You can check the threads. I'm on record for NOT believing in intelligent design. You've just made an egregious error of assuming. That's not scientific, it's assumption. The very thing that scientists have to do in order to make evolution appear credible.

Your earlier post in this thread would indicate otherwise.


. . . Intelligent design has more going for it than evolution, i.e, there isn't any proof of one speicies evolving into another. Not that it's right, it's just that evolution hasn't been proven and ID has more going for it. I'm not giving an answer to anything. I simply don't have a reason to believe that evolution has ever happened or is happening. . .

Intellegent design has nothing going for it.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Your earlier post in this thread
would indicate otherwise. Intellegent design has nothing going for it.


But I don't support Intelligent design. The fact remains that evolution is a
dead end.

Intelligent design does have more going for it in the sense that evolution
can't explain how one species evolves from another while Intelligent design
says, more or less, that it happened by something. While it's a silly thought
it doesn't go out of it's way to make something out of nothing. Which is
what evolutionists have to do in an attempt to make their point.

Now that you've managed to change the topic to another let's get
back to evolution. Show proof that one species evolved from another.

After millions of years there has to be something in the fossil record that
proves evolution.

There are a few fossils, here is a list of intermediate fossils from TalkOrigins.org for hominids:

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And another small list of fossils (http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)

Are there any biologists on this board? Maybe it's beneath them to discuss evolutional theory with civilians but if there are any out there, I'd like to see one chime in.

Here's a question I've always wondered. Isn't it enough to show that species have evolved over the centuries without having to prove species have jumped forms or that all species were formed from the same primordial soup for Darwin's theory to have validity? Isn't it enough to show that relative species like the dog, wolf and fox are close enough to have evolved from a single ancestor to validate the theory?

Here's another question. Do the creationists deny the existence of the Dmanisi Man, the cro-magnons or the neanderthals? I'm not up on creationist theory so maybe they square this. I would think so because even if the time-lines can't be pin-pointed there's more than enough proof to show an evolution of human like creatures.

If they need more proof than that, like incontrovertible proof, let them know I still have my dad's yearbook.

There are a few fossils, here is a list of intermediate fossils from
TalkOrigins.org for hominids:

* Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its
skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most
(possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
* Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was
slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
* Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but
which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less
projecting face.
* Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)
* A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and
chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later
anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
* A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals
and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And another small list of fossils (http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html)

Alas, but no link from one species to another. They are all of their own.
Where is the link? There isn't.

The part about what creationists think is, so what?

Are there any biologists on this board? Maybe it's beneath them to discuss evolutional theory with civilians but if there are any out there, I'd like to see one chime in.

Here's a question I've always wondered. Isn't it enough to show that species have evolved over the centuries without having to prove species have jumped forms or that all species were formed from the same primordial soup for Darwin's theory to have validity? Isn't it enough to show that relative species like the dog, wolf and fox are close enough to have evolved from a single ancestor to validate the theory?

In science, it's never enough to prove that a theory is true. The theory of gravity comes to mind. Practically every scientist holds the theory of gravity to be true ever since Isaac Newton proposed the theory.

Scientists base a lot of experiments on Newton's theory although Albert Einstein later showed that there were some flaws in Newton's original equation. Einstein's general theory of relativity supercedes Newton's theory. It doesn't mean gravity is false. It just means that new data revises the theory; it's also interesting that many calculations still use Newton's theory since it is simpler and still fairly accurate. But no matter how much proof you come up in science, a theory cannot be concrete. It is always fluid.

This is scientific theory's greatest strength though. Its strength lies that in light of evidence, the theory is either confirmed or revised. Because it is constantly tested, theories in science are upheld to the highest standards and provide a blueprint on which to base experiments on.

I'm basing this on memory, but I believe at least 95% of biologists accept evolution as a theory. That may be a conservative number. I don't know any biomedical researchers on the OU Health Science Center campus that accepts creationism or intelligent design. Almost every experiment in this campus is based on a tenet of evolution or the assumption that evolution is true. There are scientists here who have religious faiths but they do not let their faith blind them when researching.



Here's another question. Do the creationists deny the existence of the Dmanisi Man, the cro-magnons or the neanderthals? I'm not up on creationist theory so maybe they square this. I would think so because even if the time-lines can't be pin-pointed there's more than enough proof to show an evolution of human like creatures.


I believe most creationists refer to neanderthals as another race of mankind. I don't think they consider them to be a separate subspecies but I don't know about that argument.

Alas, but no link from one species to another. They are all of their own.
Where is the link? There isn't.

The part about what creationists think is, so what?

Of course they are different species, but it is unfeasible to find the fossil or remnants of every single individual between a modern human individual and his/her hominid ancestor. The link lies in the fossil morphology and the layer of earth that the fossil resides.

*Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)

Of course they are different species, but it is unfeasible to find the fossil or
remnants of every single individual between a modern human individual and
his/her hominid ancestor. The link lies in the fossil morphology and the layer
of earth that the fossil resides.

*Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early
H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350
cc.)

If the link resides in the so-called fossil morphology then the fossil record
will show it? Why? Because the so-called morphing fossil will be in every
layer and they would very clearly show the evolution. There are millions of
species and the fossil record shows them to be of their own kind.

If the link resides in the so-called fossil morphology then the fossil record
will show it? Why? Because the so-called morphing fossil will be in every
layer and they would very clearly show the evolution. There are millions of
species and the fossil record shows them to be of their own kind.

What you are as much as saying is that a new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving. Yes, it shared almost identical dna, similar but more adaptive traits, exact construction of certain bones but the new creature has to be entirely of unknown origins. It's like abiogenesis every 100 or 1000 years. Kill off the old species, bring out a new one from scratch.

If I were to explain this through intelligent design, I'd have to say the designer is running out a new design because there is always something inferior about the old model. You know what conclusion that would lead to? This so-called intelligent designer isn't so damn intelligent, otherwise why wouldn't he have brought out the perfected model on the first try?

I recently heard a thought about creation. Most people (at least the ones who believe in Creation or intelligent design) believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. I think most would agree that asked the question, how old were Adam & Eve when they were created, most would say 20-30ish. Or basically mature enough to reproduce, not created as an infant left to fend for themselves. So with this said, that means they would have been created "aged" or "matured". Many also believe that the earth is millions of years old, etc. etc.. Given that theory, what's to say God couldn't have created an "aged" earth from beginning? Just an interesting observation and discussion I had with someone recently. Thought it was food for thought.

Actually, Prune, this thread is about two things . . . the origin of human life and the "aged earth" intellegent design concept. You're right . . . nothing in Metro's thread starting post about evolution.

So, my thoughts on this topic are that Adam & Eve is just one of many tales from one of the many holy books that far too many people use to base their concept of life and value system on. There are only a handful of learned scientists that subscribe to the theroies Metro is describing.

Metro also mentions a large g god which is a whole other topic that actually over shadows this whole conversation, but I'm not going there today.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

What you are as much as saying is that a
new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving...


It's sounds like you're trying to argue with someone who believes in
intelligent design and not me. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I've
been very clear.

As of 4/20/2009

I DON'T ACCEPT INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

The Old Downtown Guy quoted correctly that I said that intelligent design
has more going for it than evolution. That does not mean I support it. I've
also said that during the last elections that the democrats had more going
for them. That doesn't me I support democrats by any stretch of the
imagination.

THIS is what I am saying. There is absolutely without a doubt not one
piece of solid evidence for evolution. Similarities does not make evolution.

There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest evolution. There are all of
these missing sections to every single species. Where's the link? It's not
there. Nobody is going to convince me that evolution exists unless they
start digging up the connecting links.

Charles Darwin said it becomes much more difficult to understand why they
can't find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived
at its commencement and at its close.

Now, if you want to argue about Intelligent Design you should read what
biochemist Michael Behe says. Just don't argue with me about it.

What you are as much as saying is that a new higher developed specie popped up on it's own, without evolving. Yes, it shared almost identical dna, similar but more adaptive traits, exact construction of certain bones but the new creature has to be entirely of unknown origins. It's like abiogenesis every 100 or 1000 years. Kill off the old species, bring out a new one from scratch.

If I were to explain this through intelligent design, I'd have to say the designer is running out a new design because there is always something inferior about the old model. You know what conclusion that would lead to? This so-called intelligent designer isn't so damn intelligent, otherwise why wouldn't he have brought out the perfected model on the first try?

Sounds like you're arguing if someone believes in relativity or absolute truth.

Other than the thousands of volumes and overwhelming agreement from the scientific community, I guess the Darwinists don't have much. On the other hand, you have your holy book from which you choose some parts to agree with and ignore the parts you don't agree with.

I'm sticking with Darwin and common sense.

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Sounds like you may be picking and choosing parts of "Darwinism" to believe in as well. Quotes from Darwin on his when talking to Lady Hope towards the end of his life.

Quoted by permission of the author from True Science Agrees with the Bible, Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, Kent, 1998, section 6.6, pp 259-276


"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said:

"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

Sounds like you may be picking and choosing parts of "Darwinism" to believe in as well. Quotes from Darwin on his when talking to Lady Hope towards the end of his life.

Quoted by permission of the author from True Science Agrees with the Bible, Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, Kent, 1998, section 6.6, pp 259-276


"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered - "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said:

"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"

"What shall I speak about?" I asked.

"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."

As wonderful as it seems, Charles Darwin NEVER recanted his theory of evolution nor publicly professed a new faith.

There is some evidence that Lady Hope exaggerated these stories in her zeal. You can find such evidence at a Christian website here (http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed), a creationism-evolution site here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html), and Darwin's family denying the story at here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2193).

PS, I understand Michael Behe's arguments but he has been since refuted by scientific study and literature.

PS, I understand Michael Behe's arguments but he has been since refuted by
scientific study and literature.
As far as I'm concerned the fossil record holds the absolute fact that
incremental mutations, which must take place, have not, and I dare say will
not be found. If they can find a million year old species then it holds true
that, if evolution took place, they can't help but find the mutations that
supposedly evolved into another species. They have only found species that,
for whatever reason, are of their own kind.

Oh yes, there are similarities, but not a single plenary link.

In fact, the complete lack of transitional species in the fossil record is why punctuated equilibrium was created (no pun intended).

How about this.... If you want to believe in Intelligent Design by all means believe in it. If you want to believe in evolution by all means believe in it.

At the end of the day it all boils down to a water making contest that nobody really wins.

God can make water.

How about this.... If you want to believe in Intelligent Design by all means believe in it. If you want to believe in evolution by all means believe in it.

At the end of the day it all boils down to a water making contest that nobody really wins.

I wish that was the case but proponents for creationism or intelligent design want it taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, wants to push legislation across many state legislatures where intelligent design can be taught alongside with evolution.

This would be detrimental to public school education as this opens the door to flood geology taught alongside geology and other similar minded proposals.

Local school boards should be able to decide what can and cannot be taught without federal intervention.

Local school boards should be able to decide what can and cannot be taught without federal intervention.

Private schools can teach whatever they want. Public schools have to follow guidelines or it would be pure chaos ("well, we decided our students are all farmers. They know what an acre is, there's no need for them to learn math") from district to district.

In fact, you know what, the contention that I.D. should be taught in public schools is worthy of a song. I'll make one up right now... and to make carolers happy, we'll make it to the tune of Jingles Bells:

Maybe Thad Balkman will like it.


Have your faith; keep your faith
Practice it at home
Go to church, say your prayers
Just leave our schools alone!!

Intelligent Design... is a one horse closed off mind
Belief ahead of truth; Selling out our youth
Children want to learn
In hell they will not burn
If they taste and see and feel
A natural world that's real

Hey!!

Have your faith; keep your faith
Practice it at home
Go to church, say your prayers
Just leave our schools alone!!

Private schools can teach whatever they want. Public schools have to follow guidelines or it would be pure chaos ("well, we decided our students are all farmers. They know what an acre is, there's no need for them to learn math") from district to district.

I agree, they should follow guidelines. But, not mandated federal ones. The closer government is to the individual, the better.

Sounds like you're arguing if someone believes in relativity or absolute truth.

I'm arguing in favor of logic. Theories are theories, facts are facts, there is no absolute truth.

Prune is making a huge deal about the necessity of fossil linkage to prove evolution. It's not necessary when there is enough skeletal evidence to prove genetic change for one generation to another. It's not necessary when we now have the tools to document the chemical and anatomical similarities between related life forms. It's not necessary when biologists have been studying genetic changes in living organisms and have been doing so for a century.

Survival of the fittest, natural selection and adaptation to environmental
conditions are all aspects of evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin. To deny that these processes are in play is illogical.

Lizards undergo rapid evolution in new habitat (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

E. coli gains new sugar metabolism in evolutionary shift (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)

Japanese researchers discover Nylon-eating bacteria (Nylon is manmade and has not existed before) (http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=bbb1961&cdvol=39&noissue=6&startpage=1219&lang=en&from=jnltoc)

...there is no absolute truth.

That statement cannot logically be possible because that statement is itself a statement of absolute. Therefore, there has to be absolute truth, it's just a matter of what the truth is.

I'm arguing in favor of logic. Theories are theories, facts are facts, there is no absolute truth.


That statement cannot logically be possible because that statement is itself a statement of absolute. Therefore, there has to be absolute truth, it's just a matter of what the truth is.

Exactly Luke, the person who believes in "no absolute truth", makes absolute statements, here's something to ponder:

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

So I say, Stan Silliman, argue to me that there is no absolute truth, without making an absolute statement.

I'm arguing in favor of logic. Theories are theories, facts are facts, there is no absolute truth.

Prune is making a huge deal about the necessity of fossil linkage to prove evolution. It's not necessary when there is enough skeletal evidence to prove genetic change for one generation to another. It's not necessary when we now have the tools to document the chemical and anatomical similarities between related life forms. It's not necessary when biologists have been studying genetic changes in living organisms and have been doing so for a century.

Survival of the fittest, natural selection and adaptation to environmental
conditions are all aspects of evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin. To deny that these processes are in play is illogical.

With the logic of "evolution" and "scientific evidence" , why isn't the Bible aka The Word of God taught, studied, read in public schools as a "great literary piece"? If we're using "scientific principles" it has more going for it and backing it up than unlinked fossils. The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date. The Bible, and it's stories are by far undisputed on historical and scientific backing, etc. Countless millions have died and sacrificed for it's cause, which can not be said for the Iliad. So what say you on why public schools can't study the Bible from at least a "great literary work" standpoint?

I wish that was the case but proponents for creationism or intelligent design
want it taught in schools. The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, wants to
push legislation across many state legislatures where intelligent design can be
taught alongside with evolution.

This would be detrimental to public school education as this opens the door
to flood geology taught alongside geology and other similar minded proposals.
In other words, a balanced education, instead of or having only one
unproven theory crammed down their throats.

I'm all for anything that will cause public education to have to be responsible.

The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands
today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000
ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far.

Compare that to the 6 or less partial manuscripts of Homer. I believe it's
second in total preserved manuscripts.

Weren't the 66 books of the Biblical Canon written over a period of 1,500
years, by over 40 authors and several different languages?

Lizards undergo rapid evolution in new habitat (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)

Evolution? Bunk. They didn't evolve into another species but
adapted to a new environment. It's no more evolution than
the same dog having a heavier coat in Minnesota than it does
in Oklahoma.

Come up for air. Evolution is dead.

As for the other two topics, give us a break.

Adaptations and evolution goes hand in hand. How do you account for the rise of nylon-eating bacteria? Nylon didn't exist before the 20th century and now you have bacteria that utilizes nylon as an energy source. These abilities don't magically appear. They appear from random mutations that happens to improve the fit for these organisms. As these mutations provide their progeny with better adaptations to utilize a new energy source or survive the environment (as in antibiotic resistant pathogens), the resulting descendants will keep these mutations.

What happens if these mutations stay? These organisms don't revert back to their original parents. Scientists consider an organism to be a new species when they differ by at least 1% in their genomes. Some scientists push it down to 5% dissimilarity.

If evolution is dead, I'm going to start walking around the labs on campus and tell them to go home. "Evolution isn't going to work so quit trying to base your experiments on them."

With the logic of "evolution" and "scientific evidence" , why isn't the Bible aka The Word of God taught, studied, read in public schools as a "great literary piece"? If we're using "scientific principles" it has more going for it and backing it up than unlinked fossils. The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date. The Bible, and it's stories are by far undisputed on historical and scientific backing, etc. Countless millions have died and sacrificed for it's cause, which can not be said for the Iliad. So what say you on why public schools can't study the Bible from at least a "great literary work" standpoint?

Seems pretty simple as to why it's not taught in public schools. The public schools are funded by taxpayers and they are always scrambling for funds, and by your own words there are tons of preserved New Testament manuscripts. That included many versions before it got to King James. Add that to the thousands of Old Testament manuscripts not to mention all the manuscripts of the Koran and so on and you wouldn't have time to teach ANYTHING else.

That's why there are so many theological schools, private schools, Catholic schools, Church sponsored schools, Yeshivas, Madrassas and so on. They have to spend the majority of their time studying, interpreting and analyzing the biblical texts.

On a different matter, why bother comparing the Bible to the Iliad... on any level? The Iliad is a beautiful work of FICTION, accepted as such. Mentioning them together just marginalizes the Bible.

If evolution is dead, I'm going to start walking around the labs on campus and
tell them to go home. "Evolution isn't going to work so quit trying to base
your experiments on them."

That's a great idea. Especially since they can't come up with any proof.

A lot of the anti-evolution commentary in here made sense 15 years ago. Since the rise of DNA science... not so much.

In any case it does not matter one bit from a religious standpoint unless you literally believe in talking snakes, woman being created from the rib of a man and having one fewer rib (scientifically incorrect), and so forth. And even if you do, how on earth does this effect the real religiously significant points of the Genesis story? Can someone please explain *that* to me?

Compare that to the 6 or less partial manuscripts of Homer. I believe it's
second in total preserved manuscripts.

Weren't the 66 books of the Biblical Canon written over a period of 1,500
years, by over 40 authors and several different languages?

Over the centuries several books were added, several were deleted, and so on as time rolled by. The various councils of Trent and Nicea did the editing based on votes of the religious scholars of the time.

There are some extremely early works that have been discovered that are not part of the cannon and are believed to be the works of ancient Jewish gnostic sects. These have been dated to the early First Century. Of the cannonical texts the four gospels are believed to be the earliest, dated at around 90 AD. The various Letters are believed to have been written from that point in time to as late as the next several hundred years.

The works of the Old Testament started as an oral tradition. The Jews actually have a second book that goes along with the OT that tries to capture the oral tradition that is not documented in the OT. The history of the OT is believed to go back perhaps thousands of years. As far as evidence... one of the few surviving pieces from antiquity that exists, a copy of one of the OT books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, was dated to about 325 BC. I think most theologians believe there is about a 200-500 year gap between the end of the OT and the start of the NT.

I find the history of the church and Bible to be a very interesting topic. I'm surprised that most churches never talk about it.

So what! There no link. If I've said it once I've said it a million times. IF there is evolution from chimpanzees and humans then there will be a fossil record. There isn't. Period.

Darwin worked from fossil data and observations of creatures that were similar to other creatures but in discrete environments. The wealth of knowledge he passed on to us has been added to by contemporary scientists that now have DNA data which Darwin didn’t have.

Prune, you continue to rely on "the missing link" to substantiate your argument and DNA clearly demonstrates a universal link. I guess you expect someone to turn up a humanoid fossil with a picture of a chimp in its pocket that says this is my grandpa.

As in all science, the inquiry into evolution, the origin of life and related matters continues in spite of the challenges and the naysayers. Evolution is science . . . creationism and intelligent design are religious dogma . . . they are not interchangeable with evolution and have no place in a science classroom.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

A lot of the anti-evolution commentary in here made sense 15 years ago.
Since the rise of DNA science... not so much.

Not true. The fossil record shows nothing. During Darwin, they found
nothing. 100 years later, they found nothing. 15 years ago, they found
nothing. As of this moment in time, they've still found nothing.

This is a very scientific form of reasoning. If it didn't happen, then it didn't
happen.

And as you continued, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs, unless you
want to count evolution as a religious belief based on unfounded science.

Darwin worked from fossil data and observations of creatures that were
similar to other creatures but in discrete environments. The wealth of
knowledge he passed on to us has been added to by contemporary
scientists that now have DNA data which Darwin didn’t have.

It it still proves nothing. Yeah, they're adding to the information with
"fill in the blank" extrapolation. That's not scientific.



Prune, you continue to rely on "the missing link" to substantiate your
argument and DNA clearly demonstrates a universal link. I guess you expect
someone to turn up a humanoid fossil with a picture of a chimp in its pocket
that says this is my grandpa.

That's funny! At any rate, I'm not missing the link, scientists are missing
the link. They haven't found one. Where is the link in the fossil record? IF
evolution really has occurred you won't be able to swing a dead cat
without coming across the proof.

Where's the link to the sheep? Cow? Dog? Cat? Mongoose? Platypus?
Where's the link to a snake? Fish? Frog? Alas, where's the link to man?
They don't have one. Period. It's not there. Evolution is wishful thinking.
It's much like a religion.



As in all science, the inquiry into evolution, the origin of life and related
matters continues in spite of the challenges and the naysayers. Evolution is
science . . . creationism and intelligent design are religious dogma . . . they
are not interchangeable with evolution and have no place in a science
classroom.

Of course it still continues. They want to prove it really happened but all
they have are a bunch of hypotheses that don't show anything evolving
from one species to another.

Evolution is bad science and, as just mentioned, wishful thinking. It has no
place in a science classroom.

Why did you bring creation and intelligent design into it? Maybe you were
responding to someone else, and not me. This seems to be the norm of
the "we hope evolution is true" posters of recent. I guess it's an attempt
to argue something else.

A nice list of fossil records dating back the past 4 million years demonstrating a very clear 'link' that people seem to think does not exist.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils)

A nice list of fossil records dating back the past 4 million years demonstrating
a very clear 'link' that people seem to think does not exist.

Good grief! This nonsense has been around for years. And Wikipedia? OY!

At any rate, not one single piece of evidence of one species evolving into
another.

Good try.

IF god created the earth to make it appear as if it were billions of years old since that is what it is suppose to be, then all those shows on the Discovery Channel and channels alike are wrong! Unless they're trying to confuse us.

My theory of the 7 days is that it was a passage of time in accordance with god's view of time, which as stated above could be millenia. To put it lightly, maybe after those billions of our years, he decided the earth would benefit by putting people on it. Unfortunately we've only existed on this planet for 3/4 of one blink of god's eyes. The creator hasn't even taken a full breath!

If you haven't gotten a chance to read it, please read 'Case For a Creator' by Lee Strobel. It's in the religious section at Barnes & Nobel and a great read for anybody interested. If god really was a scientist, it would definitely make these arguments non existent..

This is actually what I was thinking as well. If God can stop time for a day to help a battle, He can certainly manipulate time so that "7 days" could mean anything. But more than that, the Bible seemingly contradicts itself. The first story of creation tells it in the way we usually think of it - 6 days with a rest on day 7, everything created in a particular order, with man (and then woman) created last, etc. Beginning at Genesis 2:4, the story of creation is retold in a completely different fashion. There is no mention of how many days it took to create everything, but the order is completely different - first rain, then plant life, then man, then animals, than *finally* woman. The story of Noah is similarly told twice, with different details that seem to contradict each other (for example, how many animals were *really* on the arc? 2 of each? Or 2 of some and 7 of others?)


Right, and that is exactly why evolution and belief in God do not have to be at odds with one another like so many folks try to paint the picture. Science is saying that over time life forms have evolved from earlier forms and specifically common ancestors. But science can only go back so far. It can't explain what happened before the Big Bang for example... because how can you describe something with our laws of physics and biology for a time before the universe and all its laws existed? That is where philosophy and religion come in.

I think there is an unfortunate trend by some religious folks to paint anyone who believes in science as anti-religion. This is the main reason I wanted to comment in this thread, I think it is entirely possible to have both. Unfortunately, I think when Christians choose this battle to fight they are turning more away from religion than anything. The younger generations are very logically and science minded. When religious leaders put this stake in the ground and say "choose" many are simply looking at religion as some kind of insane irrational entity and turning completely away. The ranks of the adamant atheists are growing larger and larger with every generation. People who try to drive these ultra-literal viewpoints really need to consider the effect it is having on their religion. At the rate we are going just a few more generations and I think that'll be it. And I find that quite sad. There are certain questions that are not answerable in life... I think that religion and philosophy are an important and ever increasingly neglected part of life.

I've always contended that science (and/or evolution) and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. If God created Heaven and Earth, how do you think we got science? Or medicine (for those who pray instead of going to doctors)?

I know this is a serious discussion and far be from me do anything to take away from the seriousness but then I have to ask who am I kidding. So here's an article from May 5, 1990 in the Oklahoma Medical News:

The Never Heard before story...

Anthropologists are continually fighting over human origins. Some say we evolved from small-brained-knuckle-dragging Neanderthals populating the earth 1 to 2 million years ago. Others, holding to the EVE or Garden of Eden theory, say the human as a woman named Eve popped up in Africa 207,000 years ago. Molecular biologists, studying the genes from all ethnic and racial groups, trace the lineage back to the mitochondrial gene, passed on only by mothers, indicating a common direct maternal ancestor. But was it Eve? We can only find the answer by making a very, very long distance call and ask her.

SS: Eve? Is this the Eve? Eve, it's 1990 here and some of your great, great (Ed's note: linage shortened for space considerations) grandchildren would like to know how you started and how were things back in the garden?

EVE: Well, y'know... here I was... in the valley. You might call me a valley girl... y'know... scooting around on all fours... having an okay time... when I got this idea. I said "What about a garden?"

SS: You could see a garden?
EVE: Oh, yeah. Only I wasn't too smart... small brain and all that... so I wasn't too sure how to get there. Directions? I always had a problem. But my intuition told me go over the next hill and I was ready to go but... I had this big headache from night clubbing with the neanderthals the night before... A few knots on the noggin, I wanna tell you. So I rolled down on all fours to the garden.

SS: Was that fun, rolling?
EVE: Are you kidding? Porcupines, alligators - you never know what you're going to roll over. And I hurt my back. Whoa! So this guy, Adam, comes along and is he a pea brain. He asks "What you doing lying face down in the mud?" And I say "My back, dummy, my back!" Only he don't hear me so good cause my face is in the mud. It sounds more like "Myssskghi. Myssskghj."

SS: And then what happened?
EVE: I said he was a dummy. He LEAVES and doesn't come back for two-hundred years. He could've known me when I was in my prime... under 200... but NO! He has to check out the flora and fauna, sow a few wild oats with those Cro-magnons... and I'm lying there mutating.

SS: You sound bitter. Are you?
EVE: Whoever understands men, y'know? It's not like I had a lot of experience. But 200 years with my face in the mud? It did wonders for my complexion and... eliminated all the hair off the front of my body. Anyway I had eaten all the fruits within an arm's reach and was still hungry... and I saw this apple in this tree... and that is when I did it.

SS: Did what?
EVE: I stood, dummy. Who are you, anyway? You never heard this story before? I got up, straightened my legs and reached up for that apple... and my back didn't hurt.

SS: Did a serpent tell you to eat that apple?
EVE: A talking serpent? Whoa! What century are you from?

SS: What about Adam?
EVE: What about him? He happened along. I said "Hi Shorty," and noticed something about him.

SS: What was that?
EVE: From where I stood... he had a hairy back. Guys were hairy back then. I said "Adam, it's me, Ol' Face in the Mud. Want to KNOW me? Let's raise Cain." Adam was a party guy but I couldn't get him to stand. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. He hadn't mutated yet. Slow developers, that gender.

SS: What did Adam say?
EVE: Well, he was short, y'know... from not standing... and he looked me right in the chest and said "What are those?" He kept saying that.

SS: So he had never seen...
EVE: A fully erect woman... with no body hair.

SS: So you wowed him? Drove him crazy?
EVE: Wow, I'll say. He almost became erect right there... actually tried to stand.

SS: So you advocate standing. You wanted to go back to the original village and STAND and show them. You were proud, right?
EVE: Do fig leaves itch? Sure I was proud. I was all ready to strut into that village and say "Look at me - new specie." I wanted to tell them get up off their knuckles, that there are better games than Leap Frog or head butting the saber-tooths.

SS: So what did the neanderthals say?
EVE: Nothing! They were gone, wiped out. Saber-tooth tigers had bashed their little pea-brains down their throats.

SS: So then what did you do?
EVE: What do you think? I ran back to the garden and told Adam that the Earth's in trouble and we've got some populating to do if he's able. He said "I'm Adam, maybe we could call one of our kids Able. And how about that raising Cain stuff?" I said, "That too, get busy... you need to be begetting."

SS: So here we are?
EVE: Here you are. I sometimes think my standing up helped humans develop bigger brains. Being able to see above the bushes lets in more stimulus. Eating apples is supposed to help, also. I started that. But hey, it's just my theory and who am I, anyway? Just the mini-brained MOTHER of You All.

And as you continued, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs, unless you want to count evolution as a religious belief based on unfounded science.

I guess I don't understand why we're having a science discussion in the faith forum then.

Beginning at Genesis 2:4, the story of creation is retold in a completely different fashion. There is no mention of how many days it took to create everything, but the order is completely different - first rain, then plant life, then man, then animals, than *finally* woman. The story of Noah is similarly told twice, with different details that seem to contradict each other (for example, how many animals were *really* on the arc? 2 of each? Or 2 of some and 7 of others?)

At various points in the Bible it is often a collection of the same story being told by one point of view, and then being retold from another person's point of view, and so on. In 21st Century America we tend to try to think of the earliest books as a kind of straight story arc. But that's not at all what it is. There are differences in the stories upon retellings. I personally think that early church leaders and scribes recognized this and assembled the Bible as it is for a certain completeness, and to give people enough information to ponder some issues from various points of view. It is unfortunate that some denominations view what I just said as heressy. I think they are not familiar with the history of their own church.

Good grief! This nonsense has been around for years. And Wikipedia? OY!

At any rate, not one single piece of evidence of one species evolving into
another.

Good try.

Wikipedia is a great, you just have to continue research beyond Wikipedia. If you actually looked at the link, all it is is a single page pointing to university/museum websites with a chronological list of intermediary species leading up to humans. Im not sure what your looking for in a 'missing link' besides a fossil of a species that functions as a 'link' between two species. That is /exactly/ what is on that site.

If you actually looked at the link, all it is is a single page pointing to
university/museum websites with a chronological list of intermediary species
leading up to humans.

1. If? I did look at the link.
2. There wasn't one species evolving into another species. Each one was
of it's own species.
3. That's not evolution.
4. This is nothing new.

1. If? I did look at the link.
2. There wasn't one species evolving into another species. Each one was
of it's own species.

???? You want a single fossil record of something that is somehow two species at once? Wow.... Just wow....

You want a single fossil record of something that is somehow two species
at once? Wow... Just wow...

Oh, come on. That's the basis of evolution. Somewhere down the line a
species should be evolving into another species, i.e. apes becoming
humans. If that doesn't happen then you can't in anyway support
evolution. All they've been able to find is each species of it's own kind and
nothing linking it to from another or to another.

It's all fill in the blanks with extrapolation.

You see, if evolution did exist, there would be closely graduated varieties
between the allied species. Anthropologist wouldn't be able to dig a hole
without finding them, that is, if evolution existed. Alas, there are none.
Including the links you provided from Wikipedia.

Oh, come on. That's the basis of evolution. Somewhere down the line a
species should be evolving into another species, i.e. apes becoming
humans. If that doesn't happen then you can't in anyway support
evolution. All they've been able to find is each species of it's own kind and
nothing linking it to from another or to another.


And yet we do find these fossils. If you find a transition fossil, you don't name it "human-primate hybrid". You give it a name for scientific genus and species. Every fossil we find is a species of its own kind.

And you have to understand how fossilization works. Not everything gets fossilized as when the animal dies, its bones may have been dragged around by scavengers, trampled on by larger animals, and crushed under rocks. To get fossilized, the carcass has to be immediately buried (as in volcanic ash) or placed in an environment where the carcass is protected (ice, mud, tar pits, etc.)

Here's a transition fossil for modern seals: Home Page of Puijila: A Prehistoric Walking Seal (http://nature.ca/puijila/index_e.cfm)

It is a different species than the modern seal but the fossils suggest that this animal has a mix of terrestrial and aquatic characteristics. The morphology of the fossil places it in the seal group. It's much like looking at dog skulls and wolf skulls and classifying them in the canine group. However, you see characteristics of it as living on land (it has legs, no flippers).

I recommend you check the site out and look at the 3D reconstruction and other similar features that puts this in the seal group; and as a potential ancestor of modern seals.

Oh, come on. That's the basis of evolution. Somewhere down the line a
species should be evolving into another species, i.e. apes becoming
humans. If that doesn't happen then you can't in anyway support
evolution. All they've been able to find is each species of it's own kind and
nothing linking it to from another or to another.

It's all fill in the blanks with extrapolation.

You see, if evolution did exist, there would be closely graduated varieties
between the allied species. Anthropologist wouldn't be able to dig a hole
without finding them, that is, if evolution existed. Alas, there are none.
Including the links you provided from Wikipedia.

Again... Just wow... You were a teacher?

And yet we do find these fossils. If you find a transition fossil, you don't
name it "human-primate hybrid". You give it a name for scientific genus and
species. Every fossil we find is a species of its own kind.


No they don't. There is nothing that shows aspecies evolving into other
species. Later in your post you said the magic word "potentially". That word
makes room for a lot of data that isn't there.

Whether not they don't call it a human hybrid is beside the point. But the
fact is it should be something like monkey 1.0, monkey 1.1, monkey 1.2,
etc... until it is supposed to become monkey bone structure slightly
changing and now is monkey 2.0, 2.1, 2.3 etc... until we have humans.

It's the same with every species that's every been discovered. That's not
what the fossil records shows. It provides this species then that species
and yet another. But nothing showing evolution into another species. You
only see that in drawings in books on evolution.

Again... Just wow... You were a teacher?

Exactly. A science teacher.

You're last two posts have been void of debate. Since you've had to
resort to belittling and demeaning I suggest you give up. Those tactics
don't work and provide nothing for the conversation.

Exactly. A science teacher.

You're last two posts have been void of debate. Since you've had to
resort to belittling and demeaning I suggest you give up. Those tactics
don't work and provide nothing for the conversation.

If there were any actual debate about science, I might continue it. But there really is no point in arguing with a brick wall... If you want to discuss science, that could change.

But as of now all you do is make demands that can never be met because there are no clear requirements. You start off demanding transitional fossils, a very clear series of fossils showing a nice progression between species is presented. Now you want finer grained fossils, or better yet a fossil that somehow changes before your eyes.

So yes, all I can say is wow...

No they don't. There is nothing that shows aspecies evolving into other
species. Later in your post you said the magic word "potentially". That word
makes room for a lot of data that isn't there.

Whether not they don't call it a human hybrid is beside the point. But the
fact is it should be something like monkey 1.0, monkey 1.1, monkey 1.2,
etc... until it is supposed to become monkey bone structure slightly
changing and now is monkey 2.0, 2.1, 2.3 etc... until we have humans.

It's the same with every species that's every been discovered. That's not
what the fossil records shows. It provides this species then that species
and yet another. But nothing showing evolution into another species. You
only see that in drawings in books on evolution.

This stuff just leaves me with a lot of questions.

If I understand this right, the Wiki chart shows a substantial list of human like creatures, whether they be apes or cavemen or something in between and they all show differences in shape, teeth and bone size. And if I also understand, Prune accepts the fact that many types of similarly shaped and similarly dna'd creatures have been found. But what he's contending, I think, is that doesn't prove creature A evolved into creature B... or B into C. Is that it?

I go back to my original question. If that's not evolution, adapting to the environment and surroundings by changing over periods of time, what is it,
then? Or maybe Prune can answer this: if the creatures are not evolving, what is happening? Where do the newer upgraded models come from?

He's a teacher. I'm willing to be taught.

I feel that Evolution has been on the defensive too long, if somebody wants Intelligent design taught in a science classroom... Prove to me that its science. I don't even care if its right or not, god can come in here right now and tell me 'I did it' and its /still/ not science. Its not science because there is /no/ experiment, /no/ evidence (hypothetical or real) that could /ever/ prove Intelligent Design wrong.

No they don't. There is nothing that shows aspecies evolving into other
species. Later in your post you said the magic word "potentially". That word
makes room for a lot of data that isn't there.

I said potentially since there's a lot of promise in establishing this fossil as an ancestor of modern seals. These researchers don't have time machines so they can't fully prove that these are the ancestor species. But the evidence is compelling.

As a curious question, do you consider micro-evolution to be viable? I don't believe micro-evolution (small changes that lead to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria) is being hotly contested now. These small genetic changes can be observed through chromosomal sequencing. For further proof, scientists can replicate the same mutations and transfer it to a non-resistant bacteria...therefore turning those resulting bacteria into antibiotic resistant bacteria.

If there were any actual debate about science, I might continue it. But there
really is no point in arguing with a brick wall... If you want to discuss science,
that could change.

But as of now all you do is make demands that can never be met because
there are no clear requirements. You start off demanding transitional fossils, a
very clear series of fossils showing a nice progression between species is
presented. Now you want finer grained fossils, or better yet a fossil that
somehow changes before your eyes.

So yes, all I can say is wow...

I accept your lack of evidence and truly understand that you haven't a leg
to stand on and want to bow out. I don't understand the attempts of
belittling and demeaning.

By the way, there was no progression between species. Period. Every bit
of so-called scientific evidence was pathetic. All they show is a species
here and a species there and nothing in between, except the wishful
thinking of evolutionists.

But now that you mentioned, debating with you has been like debating a
brick wall.

I'll stick with science, thank you.

Just to clarify, we did not evolve from monkeys. The theory goes that at some distant point in the past there was some as yet undiscovered species roaming around on the earth. That species branched off into one or more other species at some point. Down one branch came modern-day primates. Along a similar but different branch came homo sapiens.

I guess I have a question. So we have lots and lots of humanoid-like creatures that have been discovered in the fossil records. Homo habilis, homom erectus, homo georgicus, homo neanderthal, and on and on and on. I'm assuming you agree up to this point.

So here's the question. We can carbon date these fossils and determine that some are much older than others. In addition to that, in the older species we see traits that we would categorize as more "primitive," such as protruding foreheads and such, while more "modern" species don't have these. We can also approximate these species learning capabilities as it is measurable that the more modern species have larger craniums than the older species. In addition, it has been observed that with the species that would appear to be more modern and probably had more brain capacity that they often were capable of crafting and using tools.

Now think about this for just a moment. Here we have a vast collection of human-like species that are definitely not human. You can almost arrange them from "most primitive" to "most modern," and you can carbon date the bones and the relative age of each of these species pretty much matches up with what you would expect, e.g. the older species are the more primitive ones. As time goes on the older species just seem to disappear in the later fossil records and magically these more modern species appear. The more modern species look more and more human.

Ten years ago neanderthal DNA was recovered. Performing a procedure known as "DNA dating" on it gave an estimated age that is pretty much in line with carbon dating estimates from neanderthal fossils. Tests of the DNA are still ongoing, but what I have read indicates it is similar to human DNA, clearly older than human DNA, but not the same.

Honestly, after reading the above you don't think there's at least a little something to natural selection?

I accept your lack of evidence and truly understand that you haven't a leg
to stand on and want to bow out. I don't understand the attempts of
belittling and demeaning.

By the way, there was no progression between species. Period. Every bit
of so-called scientific evidence was pathetic. All they show is a species
here and a species there and nothing in between, except the wishful
thinking of evolutionists.

But now that you mentioned, debating with you has been like debating a
brick wall.

I'll stick with science, thank you.

Sure, bow out of the debate just when I ask you to show me how ID is science. I'm not even asking for evidence showing its a good theory, just asking for you to show me that it can be tested with the scientific method. Give me an example of a discovery that if found would prove ID false. It should be a simple task if ID were to be called science.

Honestly, after reading the above you don't think there's at least a little
something to natural selection?

Within species, possibly. But there still isn't a bonafide link connecting one
species to another.

My point is this. We have found species A and later species B and even
later species C. Each have something that's similar but it ends there. It's
"poof" we have a different species. I don't accept it.

As far a my standing firm on the fossil record, I remain. For evolution to be
true there must be closely graduated varieties within each species. There is
no such record. One person made the ridiculous statement that I want the
bones to change before my eyes. Of course that's absurd. But the fact
remains that they should be changing as the species evolves. That is a
reasonable hypothesis and the basis of evolution. The fossil record does
not show this.