Thought about creation

[Luke]

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

[oneforone]

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.

[Luke]

God can make water.

[HSC-Sooner]

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.

[Luke]

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

[Stan Silliman]

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!!

[Luke]

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.

[Stan Silliman]

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.

[HSC-Sooner]

Lizards undergo rapid evolution in new habitat

E. coli gains new sugar metabolism in evolutionary shift

Japanese researchers discover Nylon-eating bacteria (Nylon is manmade and has not existed before)

[Luke]

...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.

[metro]

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.

[metro]

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?

[Prunepicker]

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.

[Prunepicker]

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?

[Prunepicker]

Lizards undergo rapid evolution in new habitat

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.

[HSC-Sooner]

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."

[Stan Silliman]

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.

[Prunepicker]

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.

[dismayed]

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?

[dismayed]

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.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

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

[Prunepicker]

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.

[Prunepicker]

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.

[Heyuri]

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

[Prunepicker]

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.