this board.
ahem!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:50 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anything that's really big or takes a really long time, or both. But just because it can't be personally witnessed and subjected to repeated experiments doesn't mean it's meaningless or nonscientific.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying inferred evolution was meaningless or non-scientific. Though it doesn't mean scientific inferences and extrapolations hold NO weight at all, anything inferred does hold LESS scientific weight than evidence that has been directly observed and gathered through more rigorous means. It stands to reason that those theories need to be interpreted with more caution than theories with more rigorous support.

I think that is an important distinction die-hard evolutionists often forget. Not all evidence is equal. And most of paleoevolution is comprised of less rigorous science than other fields of evolution. A bit of caution, skepticism, and conservatism isn't unreasonable.



Everything you've posted here is true but at the same time all the paleoevolution evidence supports evolution, and there is a lot of it (though far from the gradual continuum that anti wants). So the way I see it combining the admittedly weaker-by-virtue-of-where(when?)-it's-from paleoevolutionary evidence with the way we know things work now it's not much of a stretch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:04 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By not being pedantic and understanding that "proven" means "proven to the extent that the scientific system allows".

I’m not sure what you meant. Although, I don’t actually think it makes sense for something to be partially proven or proven to some extent. It’s either proven or it’s not.



Perhaps you can come up with a word that means proven to the extent that science allows things to be proven.

Quote:

I actually would not have made such a big deal of your comment, if it hadn’t of been for how other people jumped on me because I criticize it. So don’t take it personally. What’s going on here is not that I necessarily disagree with you on Evolution, because I don’t think I do. (Although the word “proven” irks me, that’s true.) People are angry at me, for criticizing what they view, on some level, to be infallible dogma.


I don't know how many evolution threads you've participated in but the way it usually works is when someone jumps in saying "It's not proven" it's usually followed by a bunch of repetitious crap arguments that have all been disproven long ago. Like many things evolution has become very much an "us vs. them" issue so by coming in and saying "it's not proven" you immediately place yourself in the "them" category when all you're trying to do is point out that "proof" doesn't really exist in science.

I also don't think it's an issue of "infallible dogma" as it is being frustrated that we have to keep going over the same ground over and over again with the anti-evolution camp, and when you jump in with the surface appearance of being anti-evolution it just annoys people. Most of the people I know of would be fine with admitting they were wrong about evolution if anything ever came up that actually disproved it, but there's a constant stream of people with long-dead arguments and dogmatism about how unsupported or wrong evolution is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:34 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion_070608
182238
; _ylt=AgQgPwsQimHCGw5pvlsV0IvMWM0F

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.



Idiots




Evolution is taught in every school, the fact people don't buy into it hole-heartily does not make them 'Idiots'. Just makes them not sheep...Love American ingenuity!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:40 AM

KANEMAN


"First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING."

What about gravity?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:49 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
"First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING."

What about gravity?

Strictly speaking, it is not 'proven'. However, the gravity 'thing' is so well accepted, we could call it 'universally accepted', that it referred to as the 'Law of gravity'. This is the science equivalent of saying it is 'proven'. This is strictly semantics.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:58 AM

LEADB


Check twice, post once....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation
Apparently, Newton's law of gravity is actually superceded by General realtivity. Interestingly enough, Newtons old law of gravitation's formula is still often used in calculations because it is precise enough for most purposes. Of course, it is important to know when one is doing something where the general realtivity methods are more appropriate (eg: dealing with orbits/passes very near the sun).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:04 AM

KANEMAN


God - "No. No. No. this isn't right at all. He is way to hairy, he crouches over, he rapes his wife, and he wants to beat everything he sees with a stick."
" Let's go back to the drawing board"

*adds a sprinkle of genetic material*

" Yeah, that's about right. He should be flying in no time"


OR


An alien mated with an ape. Think about it. Take your average hairy stupid assed ape and mix with your average bald smart alien....you get us.... I think I am on to something.......how else could we go from eating bunny shit in caves to using cell phones? Oops, I better be quiet evolution is supposed to be SLOW.........

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey Kaneman -

You seem to be all over the board today. When did they give you your computer privileges back ? So, do you think you'll have anything intelligent to contribute ? Or will it be a day of more of the usual ?

Love always,
Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:21 AM

KANEMAN


I contribute plenty...just look at my last post for PROOF....or is that evidence?......Well, you asked...

Love always kaneman

*edit*
"When did they give you your computer privileges back ? "

After I took my Librium.......I see you got new batteries, you seem to have a little pep in your post... buy a 10 pack...........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:21 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Evolution is taught in every school, the fact people don't buy into it hole-heartily does not make them 'Idiots'. Just makes them not sheep...Love American ingenuity!



Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject. Even in schools where biology is taught well most children won't be required to take it (though most will) and some will not pay much attention. Additionally, even when someone is taught evolution well they probably won't check the "facts" they are given by the religious groups and if they do check them they will probably find a large number of religious websites touting the same "facts". Accepting evolution doesn't make someone a sheep any more then accepting basic chemistry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Fred, Kaneman is a lost cause. I don't say that about many people, but I have to recognize the ugly truth. Don't even bother replying- he's just flame-baiting.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:52 AM

KANEMAN


Fred,
"Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject."

Not in Connecticut. It is taught by science teachers in every public school........

Sigy,

"Fred, Kaneman is a lost cause. I don't say that about many people, but I have to recognize the ugly truth. Don't even bother replying- he's just flame-baiting."

And what the hell is your post? Some kind of wonderful contribution to this thread? No. it is your sad attempt to flame bait me...Siggy, you have sunk so low........what a tool....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


There is something amusing abut moral outrage from Kaneman.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:18 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Does have a point though.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:35 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Fred,
"Evolution is taught poorly or not at all in many cases because of religious pressure on schools and occasional teachers who don't know their own subject."

Not in Connecticut. It is taught by science teachers in every public school........



You're forgetting the first part though, even when it's taught it's frequently not taught very well. When it isn't taught well there will be plenty of holes for anti-evolution arguments to take hold. For instance if a student is taught that evolution works through random mutations then the anti-evolution argument of it being statistically impossible makes sense, if the student is also taught that natural selection is not random then the hole is closed. Whenever there's a hole there's a couple dozen anti-evolution websites or books with persuasive (but wrong) arguments waiting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.

Not really. So, neither do you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:49 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


So sayeth Rue.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Amen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:29 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Does have a point though.

Not really. So, neither do you.



Ruse,
How can you not see the point? You are the enlightened one...Right?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:03 PM

LEADB


Actually, on this one Kaneman, you aren't scoring much on points. I'm with Rue, more competent teaching, especially including the 'correct' language to go along with it, would help folks see the 'hole attacks' as what they are, an effort to wedge religious teaching into public schools.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL