Should evolution be taught in schools? [Archive] - Page 5

Coney

06-12-2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I'm a little confused on what you believe here rian:
You want evolution to be taught in schools (public shcools i'm talking about) and also creationism, right? You want them both in a science class or what? Where in a public school would creationism belong? Keep in mind that in most schools (public) there are not religion classes. You might say History/Social Studies but there are curriculums, where would it fit in? And how would it be taught legally with separation of church and state? It does deal heavily with religion because a god is the main thing of creation theory. And wherever you chose to teach creation in school, would you teach it as truth, represent all the creation stories of all the cultures in that school?

Sheesh! Well obviously both should be taught as theory as there is no positive proof (scientific or theological) of either.

*shrugs*..........isn't it obvious?

HOBBIT

06-12-2003, 09:05 PM

no, its not obvious. are you saying that creation should be taught in a science class a scientific theory when it is not?

Lizra

06-12-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just out of curiosity (I don't mean this in a sarcastic way) - what makes you think those arrowhead-shaped things you found are not just the product of random chance and natural processes like erosion?

My eyes. They are beautifully chiped and chiseled arrowheads, with lovely curved bases for tying. They look like elves made them. ;) They do not look like pointy rocks. I would think erosion would make for smoothness, not an arrow shape. As I mentioned, my farm was once part of the Miami Indians first reservation, there are native american artifacts all about the area. We have a musuem for all this type of stuff in the small burg where my son goes to school. Erosion looks different.

Coney

06-12-2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
no, its not obvious. are you saying that creation should be taught in a science class a scientific theory when it is not?

No HOBBIT theory and scientific theory are two very different things :rolleyes:

EDIT: I love your demands for people to proove the existence of God in this thread...........I hope the Pope is reading *thumbs up* :D

HOBBIT

06-12-2003, 09:20 PM

Yes, but both taught where coney?

Coney

06-12-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yes, but both taught where coney?

Well in the high school I attended......creation theory (christian and others) was taught in Religious Studies and Biology (or evolutionn that is known as scientific fact) was taught in specialised science lessons.......*shrugs* Evolustion theory (Darwinism) was taught in History class.

HOBBIT

06-12-2003, 09:42 PM

In most states there is no "religious studies" class. There can't really be either unless it really has no religious preaching at all. So basically they would have to present all the creation stories as myths. I AGREE with you that both should be taught (only so one can make judgement with both sides of the story), but creation has no place in public schools here in the us. It is up to parents to teach that stuff if they want - its called relgion schools...

Coney

06-12-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
In most states there is no "religious studies" class. There can't really be either unless it really has no religious preaching at all. So basically they would have to present all the creation stories as myths. I AGREE with you that both should be taught (only so one can make judgement with both sides of the story), but creation has no place in public schools here in the us. It is up to parents to teach that stuff if they want - its called relgion schools...

I agree with you there............religious idealologies are hard to teach (especially over the short period of time folks are in school)...........in the UK six different religions are taught as part of the curriculum in Religious studies (this is extended to eight if you choose to study religion after the age of 14) ............ we're lucky here, preaching/teaching christianity in schools was wiped from being common practice in schools over ten years ago (UK being muti-cultural and all)..........religion (faith) was left to the home and church(where it belongs IMO ).

HOBBIT

06-12-2003, 09:58 PM

well its nice that we are in agreement :D

Coney

06-12-2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
well its nice that we are in agreement :D

Not that I can ever remember argueing with ya HOBBIT.........;)

RÃan

06-13-2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
(1)I'm a little confused on what you believe here rian:
You want evolution to be taught in schools (public shcools i'm talking about) and also creationism, right?
(2)You want them both in a science class or what?
(3)Where in a public school would creationism belong?
(4)Keep in mind that in most schools (public) there are not religion classes.
(5)You might say History/Social Studies but there are curriculums, where would it fit in?
(6)And how would it be taught legally with separation of church and state?
(7)It does deal heavily with religion because a god is the main thing of creation theory.
(8)And wherever you chose to teach creation in school, would you teach it as truth, represent all the creation stories of all the cultures in that school?
1 - yep.
2 - yep.
3 - science class.
4 - ok.
5 - science class.
6 - sep. of ch & st. means that a particular religion is not PROMOTED above ANOTHER one. I don't think it should be taught as tied to a particular religion; or it could be taught w/o tying it in, then at the end, summarize those religions that have a creationist story. Or don't summarize. But don't promote one religion above another.
7 - yup, see above.
8 - nope, teach it as a very valid scientific model, but not necessarily the truth. The students should be encouraged to impartially evaluate the evidence for and against each theory. And either review all creation stories or none.

I'm going to start with my first long post :eek:, but I wanted to quick answer your questions. Could we please hold debate on whether or not you think creationism is scientific for a bit, and let me present some scientific evidence.

RÃan

06-13-2003, 03:06 AM

I posted this yesterday:
So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is that ok, or would anyone like to offer another wording? I'd especially like to hear from the evolutionists.
and haven't heard back from anyone, so I'll just assume it's ok and continue on.

A couple of top-level observations:

The essence of real science is observation and experimentation, ne?
(with a thanks to Eruviel for that expression! I love it!)

Now, moving on:
from creationist Henry Morris, PhD, 1987, What is Creation Science? : As noted in the introduction, it is not possible to prove, in the experimental sense, either evolution or creation, since we can neither observe past history directly nor reproduce it in the laboratory. Nevertheless, we can compare and contrast the respective abilities of the evolution and creation models to explain - and even to predict - those scientific data which can be directly observed.

from evolutionist D. J. Futuyma, 1983, Science on Trial (an anti-creationist book :) ) :
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.

I'm going to propose that evolutionism is (basically) time and chance brought about what we see around us today, and creationism is (basically) plan and design brought about what we see around us today. Is this an acceptable basic working model?

A further refinement would be that:
In the evolution model, the entire universe is considered to have evolved by natural processes into its present state of high organization and complexity.
In the creation model, there is at least one period of direct creation in the beginning, during which the basic systems of nature were brought into existence in completed, functioning form right from the start.

(these defs were from the Morris book. I'm using them because I think they represent the two models well.)

Are there any adjustments that anyone would like to suggest? I'll wait 24 hrs for comments, then start presenting the evidence (which I've been assured beforehand, by the evolutionists on this thread, will be thoughtfully considered :) )

RÃan

06-13-2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Lizra
My eyes. They are beautifully chiped and chiseled arrowheads, with lovely curved bases for tying. They look like elves made them. ;) They do not look like pointy rocks. I would think erosion would make for smoothness, not an arrow shape. As I mentioned, my farm was once part of the Miami Indians first reservation, there are native american artifacts all about the area. We have a musuem for all this type of stuff in the small burg where my son goes to school. Erosion looks different.

Yes, I believe that your eyes are indeed intelligently (and beautifully!) designed, and NOT the result of time and chance. In fact, Darwin himself says the following about the eye:
from Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
(I'll be talking more about this area later)

It's funny that you brought up the arrowheads when you did, and I would certainly expect you to see that they are NOT the product of time and chance, as you definitely did. Here's some quotes from the Morris book about arrowheads and design: What do I mean by 'evidence of creation?' Isn't creation something you either believe or don't believe? How can we talk about scientific evidence of creation?
He then goes on to talk about a person walking along and finding a pebble shaped like a cowboy boot. As you roll the pebble around in your hand, you notice that the softer parts of the rock are more worn away than the harder parts, and that the lines of wear follow lines of weakness in the rock. Despite some appearance of design, the boot shape of the tumbled pebble is clearly the result of time, chance, and the processes of weathering and erosion.
(and I would add you could gather similar type rocks and in the lab, subject them to water and sand and see a similar result.)

But then you see an arrowhead, and Immediately it stands out as different. In the arrowhead, chip marks cut through the hard and soft parts of the rock equally, and the chip line goes both with and across lines of weakness in the rock. In the arrowhead, we see matter shaped and molded according to a design that gives the rocky material a purpose.
and
You have just done what many people dismiss as impossible. In comparing the pebble and the arrowhead, you were easily able to recognize evidence of creation. .... Using your knowledge of erosional processes and your observations of hard and soft rock, you were able to distinguish a result of time and chance (the tumbled pebble) from an object created with plan and purpose (the arrowhead).
And a very important conclusion: If we had found such objects as arrowheads on Mars, all scientists would have recognized them immediately as products of creation, even though in that case we would have no idea who made them or how.

RÃan

06-13-2003, 03:41 AM

And the last post for tonight - the book then goes on to discuss Carl Sagan's book Contact (which was recommended to me by an evolutionist that has posted on this thread, and which I thoroughly enjoyed!)

What do the astronomers listen for to indicate an intelligent being? Random noise? Of course not! They are listening for complexity and design, and when they finally hear it, they are thrilled, because the logical inference from their scientific observations is that an intelligent being is behind that signal!

Morris' conclusion to this section: You don't have to see the creator, and you don't have to see the creative act, to recognize evidence of creation. Even when we don't know who or what the creative agent is, then, there are cases where "creation" is simply the most logical inference from our scientific observations.

Anglorfin

06-13-2003, 03:45 AM

That's why math is the universal language. Any advanced species would have an understanding of the concepts of numbers above all else.

RÃan

06-13-2003, 03:53 AM

I agree. I minored in math in college, BTW - great subject!

Lizra

06-13-2003, 08:10 AM

Rian, I hate climbing in this squeaky hamster wheel again! ;) If I knew nothing of science (and what I know is just the very tip of the iceburg! ;) ) and didn't consider the effects TIME has on natural processes.....the inevitible and logical selection of what works well for a situation thriving over what doesn't, and that this constantly occuring process gets built upon in an ever-expanding manner, over all directions, situations and possibilities, for eons...allowing amazing yet logical things to occur (IMO) I might go for the "anything complicated must be made by a magic man in the sky" route. But for some reason...:confused: that's about the last thing I would consider! Sorry, evolution is not an over simplified "things just happen by chance" process, and not the only process that has brought about the "apparent" wonders we see. I don't know what all has happened in the universe anyway! :D ....but to attribute the universe to an invisible, all knowing, all powerful thing that just "is" a la Tom Bombadil or something :confused: (and who has also conveniently disappeared from the planet) is about the most ridiculous thing (IMO) I can imagine.

Earniel

06-13-2003, 11:11 AM

You don't have to see the creator, and you don't have to see the creative act, to recognize evidence of creation. Even when we don't know who or what the creative agent is, then, there are cases where "creation" is simply the most logical inference from our scientific observations.

So? :confused: I don't think I see the point you're trying to get at. Some things can easily be determined to be created. Others are not. I don't think anyone argues that. Some tools in rock made by our early ancestors are nearly impossible to be determined as created. Mostly because they're very primitive and look a lot like stones that underwent some natural proceses. It takes a skilled eye to spot one and even then there's still much doubt. You can easily find a stone and be convinced it's made and used by prehistoric people. It might even look convincingly that way too. But it can just as easily be an ordinary piece of rock formed by natural proceses. The distinction between a creation and nature are not always as clear.

But to use this analogy to say the world is created is a big leap. Just because one beautiful thing is created does not mean all the other beautiful things are created.

Don't be sorry, Lizra. :) It's great that you can find something like that in your garden. The ground of our garden just isn't good for preservation of any fossil. And finding arrowheads sounds very exotic to me. :) No indians here. But I once did find a stone with a round hole in it. I used to pretend it was made by a caveman. :D That's about the extent of fossils you'll find on the ground around here. :rolleyes:

RÃan

06-13-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Lizra
Rian, I hate climbing in this squeaky hamster wheel again! ;)
Then don't, Lizra, but some people have asked to see evidence of creationism (which I'll start presenting today), and have promised to consider it, and so I am going to start presenting some later on today.

Have you seen that Darwin quote on the eye before?

RÃan

06-13-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
(1)So? :confused: I don't think I see the point you're trying to get at.
(2)Some things can easily be determined to be created. Others are not. ....
(3)But to use this analogy to say the world is created is a big leap.
(4)Just because one beautiful thing is created does not mean all the other beautiful things are created.

1 - I haven't presented any evidence for creationism yet - I just wanted to show that it's natural and logical to sometimes infer creation from scientific observations/knowledge (such as the knowledge of erosion and how it works). I'm in such a HUGE minority on this thread (and I hope you guys will at least give me some credit for having the guts to jump in!) that I felt that I needed to illustrate this point.

2 - I agree, and I also agree with when you said further down that sometimes we can't tell or might make errors. But I think the arrowhead is a great example of when creation is the most logical inference, don't you?

3 - Yes, it's a HUGE leap, and I didn't make it, and I don't intend to make it.

4 - I agree :)

Cirdan

06-13-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Immediately it stands out as different. In the arrowhead, chip marks cut through the hard and soft parts of the rock equally, and the chip line goes both with and across lines of weakness in the rock. In the arrowhead, we see matter shaped and molded according to a design that gives the rocky material a purpose.

So why would one believe that the arrowhead was not made by god? It is obviuosly created and without prior knowledge of arrows, primative peoples and cultures, tools etc. it would seem obvious that only god could have placed it there. The simply initial evaluation should lead to more questions than answers. The reason we know the arrowhead was created by man is all the other supporting information we posess.

and:

If we had found such objects as arrowheads on Mars, all scientists would have recognized them immediately as products of creation, even though in that case we would have no idea who made them or how.

Why? They would not be very good scientists to make conclusions without corroborating facts.

I applaude your attempt to present the creationist side, Rian. I will be patient but I don't want to wait for too many posts to respond, so don't get discouraged if it seems like getting attacked before you've made the case.

Cirdan

06-13-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And the last post for tonight - the book then goes on to discuss Carl Sagan's book Contact (which was recommended to me by an evolutionist that has posted on this thread, and which I thoroughly enjoyed!)

What do the astronomers listen for to indicate an intelligent being? Random noise? Of course not! They are listening for complexity and design, and when they finally hear it, they are thrilled, because the logical inference from their scientific observations is that an intelligent being is behind that signal!

They are looking for anomalies to what they expect to find. They know the patterns of EMR they expect to find from known astronomical bodies. The observations may be scientific but the inference, without corroboration, is not. They signal could be some undiscovered type of astronomical phenomenon. It isn't assumed that it is intelligent life, only that it might be.

HOBBIT

06-13-2003, 01:11 PM

Rian:But why would you want Creation taught in science classes as a scientific theory when it is not one? ? Where would you fit it in science books? At the beginning of a biology book? "And now a theory that makes absolutely no sense and does not relate to the rest of the book: (and is not even a scientific theory) 'god created everything,' please disregard" :P well thats how i would picture it as.... or at leas that is what I would think of it.

Creation is based on faith..it is not scientific at all. Without a god creationism does not work.... oh well.

and just in case you didn't notice, I replied to what you asked me near the bottom of page 73.

GrayMouser

06-13-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an

A further refinement would be that:
In the evolution model, the entire universe is considered to have evolved by natural processes into its present state of high organization and complexity.
In the creation model, there is at least one period of direct creation in the beginning, during which the basic systems of nature were brought into existence in completed, functioning form right from the start.

(these defs were from the Morris book. I'm using them because I think they represent the two models well.)

The evolution model: I'm assuming by evolution you're talking about biological evolution. In that case, it doesn't really have anything to say about the entire Universe, or whether the Universe is organized or complex.

Evolution is concerned with the development of life on Earth.

If you substitute "science" for "evolution" in the quote you'd be getting more accurate.

In the creationist model, it all depends on what you mean by the "basic systems of nature".

If you mean the laws of the Universe, then of course it would apply to everyone from Deists, who believe God created the Universe and then left it to run on its own, to mainstream Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution, all the way to Young Earth Creationists- basically ANYONE who believed the Universe was created by a higher power- including many people who thoroughly support neo-Darwinian evolution

If by "completed, functioning form" you mean complex forms of life which have not changed over time then this is basically YEC, and you are excluding many Old Earth Creationists, as well as most advocates of Intelligent Design (people such as Michael Behe ).

So, no, the definitions suggested by Morris are not very useful.

How about this:

Evolution, the believe that life on Earth developed from simple to complex and varied forms over long periods of time through the operation of natural selection on random variations, solely through naturalistic means.

Creationism, the belief that it is not possible that life on Earth could have developed solely through natural means; at some point or points supernatural intervention was necessary.

I think this is a big enough tent to include everyone from the Flat-Earthers through YECs, OECs and IDers, while excluding Theistic Evolution.

GrayMouser

06-13-2003, 03:14 PM

From Rian
Yes, I believe that your eyes are indeed intelligently (and beautifully!) designed, and NOT the result of time and chance. In fact, Darwin himself says the following about the eye:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Darwin himself says:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

There is a Creationist practise known as "quote-mining" in which statements by scientists are torn out of context, rhetorical questions treated as doubts, quotes are re-arranged and parts snipped out without acknpwledgement (the standard three or four dots, to show something has been cut), and are constantly cited even when the scientists quoted object that their meaning has been twisted.
From Steven Jay Gould, himself a continual victim of this practise:

"Anti-evolutionists continually cite this passage as supposed evidence that Darwin himself threw in the towel when faced with truly difficult and inherently implausible cases. But if they would only read the very next sentence[s], they would grasp Darwin's real reason for speaking of absurdity 'in the highest possible degree.' (Either they have read these following lines and have consciously suppressed them, an indictment of dishonesty; or they have never read them and have merely copied the half quotation from another source, a proof of inexcusable sloppiness. Darwin set up the overt 'absurdity' to display the power of natural selection in resolving even the most difficult cases -- the ones that initially strike us as intractable in principle. The very next liner, give three reasons all supported by copious evidence for resolving the absurdity and accepting evolutionary development as the cause of optimally complex structures."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

For Creationist quote mining:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s1-6

And the adoption of this tactic by IDers

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp

Of course, I'm not suggesting dishonesty by anyone posting here; just that the field is so contentious and full of half-truths and misquotes that it would be nice to see a reference for any quotes.

Draken

06-13-2003, 08:28 PM

GrayMouser: give it up mate! They ain't worth the effort. 30 seconds spent contemplating the Mesozoic Era is better spent than 30 hours wasting your time on this lot.

They are truly the Agents of the one true anti Christ; Ignorance, bent on diverting smart people like you from doing better things with your time!

Cirdan

06-13-2003, 08:42 PM

Hey! Spreading knowledge is never a waste of time, even if it doesn't take.;)

GM, I enjoyed the links you posted. Killed several hours following them.

afro-elf

06-13-2003, 10:45 PM

Though I have long since retired from the field, it nice to see that the there are others who carry the battle onward.

Carry on servants of reason.

RÃan

06-13-2003, 11:20 PM

OK, A-E, I will. :)

afro-elf

06-13-2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, A-E, I will. :) :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

You have switched sides?

I like you a person, but you are a Servant of Faith young lady.

Though, I will say you are tenacious,

afro-elf

06-13-2003, 11:43 PM

Rian, I only replied so newbies might know that I am a skeptic.

HOBBIT

06-14-2003, 12:10 AM

rian as voice of reason: "teach creation in science classes" 'nuff said. :P

cassiopeia

06-14-2003, 12:42 AM

Rian, I assume you're going to quote some bits from Morris' book; I look forward to them.
Morris is supposed to be a impartial scientist, but I just found a quote of his:

The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is that fact that the Bible rejects it. The Bible is the word of God, absolutely inerrant and verbally inspired.... The Bible gives us the revelation we need, and it will be found that all the known facts of science or history can be very sastisfactorily understood within this Biblical framework.

Seems like he has his mind already made up. I was going to PM this to you, Rian, but since you brought up the book in this thread, I thought the quote was relevent.

RÃan

06-14-2003, 02:45 AM

OK, I'm ready to tackle the evolution thread! I think I'll work most-recent to oldest for today's posts.

cassiopeia - I see what your concern is, and I'll address it last, because the points I'll bring up first will bear on it.

1 - I think Morris' statement (where is it, BTW?) is not relevant to this thread, because it's not a scientific statement. I'm going to present some scientific evidence (note - evidence, not proof - same as for evolution - there's no proof, just evidence) for creationism, and the evolutionist people here have said they would consider it (and I assume they mean in a scientific, impartial manner). I hope they will keep their word.

2 - Please note his phrase "final and conclusive evidence" - now I haven't read the whole book cover-to-cover in order, but I have pretty much read the whole book. And as far as the scientific evidence, I don't see him asking people to accept it "because God said it was that way". I see him presenting scientific evidence carefully and impartially and logically. And he presents a heckuva lot of evidence, IMO! And as a Christian who believes in the Bible, the final capstone (although out of the realm of science) would be the Bible, and I guess that's why he mentions it.

Note the use of the word FINAL - it means the last in a long line of evidence. Now as a non-Christian, you don't need to evaluate this bit of info, because you don't believe it to be true. And again, I hope you will be willing to impartially evaluate the other evidence he presents, because that's what science is about.

3 - I would guess your major objection is that Morris has his mind already made up about the matter, and is twisting the data to reflect his preconceived notions; is that right? Now wouldn't you say that evolutionists also have their minds made up? They're willling to change the mechanisms, but not the guts of the theory (macroevolution), because they believe it, beforehand, to be true, and they believe it without any direct scientific proof whatsoever! No one has EVER seen macroevolution in the lab, have they? They believe it to be a LOGICAL INFERENCE, just like Morris' beliefs in Christianity. And many evolutionists have also said they don't believe in God, either.

All we can do, since we can't read the minds of the scientists, is to hope that neither the creationists nor the evolutionists are twisting the data around to fit their already-held beliefs, and do our best to honestly evaluate the data that we see. I hope they can operate with scientific integrity. I believe that Morris does, from what I can tell.

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by afro-elf
Rian, I only replied so newbies might know that I am a skeptic.

OK :)

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:11 AM

(continuing back thru the thread)

Hobbit - :p

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:17 AM

Draken - *nothing to reply to, as there is nothing scientific, intelligent, or interesting in his post, IMO. In addition, it's unkind. :( *

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:22 AM

*continuing back*

GrayMouser - well worth replying to, since he is kind, intelligent and thoughtful.

To save time, I'll skip over the first part of the post and go to the last part:

Originally posted by GrayMouser
How about this:

Evolution, the believe that life on Earth developed from simple to complex and varied forms over long periods of time through the operation of natural selection on random variations, solely through naturalistic means.

Creationism, the belief that it is not possible that life on Earth could have developed solely through natural means; at some point or points supernatural intervention was necessary.

I think this is a big enough tent to include everyone from the Flat-Earthers through YECs, OECs and IDers, while excluding Theistic Evolution.
I think I'm ok with your evolution def; the creationism one I think needs a little work, because I think an important aspect is that the intervention was at the BEGINNING, not "at some point or points". Do you want to suggest something else, or I could try, but it might take longer....

Does anyone else wish to offer an opinion on these defs?

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:49 AM

GrayMouser again ....

Originally posted by GrayMouser
From Rian : [partial Darwin quote]

What Darwin himself says: [quote with dots filled in and some following sentences]

There is a Creationist practise known as "quote-mining" in which statements by scientists are torn out of context, rhetorical questions treated as doubts, quotes are re-arranged and parts snipped out without acknpwledgement (the standard three or four dots, to show something has been cut), and are constantly cited even when the scientists quoted object that their meaning has been twisted.
Thanks for the complete quote! I found it very interesting. I was wondering myself what the missing section was.

And I think that I can show that it was NOT taken out of context, by quoting further from the Morris/Parker book.

The context that they gave that quote was in a section talking about adaptations requiring several traits all depending upon one another, and the difficulties that it posed for evolutionists. Here is the text immediately preceding the quote: from What is Creation Science?, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
Darwin himself was acutely aware of this evidence of creation and the problem it posed for his theory. In a chapter of Origin of Species called "Difficulties With the Theory,", he included traits that depend on separately meaningless parts. Consider the human eye with the different features required to focus at different distances, to accomodate different amounts of light, and to correct for the "rainbow effect." Regarding the origin of the eye, Darwin wrote these words: [insert the quote I posted]

Considering that Darwin wrote this in a chapter entitled Difficulties With the Theory", and considering that their point was that Darwin was aware of difficulties in this area, do you think that, in this instance, Morris/Parker were guilty of quote-mining? I don't. Now if they said that this quote proved that Darwin thought his theory was invalid, that's another story.

I suppose I should have been more careful when I quoted that section, but it was really just a casual post made in reaction to Lizra's talk about her eyes, and made in the same casual mood as her post was.

And BTW, I really think it's misleading to say "a Creationist practise", because that implies that evolutionists never do it. Do you think that's true? I certainly don't.

Of course, I'm not suggesting dishonesty by anyone posting here; just that the field is so contentious and full of half-truths and misquotes that it would be nice to see a reference for any quotes. That's a good idea, and I gave a ref. for the Darwin quote on the eye. And the Morris/Parker book talks about how they feel that misquoting is wrong, and is careful to provide references for their quotes.

I checked out your second link and it looks well worth reading - I'll take a look at the others, too.

RÃan

06-14-2003, 03:55 AM

*continuing back*

Cirdan -

Well, it's now 1 am, and A-E may see me as tenacious, but now I'm just .... tired. But it's been interesting and enjoyable, because (with a minor exception) it's been a polite and intelligent discussion, IMO.

I'll have to get to your posts tomorrow - uh, later today :)

afro-elf

06-14-2003, 09:29 PM

been interesting

Hell, HOBBIT and I are even on the same side.

cassiopeia

06-15-2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, I'm ready to tackle the evolution thread! I think I'll work most-recent to oldest for today's posts.

cassiopeia - I see what your concern is, and I'll address it last, because the points I'll bring up first will bear on it.

1 - I think Morris' statement (where is it, BTW?) is not relevant to this thread, because it's not a scientific statement. I'm going to present some scientific evidence (note - evidence, not proof - same as for evolution - there's no proof, just evidence) for creationism, and the evolutionist people here have said they would consider it (and I assume they mean in a scientific, impartial manner). I hope they will keep their word.

I believe the quote is from Evolution and the Modern Christian.
I think it is relevent, because he seems to think, no matter what, that the Bible is right. Scientists, I would hope, are willing to change thier beliefs, given the evidence. Morris seems to have made up him mind; it also to me implies that he would pick the evidence that suits his theory, and throw away the evidence that contradicts it.

2 - Please note his phrase "final and conclusive evidence" - now I haven't read the whole book cover-to-cover in order, but I have pretty much read the whole book. And as far as the scientific evidence, I don't see him asking people to accept it "because God said it was that way". I see him presenting scientific evidence carefully and impartially and logically. And he presents a heckuva lot of evidence, IMO! And as a Christian who believes in the Bible, the final capstone (although out of the realm of science) would be the Bible, and I guess that's why he mentions it.

I agree that he presents the book in a scientific manner, with no mention of the Bible or God. But that doesn't mean he has correctly interpreted the evidence. And that's why I still believe that evolution best explains all the diversity in the world.

3 - I would guess your major objection is that Morris has his mind already made up about the matter, and is twisting the data to reflect his preconceived notions; is that right? Now wouldn't you say that evolutionists also have their minds made up? They're willling to change the mechanisms, but not the guts of the theory (macroevolution), because they believe it, beforehand, to be true, and they believe it without any direct scientific proof whatsoever! No one has EVER seen macroevolution in the lab, have they? They believe it to be a LOGICAL INFERENCE, just like Morris' beliefs in Christianity. And many evolutionists have also said they don't believe in God, either.

I would hope that scientists would carefully consider the evidence, then make up thier minds.
I don't think it matters if scientists believe in God or not. They should leave thier beliefs at the door (I think somebody has already said that.) :) Anyway, I don't think that evolution rules out a God, just that he didn't directly create all the animals in the world. I can almost see a God who made up all the laws so we could be here. But those aren't matters of science.

RÃan

06-15-2003, 01:22 AM

OK - 10pm and all is well :) so time for a little 'Mooting!

And to finish from last night -

Originally posted by Cirdan
So why would one believe that the arrowhead was not made by god? It is obviuosly created and without prior knowledge of arrows, primative peoples and cultures, tools etc. it would seem obvious that only god could have placed it there. The simply initial evaluation should lead to more questions than answers. The reason we know the arrowhead was created by man is all the other supporting information we posess.
It doesn't matter if you think that it was made by god or a person, because both God and people are "makers" (God's just a little better at it! :D) - the idea is that you, as a person who makes things, recognize characteristics of a "made" thing. And I'm not talking conclusion, either - I'm talking about that the logical inference is that it has been MADE by someone, and is NOT just a product of time and chance.

Why? They would not be very good scientists to make conclusions without corroborating facts. Did they say "conclude?" *note - check back on thread* I wouldn't say "conclude", but I would say that it would be a very logical inference, as described above.

I applaude your attempt to present the creationist side, Rian. I will be patient but I don't want to wait for too many posts to respond, so don't get discouraged if it seems like getting attacked before you've made the case. Thank you very much, Cirdan, that was really kind of you to say that. It was very encouraging to me to read that from you. I certainly DO feel rather outnumbered here, but because I believe there's some good data on the creationist side that generally gets ignored, I'm willing to make the effort. Truth and people are important to me, and I'm willing to make an extra effort to share what I think is true with people that I like :) I don't ask you guys to believe it on my word - I don't think you should - but I do ask you to please impartially and scientifically evaluate what I'll be sharing, as a favor to an Entmoot friend.

RÃan

06-15-2003, 01:28 AM

ps - I checked back in the thread, and it didn't say "conclusions" (your word), it said: "would have recognized them immediately as products of creation".

You're perhaps putting a stronger reading on "recognized" than I am. I think that if scientists discovered a well-shaped arrowhead on Mars, their first thought would immediately be that it was "made", don't you? Now a conclusion at this point would be premature, IMO, but I DO think that in that scenario, a hypothesis of "created" would be the most logical one. Do you? Anyone else?

Gwaimir Windgem

06-15-2003, 02:01 AM

I do. :p ;)

RÃan

06-15-2003, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Cirdan
They are looking for anomalies to what they expect to find. They know the patterns of EMR they expect to find from known astronomical bodies. The observations may be scientific but the inference, without corroboration, is not. They signal could be some undiscovered type of astronomical phenomenon. It isn't assumed that it is intelligent life, only that it might be.

But would you agree that they are looking for anomalies of a certain type? Here's some words used in the book: "pattern", "manufactured", "artificial", "conceived", "specific".

And this indicates that there ARE signatures of intelligence, acc'd to Sagan's narrator: from Contact, by Carl Sagan
Every now and then an electronic intelligence aircraft ... would fly by, and Argus would suddenly detect unmistakable signatures of intelligent life.

Another quote: from Contact, by Carl Sagan
She also hoped to examine a few nearby stars for possible signals of intelligent origin. ...... She was hard pressed to name a more important scientific problem. .... Project Argus was the largest facilitiy in the world dedicated to the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
So would you say that Sagan thinks that it's "scientific" to look for signs of intelligence? (I know it's a work of fiction, tho - but I wonder what his real views on SETI are - does anyone know?)

And I think we're using "inference" in slightly different ways. I think you're thinking of it in a conclusion sense, and I"m thinking of it in a premise sense.

But enough of this - it is, after all, a work of fiction, altho a very good one, IMO! Have you read it? And what do you think of what I said here?

RÃan

06-15-2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I do. :p ;)
Obviously a brillant fellow! :D

Gwaimir Windgem

06-15-2003, 02:16 AM

-takes a bow- :D

RÃan

06-15-2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe the quote is from Evolution and the Modern Christian.
That makes sense, then, that he would mention it for that audience, IMO.

I think it is relevent, because he seems to think, no matter what, that the Bible is right. Scientists, I would hope, are willing to change thier beliefs, given the evidence. Morris seems to have made up him mind; .... But we're not debating scientific evidence for God/Bible in this thread, and Morris is not evaluating scientific evidence for God/Bible in either book (or at least in mine, and I doubt in yours). Just because you believe that God exists (like many scientists do) does not mean that you cannot evaluate scientific evidence for a theory like evolution or creationism with integrity.

.....it also to me implies that he would pick the evidence that suits his theory, and throw away the evidence that contradicts it. Well, that's a pretty strong implication. On what evidence do you base that? I think you read most of What is Creation Science, didn't you? Did Morris or Parker, in your opinion, pick or throw out evidence in a deceitful way?

I agree that he presents the book in a scientific manner, with no mention of the Bible or God. But that doesn't mean he has correctly interpreted the evidence. Of course. And you spot a MAJOR point, that "interpretation" of data can be subject to error (or unfortunately, sometimes to deliberate falsification). That's why YOU need to look at the data for both sides and draw your own conclusions. Also look at past histories of the scientists involved - both personally and as a group, IMO.

I would hope that scientists would carefully consider the evidence, then make up thier minds. Me too.

I don't think it matters if scientists believe in God or not.
They should leave thier beliefs at the door (I think somebody has already said that.) :)
Anyway, I don't think that evolution rules out a God, just that he didn't directly create all the animals in the world.
I can almost see a God who made up all the laws so we could be here.
But those aren't matters of science. [/B]
I agree :)
I agree :)
But I think creationism explains the data better (your interpretation is evolution; mine is creationism).
OK :)
I'm not sure what you're including in "those", so I won't worry about it. Instead, I'll start - in the very next post - to present data! Yay! Go me! :D

cassiopeia

06-15-2003, 02:33 AM

Carl Sagan was a a member of the board of directors of SETI, so I would imagine he felt very strong of the validity of searching for extraterrestrial life. I see 'Contact' as a book that voices his views fairly strongly via Ellie's. (And I managed to buy it last week for only $5, so now I have it handy to reference.) :)

You're perhaps putting a stronger reading on "recognized" than I am. I think that if scientists discovered a well-shaped arrowhead on Mars, their first thought would immediately be that it was "made", don't you? Now a conclusion at this point would be premature, IMO, but I DO think that in that scenario, a hypothesis of "created" would be the most logical one. Do you? Anyone else?

Of course I would agree, if it was studied thoroughly, and it was determined that it was very unlikely to be natural. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's valid in regards to evolution.

RÃan

06-15-2003, 02:38 AM

Oh well, my husband just got home from the movies (a guy movie he saw with my bro-in-law) and he says to tell you guys that it's his turn now :D, so .... later!

(and I was SOOOOOO close to starting! Oh well, it will prob. be Monday now, because tomorrow's Father's day.)

I'll just say I'm starting with fossils, and I like how Parker words this: From What is Creation Science, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
They represent the closest we can come to historical evidence in this matter of origins, so they are of prime importance in discussion creation and evolution.

Have a good rest of the weekend, everyone!

HOBBIT

06-15-2003, 03:18 AM

I just read some samples from that book rian, and well.... it is my opinion that Morris is an idiot, no offense. The first few pages are examples of quote mining at its finest. He also basically says "no one has ever seen evolution happen therfore it does not exist." He also says that rocks are dated by their fossils - not so. He also says some other really stupid things - like evolution is some mystery with absolutely no fossil evidence supporting it. It doesn't seem like this guy has any basic knowledge of evolution - or anything really :D

Here is a link to the sample first 7 or so pages:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890510814/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/104-2262922-0444757?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

maybe ill get the book so i can make fun of this guy some more. :P

Maybe this guy makes some real points as the book goes on?

GrayMouser

06-15-2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You're perhaps putting a stronger reading on "recognized" than I am. I think that if scientists discovered a well-shaped arrowhead on Mars, their first thought would immediately be that it was "made", don't you? Now a conclusion at this point would be premature, IMO, but I DO think that in that scenario, a hypothesis of "created" would be the most logical one. Do you? Anyone else?

Yep, just like if they came across an organism their first thoughts would be "grown, not made"; artifacts and living things being very different.

BTW, Paley's "watch on the beach" depends on the analogy that living things and artifacts share certain characteristics that differentiate them from the surrounding environment which has been shaped by merely physical, purposeless processes.

Therefore, the argument is actually saying that while Life may be the product of a Creator, the Universe at large isn't.

GrayMouser

06-15-2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an

3 - I would guess your major objection is that Morris has his mind already made up about the matter, and is twisting the data to reflect his preconceived notions; is that right? Now wouldn't you say that evolutionists also have their minds made up? They're willling to change the mechanisms, but not the guts of the theory (macroevolution), because they believe it, beforehand, to be true, and they believe it without any direct scientific proof whatsoever! No one has EVER seen macroevolution in the lab, have they? They believe it to be a LOGICAL INFERENCE, just like Morris' beliefs in Christianity. And many evolutionists have also said they don't believe in God, either.

From the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research society to which members must agree.

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths

AnswersinGenesis also has a Statement of Faith, which includes:
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

What would such a Statement by a biologist, or any other scientist for that matter, say?:

I promise to examine the evidence presented, to draw conclusions only from this evidence, and to be prepared to change my conclusions if the evidence warrants.

The last phrase is the kicker, of course- all scientific belief is held conditionally, and subject to revision.

Anyone taking one of the Creationist Pledges would be affirming that there are some facts about the Universe that are not held conditionally- IOW, non-scientific.

GrayMouser

06-15-2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*continuing back*

GrayMouser - well worth replying to, since he is kind, intelligent and thoughtful.

:o :o :o

Not Always!!!

[quote]I think I'm ok with your evolution def; the creationism one I think needs a little work, because I think an important aspect is that the intervention was at the BEGINNING, not "at some point or points". Do you want to suggest something else, or I could try, but it might take longer....

Does anyone else wish to offer an opinion on these defs?

By some point or points I meant to cover the belief in supernatural intervention in the Beginning, of course, but also at later times.

Some OECs believe in many extinctions and new creations of life.
Some "Progressive Creation" believers, including some IDers, believe that God has intervened at various points to cause cchanges in organisms.

But , yes, it would be clearer if it read creationists believe "in the Beginning, and possibly at later points, supernatural intervention was necessary."

Cirdan

06-15-2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It doesn't matter if you think that it was made by god or a person, because both God and people are "makers" (God's just a little better at it! :D) - the idea is that you, as a person who makes things, recognize characteristics of a "made" thing. And I'm not talking conclusion, either - I'm talking about that the logical inference is that it has been MADE by someone, and is NOT just a product of time and chance.

My point of bringing god into this scenario is precisely that creation isn't limited to god so that even showing intelligent design, if possible, doesn't neccessitate god as creator. My specific point regarding the arrowhead on Mars is that without any other supporting evidence (arrowheads lodged in animal bones, hearths, flakes of waste rock from the making of the arrowhead, any sign of life capable of producing the arrowhead, etc) then I would have to leave open the possibility of a natural process. (Have you seen the history channel commercial where the couple are arguing over a rock as to whether it is an artifact? - "yes, it is." : "no, it isn't") All one could say without supporting facts is that it looks like an arrowhead. The "logical inference" is just a subjective guess, in this scenario.

Cirdan

06-15-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But would you agree that they are looking for anomalies of a certain type? Here's some words used in the book: "pattern", "manufactured", "artificial", "conceived", "specific".
So would you say that Sagan thinks that it's "scientific" to look for signs of intelligence?

Like I said, they are looking for unexpected signals, concluding that, these might be artificially created. This implies only things we have not founfd naturally occuring. It also assumes evolution happens anywhere in the universe the conditions are similar to earth's. The search is scientific, and I'm sure the author would have told you, very limited in scope. They would consider 1-0-1-1-1-0-1-0-0 to be an artificial pattern. It's similar to searching for gold. It doesn't imply that gold will always be found in these conditions. One looks for the right conditions so as to narrow the search area.

Their methods are scientific, regardless of the conclusions they draw. Considering the vastness of space, the time and distances involved, i don't think one could be very optimistic, at our current level of technology, to have any success. Sagan's quotes are very prosed, and not applicable to hard science. It rasies the question again. How can one discern "natural" and "artificial" in the larger sense, if they are both design? Then the obverse conclusion becomes apparent that nature is readily "reconizable" and different from designed systems. They may have similarities and human design may imitate some natural process but they are different.

Of course that arguement is as logically weak as "it is easily recognizable as design" because it is based on subjective and non-scientific assumptions. This sort of arguement has popular appeal as "common sense" but is not very useful in any methodical analysis.

afro-elf

06-15-2003, 07:59 PM

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=297

A quick easy read on the Intelliegent Design/ Fine Tuning argument.

cassiopeia

06-15-2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, that's a pretty strong implication. On what evidence do you base that? I think you read most of What is Creation Science, didn't you? Did Morris or Parker, in your opinion, pick or throw out evidence in a deceitful way?

Yes, I read the whole book.

In Texas there is a limestone bed on the Paluxy River which (say creationists) has human footprints with the footprints of dinosaurs. These footprints were misinterpreted, and are not human footprints coexisting with dinosaur footprints. No such track anywhere had withstood serious investigation. I may be wrong, but I think Morris mentions this.
More often it seems Morris twists the facts. But I'll wait till you post some arguments to respond to that. :)

HOBBIT

06-15-2003, 11:59 PM

Cass - thats what it seemed like from the first several pages of the book :P My opinion was that he was an idiot (see post on previous page :D)

cassiopeia

06-16-2003, 12:26 AM

Well, I wouldn't call him an idiot (not outloud anyway :D ), but I cannot see how he wouldn't manipulate the facts, given he thinks the Bible is inerrant. The Bible says the Earth doesn't move, but it does! What would Morris say to that?

RÃan

06-16-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Well, I wouldn't call him an idiot (not outloud anyway :D ), but I cannot see how he wouldn't manipulate the facts, given he thinks the Bible is inerrant.
Then shall we just ignore AE's link, because the author states in the title of the piece that he is an athiest? Same principle, wouldn't you say?

The Bible says the Earth doesn't move, but it does! What would Morris say to that? I don't remember if Morris dealt with it or not, but considering that it is a word used for being steady, stable, etc., and that the same exact word is used in another place where the psalmist says that HE is not moved - would you think that the psalmist stayed rooted to the same spot for his entire life? That's "quote-mining", to say the least (not YOU, cass, but the people that say that that phrase proves the Bible is "scientifically" wrong w/o looking into it some more.)

I'll find out more about that section if you want, but I really think what I explained should clear it up.

See you guys tomorrow!

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Then shall we just ignore AE's link, because the author states in the title of the piece that he is an athiest? Same principle, wouldn't you say?

Why would it? There should be no reference of god in scientific study. God is a belief - so what would it matter if a person doesn't believe I don't even have a problem with people doing research if they do believe in god. As I have said many times before - as long as the person leaves their beliefs at the lab door - and does TRUE scientific research - then it is truly science. Too many theist scientists only want to look at the evidence that supports their established religious beliefs.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 12:13 PM

*working back thru the thread*

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I have said many times before - as long as the person leaves their beliefs at the lab door - and does TRUE scientific research - then it is truly science.
I agree.

.... Too many theist scientists only want to look at the evidence that supports their established religious beliefs.
And I say the same about atheist/agnostic scientists. Better yet, let's just talk about scientists w/o putting tags on them. Let's judge them the same way - by their body of works.

Ararax

06-16-2003, 12:20 PM

i agree atheist scientist can be as blinded by their beliefs as religious ones, it depends on the individual scientist. no one group is free of scientists that are influenced by their beliefs, also their conclusions of data is often based upon their beliefs, if one sees a strange skeleton one will say its evolution, because thats natural to him to think, the other will say thats poor diets and old age, because thats what he sees, is either free from his beliefe no its all about purging your beliefs form each incident. but then again its what you believe in that forms your life beliefs

RÃan

06-16-2003, 12:23 PM

*some quick responses, or I'll never get anywhere!*

Cass - did you see my response to the "earth moving" thing?

Also, re the footprints - the only ref. I found to footprints were ones in Laetoli in east Africa. They are discussed in National Geographic April 1979 and Science News Feb 9, 1980.

Thanks for the info on Carl Sagan - I didn't know that. And I would agree that he is voicing his views via Ellie. 5 bucks, eh? Good deal!

and re "I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's valid in regards to evolution." -- Why not?

Cirdan - I disgree that the assumption of design is "based on subjective and non-scientific assumptions", if you're saying totally based on. In the arrowhead example, scientific knowledge of rock characteristics and the way erosion works enable you to make a more definite judgement of "created".

and "My point of bringing god into this scenario is precisely that creation isn't limited to god so that even showing intelligent design, if possible, doesn't neccessitate god as creator".
I agree; my point is that there is intelligence behind it in the scenario, not necessarily God.

and again, I was NOT saying "conclude" about the arrowhead.

GrayMouser

06-16-2003, 12:26 PM

Let's get down to the red meat of the evidence - the vultures are circling, and getting hungry!!

RÃan

06-16-2003, 12:30 PM

*why do I feel like I'm looking down the barrels of about 20 shotguns?* :D

OK, but first, GrayMouser, since you're online, did you read my post on quote-mining, and would you agree that Morris is NOT quote-mining in this example?

I will await your answer, then start with evidence :)

(believe it or not, I was JUST getting to your posts, and there's something else there I want to cover while you're responding to this)

RÃan

06-16-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by GrayMouser
BTW, Paley's "watch on the beach" depends on the analogy that living things and artifacts share certain characteristics that differentiate them from the surrounding environment which has been shaped by merely physical, purposeless processes.

Therefore, the argument is actually saying that while Life may be the product of a Creator, the Universe at large [B]isn't.
I disagree. The universe CONTAINS physical, "purposeless" processes, but they were intelligently designed. W/in the universe, whatever comes into contact with one of these processes, like erosion, will be impartially and unintelligently treated, though, because erosion is unintelligent.

Sorry I'm taking so long to get to evidence, but really now - why even bother if the consensus will be either
(1) - ANYTHING I present will immediately, w/o any examination, be declared "unscientific" if it's supporting creationism, or
(2) ANYTHING I present will immediately, w/o any examination, be declared false because creationist scientists believe in God.

THOSE are the two things I'm trying to deal with before presenting evidence, so I waste as little of my time as possible.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I just read some samples from that book rian, and well.... it is my opinion that Morris is an idiot, no offense. The first few pages are examples of quote mining at its finest.
Why do you think it's quote-mining? Because you believe in evolution? If that is the ONLY reason, then it's unfair on your part to claim quote-mining. I think you're over-assuming what he is saying, like what happened about the eye quote. In the book, they were ONLY saying that Darwin saw difficulties, and provided the eye as an example. They were NOT saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution, which WOULD be quote-mining, IMO.

He also basically says "no one has ever seen evolution happen therfore it does not exist."
At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

He also says that rocks are dated by their fossils - not so.
I disagree. From what I've read, it seems that they sometimes are.

He also says some other really stupid things - like evolution is some mystery with absolutely no fossil evidence supporting it. It doesn't seem like this guy has any basic knowledge of evolution - or anything really :D
Just got his PhD by sheer luck, huh? :p

Earniel

06-16-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Let's get down to the red meat of the evidence - the vultures are circling, and getting hungry!!

SQUEAK!

*flaps wings slowly*

*eyes thread hungrily with her beady little eyes*

:D

RÃan

06-16-2003, 01:46 PM

Well, no answer from GrayMouser yet, but I'll start.

First, a couple of quick notes on ideas that were around when Darwin was forming his theory. I think it's important to realize these 2 ideas, now scientifically disproven, were around at that time.

Pangenes
When it came to the origin of new traits (on which natural selection would then operate), Darwin wrote that it was "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment" that new traits arose. (I don't have a ref. for this quote, so I assume it's from O. of Sp.) So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees. OK so far, but Darwin thought that the longer neck (from stretching) could be passed on to the next generation. He thought that at reproduction each organ produced "pangenes" that would collect in the blood and flow to the reproductive organs. So a more-stretched-out neck would make more neck "pangenes"

Is this still in school textbooks today? I think it should be. It's very interesting and informative information about WHY Darwin proposed certain parts of this theory.

Now I'm not contrasting creationism to this original Darwinism, but to neo-Darwinism, which is that new traits come about by mutations.

Spontaneous Generation
Also, as far as the famous primordial soup mix from which life supposedly came, back in Darwin's time it was widely thought that life could naturally develop from non-life. The classic example was that people thought that maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. But right around the same time that Darwin published O. of Sp., Francesco Redi showed that maggots would NOT develop from meat that was kept away from flies, and Pasteur showed that air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. So it was very understandable that Darwin thought that life could come from non-life, as it was a common thought in his time.

So let's dive in! (But please keep your manners :) )

(I'll be using mostly the Morris/Parker book, What is Creation Science, for reference, because I think it's well-written for laypeople with scientific backgrounds, like many of us here. I don't know of any Mooters that have PhDs in any of the sciences.)

Fossil Evidence for Creationism
I think there's several areas that can be covered first - according to the creationist model, you should find variation among type, not changes from type to type. Also, extinction is evident, just as it is today. Also, the same types of classification should work for complete-enough fossil remains as well as today's specimens. Also, constructs should be tied to use, not evolutionary development.

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

Another interesting thing is that, as Parker puts it, from What is Creation Science?, Gary Parker
Extinction, not evolution, is the rule when we compare fossil sea life with the sort of marine invertebrates we find living today. In fact, all major groups, except perhaps the groups including clams and snails, are represented by greater variety and more complex forms as fossils than today.I think this is a very important point, and consistent with creationism.

The point is that you can search back for how these sea creatures originated, and you find them originating from .... the same type!

And this is why punctuated equilibrium came about (I guess it would now be called "modified neo-Darwinism) - because the expected transitional forms were NOT found in the fossil record. As Parker notes, ibid.
In fact, few scientists, if any, are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups. The reason is simple. All the groups appear as separate, distinct, diversified lines in the deepest fossil-rich deposits.

And this seems to be an excellent support for creationism.

GrayMouser

06-16-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*why do I feel like I'm looking down the barrels of about 20 shotguns?* :D

OK, but first, GrayMouser, since you're online, did you read my post on quote-mining, and would you agree that Morris is NOT quote-mining in this example?

I will await your answer, then start with evidence :)

(believe it or not, I was JUST getting to your posts, and there's something else there I want to cover while you're responding to this)

Don't worry, with the way you post you've got a Gatling gun waiting in reply:)

OF COURSE I read your post on quote-mining; I read everything you write- I just can't possibly keep up with the pace of reply!

And no, I don't agree- in fact, I've seen this one so many times that it's a red rag to a bull.

What Darwin has done in the first bit you quoted is, with a somewhat dramatical flourish, pose a rhetorical question, which he then proceeds to answer.

Let's say, to quote a hypothetical situation, you were posting on Divine Justice, in response to a savage attack based on Numbers 31:o

You might say, "When we see the terrible events which occur here, we can hardly help but agree that there is no Divine Justice or Good . However, when we look at this in light of what we know about God, we can see how this is justified by etc. etc."

If I quoted only your first sentence "Rian herself says: ..."
you would quite rightly accuse me of distorting your meaning.

Cirdan

06-16-2003, 02:13 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ibid.
In fact, few scientists, if any, are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups. The reason is simple. All the groups appear as separate, distince, diversified lies in the deepest fossil-rich deposits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THis is a BFL if I ever saw one. See my much earlier post regarding hexacorals. Endless examples can be posted regarding the existence of transitional species, especially among invertebrates.

Phylogenic Classification (def)

Classification of organisms based on genetic connections between other species.

This is the system currently in use to describe species. What exactly is this "group" the author refers to?

What Linnaeus also did was systematically categorize all known organisms. Linnaeus came up with a hierachy of ways to classify plants and animals. The different levels are called taxa (plural of taxon). The different taxa are:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

I see no use of the term "group" here.

HOBBIT

06-16-2003, 02:25 PM

Rian, either you don't know what quote mining is or I don't. There were many examples of this in the sample pages that I read.

I'm too lazy to get the quote, but there is one exactly like this:
They have someone labelled as an "evolutionist" saying something like ".....evolution does not work..."

Its not EXACTLY like that, so don't go yelling at me because I did not quote exactly. This is one of the first quotes.

And many others like it. They have evolutions saying things supporting creation - which makes no sense. All these quotes were taken out of context! I wonder what the guy said after and before the quote. Why would an EVOLUTIONIST be saying how evolution does not work?

it uses quotes from evolutionists out of context to say "see - even evolutionists don't beleive in evolution"

Practically all the quotes there are an example of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't quote mining basically taking quotes out of context to look like they mean something other than the original person intended? All the quotes I read in the first 6 or so sample pages were examples of this (maybe 90% is the lowest number).

At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

Yes, I said basically because I did not want to type the whole quote. You have the book, not me. Its the first 7 pages. He says this many times. Basically as in "in not so many words." He does repeat that. No, he was talking about how no one has witnessed evolution - like one thing evolving into another - this isn't pokemon...things don't just evolve in front of your eyes... And I am no expert, but evolution on the small scale in "the lab" has been done. Ask for details from somebody else, but I know this - just no details - not a scientist, others here know more on that than I. Think about viruses and bacteria - thats an example of evolution in the process.

You got all upset when I said offhandly that "rian thinks that evolution should not be taught in school" You went on about that for several days. It was not form any quote, I'm sorry that I assumed that you said this...... It turned out that you want evolution taught in public schools BUT ALSO CREATION TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES, so you might as well have said that first one :D (because it is just as unreasonable - if not more so)

It is just my opinion that that book is NOT A VERY CREDIBLE SOURCE. I am not debating that this guy has a PhD. Does that mean that everyone with a PhD deserves it? I dunno....just this guy seems very biased against evolution and is definitely twisting things in his favor.........im no expert on biology (yet :D) and i have only read the first 6 or 7pages of this book.

I am not alone in my opinion on that on this board btw.

Earniel

06-16-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees. OK so far, but Darwin thought that the longer neck (from stretching) could be passed on to the next generation. He thought that at reproduction each organ produced "pangenes" that would collect in the blood and flow to the reproductive organs. So a more-stretched-out neck would make more neck "pangenes"

He did? very ->:confused: I was so sure that the neck stretching was Lamarck and not Darwin. Darwin was the one that said that the animals with longer necks and legs were more succesful and got selected...

Now I'm beginning to doubt myself. I have to get my old biology book on this again..... It was in there.

*runs to attic*

RÃ*an, my old biology book says the stretching-induced long necks was definately LAMARCK and not Darwin. And yes, it's still taught in biology. :) At least it was in my class.

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Why do you think it's quote-mining? Because you believe in evolution? If that is the ONLY reason, then it's unfair on your part to claim quote-mining. I think you're over-assuming what he is saying, like what happened about the eye quote. In the book, they were ONLY saying that Darwin saw difficulties, and provided the eye as an example. They were NOT saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution, which WOULD be quote-mining, IMO.
I read that part and that was NOT what they were trying to show by only using a snippet of the quote. They were trying to show that Darwin felt that the complexity of the eye could NOT be explained through evolution. That was not the case at all. He was saying - based on the WHOLE quote - that at first glance it would seem that the eye was to complex to evolve - but if you lay out the different stages of the eye, the different animals that go from simplistic eyes to complex - they all build up on each other.

I read the pages off of Amazon and that book is laughable. Obviously it is geared to people who already believe in it and don't want to look any further. He repeatedly says that so and so is an evolutionist and then provides a quote from the person where they say evolution is impossible. How is the person an evolutionist if they don't think it's possible? :rolleyes:

As for intelligent design - you can NOT prove it. You can NOT show evidence of intelligent design. Evolution shows how something might have occurred. Intelligent design tries to show that something was behind it - guiding it. How can you prove that - what evidence is there to support that?

As for atheist scientists versus religious ones - ahteist scientists don't get blinded by their religion (since they don't have one) like many deeply religious scientists. The most that an atheist scientist (as well as any scientist) runs into is being hooked on a theory (and I don't mean evolution).

There was an article in Discover magazine about a scientist wonders if Einstein was completely right about the speed of light being constant. In the beginning of the big bang there was so much heat that protons and hence light - moved much faster. As things cooled - the protons and light slowed to what today is the current speed of light. He was ridiculed for this theory - but it seems to solve a lot of problems that scientists couldn''t explain and his theory is getting more credence.

Lizra

06-16-2003, 03:20 PM

I just read that article. I found it intertesting, and certainly plausible. Einstein's theories are nice because they provide "the constant"...but seeing as the universe is so diverse, "a constant" might be asking for too much! It just underlines (IMO) the necessity to keep and open mind! Did anyone enjoy the show on Discover channel last night, "Walking with Cavemen"? It started with Lucy, and hit on quite a few different hominid species, telling their story, how long they survived and if they had any relation to homo Sapiens. We enjoyed it!

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 03:39 PM

I missed it - I wanted to see it too. It'll be on again this week probably. I'll have to look at the times. I have Walking with Dinosaurs on DVD. That has like 4 DVDs to it - so it's pretty long.

Did you see the show where they showed what types of animals things could evolve in in the future? It was very cool - although it was of course just simple speculation.

Cirdan

06-16-2003, 04:18 PM

I read the first seven pages of What is Creation Science? and it even contains some of the examples of quote-mining dicredited in the links GM provided. Are we to believe that Stephen Gould and Mark Ridley devoted their lives to researching and publishing something they thought was wrong? And one of the "evolutionists" quoted is a history professor heavily into the theological speaking circuit.

HOBBIT

06-16-2003, 04:23 PM

exactly cirdan... thats JD and Cirdan backing up that there was quote mining there.... :) carry on.

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
I just read that article. I found it intertesting, and certainly plausible. Einstein's theories are nice because they provide "the constant"...but seeing as the universe is so diverse, "a constant" might be asking for too much!
It is like evolution - you take snapshot in time - a particular span of time -and it appears to be constant. But then as you increase the frame of time - you see that it isn't constant (I would bet that if light moved much faster at one point - that the speed is still changing). You can't see the speed of light changing becuase it happens so gradually - just like animals evolving and breaking off into completely new species.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 04:41 PM

by GrayMouser
What Darwin has done in the first bit you quoted is, with a somewhat dramatical flourish, pose a rhetorical question, which he then proceeds to answer.
But GrayM, he "answers" it with some huge - and I mean HUGE! - ifs! That's not an answer, it's a hypothesis! And unproven, at that!

Here's the quote again for reference:
from Origin of Species, by Darwin
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Now I'll "bold" the areas that contain huge "if's":
from Origin of Species, by Darwin - bolding and numbers added by RÃ*an
"Reason tells me, that (1) if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, (2)each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; (3) if further, the eye ever varies (4) and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and (5) if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

And my point still remains that the only point that Morris/Parker were showing by the quote was - that Darwin himself saw difficulties with things such as the eye!. THAT is the context in which they used the quote, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and I would not call it quote-mining.

Can you agree with this now? For me, quote-mining is a serious charge, because it's a charge against someone's integrity (or a charge of sloppiness, as you pointed out, but I don't see sloppiness charges being made here).

As far as your Numbers 31 example, I'm using logical reasoning, not scientific evidence. I would call it quote-mining if you distorted things by saying I CONCLUDED etc., but not if you say that I saw difficulties. But you wouldn't do that, would you? :)

RÃan

06-16-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
He did? very ->:confused: I was so sure that the neck stretching was Lamarck and not Darwin. Darwin was the one that said that the animals with longer necks and legs were more succesful and got selected...

Now I'm beginning to doubt myself. I have to get my old biology book on this again..... It was in there.

*runs to attic*

RÃ*an, my old biology book says the stretching-induced long necks was definately LAMARCK and not Darwin. And yes, it's still taught in biology. :) At least it was in my class.

Yes, Darwin said that they were more successful and got selected, but he also was quoted as saying that new traits came about "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment." IOW, he believed Lamarck's idea.

Now the Morris/Parker book says: from What is Creation Science?, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
"About 40 years before Darwin, a famous French evolutionist, Jean Lamarck, argued for this kind of evolution based on the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse.
But it goes on to say that Darwin believed this, too, and then gives the quote.

Let's try to look into this some more, because I think that your biology book is RIGHT saying that the idea was Lamarck's, but I think they are omitting ON PURPOSE that Darwin thought the idea was correct. And that is a serious omission, IMO.

Sheeana

06-16-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Why do you think it's quote-mining?

Quote mining is when only part of a quote is put in, and the context of the quote is left out. Thus, the person using the quote can then put his own slant on it. Darwin's so-called eye problem is a common form of quote-mining. That he put forward a hypothesis (which is basically what the point of Origins is (a very good read, btw - I recommend it for those who haven't read it yet)) does not automatically discount evolution out of hand.

Rian:
At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

Not so. They have seen microevolution in the lab. And they can see evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. They have just found a new species of Homo sapiens which shows an earlier transition in the Homo branch. He's called Homo sapiens idaltu. Have you ever sat down and closely examined some of these early hominid skulls? I have - both real, and endocasts - and I can tell you that there is very definately variation within the species. (I studied Neanderthalensis - the australopithecines were far too fragmented for a generalised study.)

HOBBIT

06-16-2003, 05:01 PM

waiting for bop to say all that.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:07 PM

*sigh*

Did I say that the eye quote was NEVER used in illegitimate quote-mining?

No, I'm saying that in the specific example that I posted from the Morris/Parker book, the quote was NOT used in an illegitimate quote-mining way. Could you guys please get off quote-mining in general and look at the specific case I'm talking about?

The CONTEXT - I'll say it again - the CONTEXT of the section was PROBLEMS that Darwin saw. The title of the chapter in O. of Sp. was even called "Difficulties with the Theory"!!! Now Darwin posed a hypothetical solution to the PROBLEM that he saw, but until the hypothetical solution is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, which it is NOT, the PROBLEM still remains. Morris/Parker agree with Darwin that systems like the eye are a PROBLEM that needs a solution, but they differ on the solutions proposed.

People, you don't need to worry about admitting I'm right every once in awhile (of course, only if you think I am). That will NOT turn you into a creationist! Don't worry! I've consistently said that I think evolutionism is a scientific theory formed by intelligent scientists. Does that make me an evolutionist? Why has no one but Cirdan even commented on the first bit of evidence that I presented?

Sheeana

06-16-2003, 05:08 PM

Cirdan

06-16-2003, 05:09 PM

From:GM's Link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s1-6)

The failure to indicate any textual omission within the quote is always a misquotation and often makes a large effect on the meaning of the words.
The Black Hills Creation Science Association: Newsletter tells us7:
FAMOUS EVOLUTIONIST OF THE MONTH QUOTE:
"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary time in the fossil record?" -Niles Eldredge in "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", pp. 51, 52, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985)
When one looks at what Eldredge8 wrote, there is a huge omission that is not marked by ellipses. The first two quoted sentences start one paragraph in the original, while "And this poses something of a problem..." is in the middle of the next paragraph. Here is the first paragraph with what the creationist newsletter quoted in green:
Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. Sometimes igneous rocks, rocks we can date chemically, intrude into sedimentary rocks, and in such a fashion some hard-core "absolute" dates--expressed in terms of millions of years--are available for all subdivisions of geologic time....
Radiometric dating usually cannot be used on the layers of sedimentary rocks with fossils, but rather is employed on volcanic layers above and/or below the fossiliferous rocks. If the fossil is in between two datable volcanic tuffs, its date will be dated to being in between the dates of the tuffs. In the work that Eldredge was doing there was often no volcanic layer since he was doing work on isolated outcrops, roadcuts, etc. So how could he tell time? Skipping to the next paragraph Eldredge continues:
But none of that helps in a cow pasture in upstate New York. Long before radioactivity was known to physicists, paleontologists had another way to tell time. Fossils occur in the same vertical sequence thoughout the geologic column. The same, or closely similar fossils frequently occur in many far-flung localities; some are even found worldwide. This repetitive pattern of occurrence allows geological minded paleontologists to correlate: rocks are mapped, and frequently certain distinctive horizons, such as volcanic ashfalls, can be traced over great distances. But rocks in isolated quarries can be matched up according to the nature of the fossils they contain. And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the patterns of evolutionary time in the fossil record? ...
Kent Hovind has used the same quote without ellipses in the transcript for his creation seminar. It was no longer online at the time this paragraph was written. In a video file he used the above quote and claimed that it was Eldredge admitting the geologic column was circular reasoning when Eldredge stated a few paragraphs latter that there is "no problem of circularity." More information on this quote can be found here. The charge of circular reasoning is addressed by the Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? FAQ.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
I read the first seven pages of What is Creation Science? and it even contains some of the examples of quote-mining dicredited in the links GM provided. Are we to believe that Stephen Gould and Mark Ridley devoted their lives to researching and publishing something they thought was wrong? And one of the "evolutionists" quoted is a history professor heavily into the theological speaking circuit.

Same thing here, Cirdan - what is so implausible about scientists identifying problem areas? I would REALLY worry if the scientists thought everything was peachy-keen, wouldn't you?

Cirdan

06-16-2003, 05:12 PM

FromWhat is Creation Science?

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has be imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by the fossils.

"And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rock by their fossils, then how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldridge; 1985b)

"A circular arguement arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" (Tom Kemp; 1985b)

So, not only is he quote mining, it's from another creationist author. The previous post clearly shows that the original author's intent and point of discussion was completely distorted by the editing of the quote. He clearly seeks to impune the "dating" techniques geology. The quotes are edited to support his claim, which the source material clearly does not.

How do you not see this as an obvious attempt at deception?

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But GrayM, he "answers" it with some huge - and I mean HUGE! - ifs! That's not an answer, it's a hypothesis! And unproven, at that!

Here's the quote again for reference:

Now I'll "bold" the areas that contain huge "if's":

There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

Darwin did pose a hypothetical - that's the way all theories get their start - as observation, questioning and hypotheticals. All those things there - we KNOW happen. We know that based on conditions - over time - an organism will develop defenses or attributes. Look at the different facial bone structures and pigments in skin around the world. That is evidence of evolution based on changing conditions and useful changes - which ARE passed on. Or are you going to tell me that if black people didn't go outside - they'd turn white? The darker pigments protect the people of Africa against the sun. As man moved away fgrom Africa - we didn't need the dark pigment anymore. The eye is no different - it's just more complex. I'm not saying that white EVOLVED from blacks or that blacks are "less human" - just that our characteristics changed based on changing conditions of where we lived.

Also - saying "if god made the eye change" is not the same - there is absolutely no way of proving that or studying that. Science is always posing questions - that is the nature of science - throwing in a supernatural being into the equation - is not science.

And my point still remains that the only point that Morris/Parker were showing by the quote was - that Darwin himself saw difficulties with things such as the eye!. THAT is the context in which they used the quote, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and I would not call it quote-mining.

Can you agree with this now?

No - I would still call it quote mining. Darwin proposed the theory of evolution - but science has gone on since then to study it. It is the book's contention by using out of context quotes to discredit evolution. You read it one way - I read it another.

Darwin was merely stating that ON THE SURFACE it would seem to be impossible - but if someone looked at the gradation through the species - you would see how they built up on each other.

This is the key part the book leaves out in order to make it's point...

... if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor,as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Remember that Darwin was at the very beginning of the evolutionary theory. This was over ONE HUNDRED years ago. Science has continued to study this and we have a much better understanding of things.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
How does this suppose that he is following larmarck's hypothesis here? Granted, it is perhaps true that quite a few people believed Larmarck initially, but I sincerely doubt that Darwin thought that changes came about in a lifetime of an organism after his voyage of the Beagle.

The basic premise of evolution is to have the best possible fitness. Evolution IS environment. Phenotype = Genotype + Environment. I don't really see how this quote is following Larmarck. That quote is not stating that organisms evolved in their lifetimes.
Again, the CONTEXT is that Darwin initially believed (he LATER changed his mind) that NEW TRAITS arose thru use/disuse. And that's ALL it was talking about - how new traits get here. And so it's VERY understandable that Darwin thought the new traits problem was less difficult than it is.

EÃ¤rniel - I did a search on Google and every one I came up with (I searched Darwin and pangenes) said Darwin believed in pangenes. Most say he later changed his mind, too. But when he was developing O. of Sp., it seems pretty clear that he thought new traits came from use/disuse. Let me know if you find more on this (or anyone else, too). Frankly, I think that if your biology book doesn't mention this, it's being "dishonest through omission".

HOBBIT

06-16-2003, 05:27 PM

you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind about anything in his theory and that because he did several times this makes the whole thoery invalid - just the impression i got form some of your posts...... that is what science is all about.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Darwin did pose a hypothetical - that's the way all theories get their start - as observation, questioning and hypotheticals. All those things there - we KNOW happen. We know that based on conditions - over time - an organism will develop defenses or attributes.
This is NOT macro-evolution, just variation w/in a kind and natural selection.

Look at the different facial bone structures and pigments in skin around the world. That is evidence of evolution based on changing conditions and useful changes - which ARE passed on. Or are you going to tell me that if black people didn't go outside - they'd turn white? The darker pigments protect the people of Africa against the sun. As man moved away fgrom Africa - we didn't need the dark pigment anymore.
This is all based on genes that were ALREADY PRESENT. And if we lose the dark pigment, that is LOSS of information, not GAIN, which evolutionism requires. Would you agree, Sheeana and Cirdan? I think the 2 of you have the most credentials here, IIRC.

The eye is no different - it's just more complex. I'm not saying that white EVOLVED from blacks or that blacks are "less human" - just that our characteristics changed based on changing conditions of where we lived. Based on EXISTING genetic possibilities, NOT beneficial mutations.

This is the key part the book leaves out in order to make it's point... [quote which RÃ*an also quoted]
You're saying just because Darwin said "as is certain the case" that it makes it true, w/o ANY scientific experimentation? Why JD, you've changed! :D Remember, JD, at this point he's just posing a hypothesis.

Remember that Darwin was at the very beginning of the evolutionary theory. This was over ONE HUNDRED years ago. Science has continued to study this and we have a much better understanding of things. But still no proof of macro evolution. It remains, as Sheeana said (IIRC - PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, Sheeana! I have no idea what page it's on!) - it remains a LOGICAL INFERENCE.

Sheeana

06-16-2003, 05:31 PM

I see. So what exactly is your point in stating this when he later recanted? He was also influenced by a great variety of other academics, not least including his grandfather (Erasmus). Here's a good link on his influences, which includes his mistaken idea on pangenesis:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursmainconc.html

And here are the proponents of what is now known as Darwinism:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursintro.html

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind..... that is what science is all about.

(My goodness - how many am I answering at once? :eek: Well, this is the last one because my daughter wants the computer! )

MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits!

Good for him for learning more and changing his mind! :) He really seems quite a careful scientist, from what I can tell. (this is said sincerely, btw!)

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
I see. So what exactly is your point in stating this when he later recanted?

MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits.

RÃan

06-16-2003, 05:38 PM

Oh, here it is : macroevolution a logical inference (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=253270#post253270)

Cirdan

06-16-2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Same thing here, Cirdan - what is so implausible about scientists identifying problem areas? I would REALLY worry if the scientists thought everything was peachy-keen, wouldn't you?

Yes, if that was the original point. It is dishonest to quote someone's posit of doubt without quoting his response to it. It distorts the original intent. The big, big lies about the dating of the fossil record, the transitional species, etc are not supported anywhere by any of the authors misquoted in support of them.

Sheeana

06-16-2003, 05:45 PM

Before I answer some of your queries, Rian, I just want to further mention some aspects of the eye, which I think are important. Firstly, Darwin himself said that familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor.

Secondly, as Frank Zindel (biologist) mentions, "...unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors." My point in quoting him is that I want to make it clear that the human eye is not the perfect pinnacle of random chance - it is imperfect. Therefore, it would seem more likely that the eye was subject to a series of not necessarily progressive developments.

Finally, we must remember that attributes such as eyes don't survive the fossil record. Therefore, it is very difficult to follow the development of the eye. For this, we have to turn to comparative means, such as examining other species in the fossil record. That the eye problem has not been solved, at least to some extent, is simply not true.

jerseydevil

06-16-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You're saying just ecause Darwin said "as is certain the case" that it makes it true, w/o ANY scientific experimentation? Why JD, you've changed! :D Remember, JD, at this point he's just posing a hypothesis.
No I haven't changed - and here you go misquoting. Where did I say because he said it - it made it true? I said that all theories START out with asking questions and developing a hypothesis. The book you used though gives the impression that Darwin didn't believe the eye could have evolved - or that it would be very difficult. Whereas in the part that was left out - Darwin gives several reasons for why it IS POSSIBLE and that it would take further study.

I also said that Darwin was over 100 years ago and A LOT of study has been done since then. Of crouse he didn't know everything - anymore than Ben Franklin knew that we'd have the internet when he flew his kite with the key and "discovered" electricity or that you could use electricity to provide light.

RÃan

06-17-2003, 02:19 AM

So what are the opinions of the evolutionists on my first post, as far as evidence FOR the creationist theory? (I'll drop the punctuated equilibrium for now)

RÃan

06-17-2003, 02:22 AM

ps -

Cirdan, I did a search of your posts with "hexacorals" and "hexacoral", and only found the one you posted today, where you referred to posts about hexacorals :confused: Can you direct me to your post(s)?

EÃ¤rniel - please be sure you read the posts on pangenes, since what you read in your biology book seemed to imply an integrity problem with what Morris/Parker were saying, and now it seems clear that they were correct.

Earniel

06-17-2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There's 5 HUGE if's there -
(1) IF gradations would even happen;
(2) IF they happen that they would be USEFUL;
(3) IF the eye ever varies at all;
(4) IF the variations are inherited;
(5) IF the variations are useful under changing conditions of life.
Now I do NOT mean to be disrespectful here, but one could also say "if by magic the eye changed" - that's an 'if', too. Also one could say "if God made the eye change" - same idea. My point is that he DID NOT SOLVE the problem, he merely posed a hypothetical solution for it.

Let me put it this way: Suppose I say "If I was born in Belgium, as is the case and if I have lived in Belgium all my life, as is the case also I would most likely have Belgian nationality."

I state the [EDIT:conditions] for me having to have Belgian nationality. I also point out that they are met. Do I use 'if'? Yes. Do I doubt that I was born and live in Belgium? No. Do I have any difficulties with the fact whether or not I live in Belgium? No. Because I said: 'as is the case'. Do I have Belgian nationality? I do. I don't see why Darwin's quote doesn't work the same way.

More's to follow, but it's feeding time. :)

[EDIT]: used the wrong word

Earniel

06-17-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, Darwin said that they were more successful and got selected, but he also was quoted as saying that new traits came about "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment." IOW, he believed Lamarck's idea.

But that's not the point. Darwin may have based his theory on Lamarck's and may have kept some elements of it. But to attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin is definately mixing up facts. Especially since it opens up the road to false conclusions that since Lamarck's theory had errors, Darwin's naturally has to have them too. You can't discredit Darwin just because at some point in his life he believed in another theory. In the end he had his own theory and THAT's on which we should judge Darwin.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Let's try to look into this some more, because I think that your biology book is RIGHT saying that the idea was Lamarck's, but I think they are omitting ON PURPOSE that Darwin thought the idea was correct. And that is a serious omission, IMO.

Wow, wow, wow, not so fast on dissing my biologybook! It may have been 5 years since I had to learn from it but it deserves some respect. ;) Since I can't be bothered to type the entire book out and translate it, you can't see for yourself wether it wrongfully omitted things or purposefully misinterpreted them.

Also I don't see- I really don't- why that is a serious omission. The things that have to be put in the book are the different theories, NOT what their writers may have believed at times. I sincerely doubt that at the time that Darwin had worked out his own theory, he still believed 100% in Lamarck. In any case it's not ON PURPOSE omitted (thinking about some evolutionist conspiracy, RÃ*an? ;)) it's just not deemed important.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
People, you don't need to worry about admitting I'm right every once in awhile (of course, only if you think I am). That will NOT turn you into a creationist! Don't worry!
I'm not afraid of admitting my wrong, RÃ*an. And let me assure you that I don't immediatly regard your posts as unscientific and therefore wrong (as you posted earlier). It's just that I sometimes tend to disagree with what you write, that's all. :)

Originally posted by RÃ*an
EÃ¤rniel - I did a search on Google and every one I came up with (I searched Darwin and pangenes) said Darwin believed in pangenes. Most say he later changed his mind, too. But when he was developing O. of Sp., it seems pretty clear that he thought new traits came from use/disuse. Let me know if you find more on this (or anyone else, too). Frankly, I think that if your biology book doesn't mention this, it's being "dishonest through omission".

And again we're being hard on my poor biology book. :rolleyes: Pangenes are not mentioned by name in my old book though it mentions shortly how Darwin thought the specific traits were passed on even without possessing much knowlegde of genectics. But if pangenes are NOT part the final version of Darwin's theory but only a 'between-theory', it indeed has no use dragging them into the book. In my eyes it's rightly omitted then. Don't forget it was a biology book for highschool students. It is meant to give a detailed introduction, not a extensive study for biology students.

I really don't see the problem with somebody's credibility if he changes his mind once or twice..... It's the final theory that matters, not the entire lists of work-ideas.

Sheeana

06-17-2003, 04:44 PM

One thing I'd like to further discuss: high school biology and university level biology are on two different levels. My high school teachers were never shy about admitting that they weren't experts in the field, and that what they were teaching was grossly simplified. In fact, on my first day of class at uni, my biological anthropology lecturer said, "Now, let's unlearn all that stuff that you picked up in high school..." There's also the time-frame - 2-3 weeks in high school, and 12 weeks at uni. Let's be a realistic about the so-called omissions from Earniel's biology book.

HOBBIT

06-17-2003, 05:16 PM

what do you mean by 2-3 weeks at high school... next year i'm going into honors biology and it is a full year course... 180 days of school, much more than 3 school weeks. Maybe I'm missing what you mean by that...

Cirdan

06-17-2003, 05:22 PM

...prolly the amount of time covering evolution specifically as opposed to biology generally.

HOBBIT

06-17-2003, 05:27 PM

thats what i thought. I wonder how much they will cover it next school year. 2-3 weeks seems like a lot. I figured maybe a few days on evolution. I'll let you all know in september! (or whenver we get to evolution, how long we spend on it).

Sheeana

06-17-2003, 05:30 PM

Yep, I should have probably made that more clear. I meant the amount of time we spent in biology class covering the Human Evolution segment, versus the amount of time we spent covering it as a stage one (entry level) paper at uni.

Edit: I hope you enjoy the class, Tristan. I had a huge amount of fun in biology. :)

RÃan

06-17-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
you talk as if darwin was not allowed to change his mind about anything in his theory and that because he did several times this makes the whole thoery invalid - just the impression i got form some of your posts...... that is what science is all about.
No, that's certainly not what I mean! :) Did you see my answer to you on this?

ps - good luck on your last few days of school, IIRC today and tomorrow!

and a "good luck" to cass, too - IIRC she has major tests today and tomorrow, too, including 2 in maths.

Which brings up a question for you Brit-speak people - we Yanks say "math", you guys say "maths" (I suppose we take the first 4 letters, and you take the first 4 plus the final "s"). I would say "Math is one of my favorite subjects" (it was!). Would you guys say "Maths IS one of my favorite subjects", or "Maths ARE one of ..."? Just wondering if it's considered singular or plural (pardon my Yankee ignorance :) )

RÃan

06-17-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Edit: I hope you enjoy the class, Tristan. I had a huge amount of fun in biology. :)
Me too! I had great teachers in the math/science courses in high school. My older sister is a science teacher in middle school, and she's a good one, if I do say so myself :)

RÃan

06-17-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Don't worry, with the way you post you've got a Gatling gun waiting in reply:) :)

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
Let me put it this way: Suppose I say "If I was born in Belgium, as is the case and if I have lived in Belgium all my life, as is the case also I would most likely have Belgian nationality."

I state the [EDIT:conditions] for me having to have Belgian nationality. I also point out that they are met. Do I use 'if'? Yes. Do I doubt that I was born and live in Belgium? No. Do I have any difficulties with the fact whether or not I live in Belgium? No. Because I said: 'as is the case'. Do I have Belgian nationality? I do. I don't see why Darwin's quote doesn't work the same way.

More's to follow, but it's feeding time. :)

[EDIT]: used the wrong word

But EÃ¤rniel, your Belgium info are FACTS (unless you're pulling the wool over our eyes :) ). Or at least, they're easy to check out. But at the point Darwin was at when he wrote that, it was NOT proven that, for instance, the traits were inheritable.

Isn't that a big difference? It was a THEORY, altho it was his opinion it would be proven to be true.

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
But that's not the point. Darwin may have based his theory on Lamarck's and may have kept some elements of it. But to attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin is definately mixing up facts. Especially since it opens up the road to false conclusions that since Lamarck's theory had errors, Darwin's naturally has to have them too. You can't discredit Darwin just because at some point in his life he believed in another theory. In the end he had his own theory and THAT's on which we should judge Darwin.
Morris/Parker DIDN'T attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin, they just said he believed it at one point in his life. So it is NOT mixing up facts. :)

And I'm NOT concluding that since Lamarck's theory had errors, therefore Darwin's had to have errors. I'm NOT discrediting Darwin for this.

I'll repeat it again - "MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits."

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
Wow, wow, wow, not so fast on dissing my biologybook! It may have been 5 years since I had to learn from it but it deserves some respect. ;) Since I can't be bothered to type the entire book out and translate it, you can't see for yourself wether it wrongfully omitted things or purposefully misinterpreted them. I'm sorry, I overreacted because of feeling really attacked, esp. in the area of integrity. And THAT'S a very serious and terrible charge, IMO.

I don't think any of you guys were saying that I, personally, was deceptive, but many of you are accusing creationists, wholesale, of quote-mining. And I believe creationism to be the best model. And I would NOT believe this if I saw continued evidence of dishonesty in the field. So I was feeling pretty attacked :( and just overreacted. Sorry, EÃ¤rniel, and sorry, EÃ¤rniel's biology book :).

BTW, I think many of you guys are over-reacting with the quote-mining charge. I think any evolutionist who is honest will admit that there are some problem areas with the theory, just like Darwin did. And they will try to come up with answers for those problem areas, just like Darwin tried. And some might work, and some might not. But it is NOT quote-mining for creationists to quote an evolutionist talking about a problem area, IMO. Nor is it quote-mining for an evolutionist to quote a creationist talking about a problem area, IMO. But it IS dishonest to take a quote out of context, to take out bits w/o putting in ellipses or some other indicator (and Morris/Parker DID use ellipses and brackets, BTW - I hope you noticed that), or to try to use the quote to deceive.

Also I don't see- I really don't- why that is a serious omission. The things that have to be put in the book are the different theories, NOT what their writers may have believed at times. I sincerely doubt that at the time that Darwin had worked out his own theory, he still believed 100% in Lamarck. In any case it's not ON PURPOSE omitted (thinking about some evolutionist conspiracy, RÃ*an? ;)) it's just not deemed important.
I think it is an important thing to put in, because it definitely shows Darwin's thoughts on how new traits came about when he first posed the theory. And thinking they came by use/disuse VASTLY underestimates the problem, IMO. And if he knew that new traits DIDN'T come about by use/disuse, I think his O. of Sp. would probably have been very different.

I'm not afraid of admitting my wrong, RÃ*an. And let me assure you that I don't immediatly regard your posts as unscientific and therefore wrong (as you posted earlier). It's just that I sometimes tend to disagree with what you write, that's all. :) Sorry again, EÃ¤rniel :( I know you're not afraid of admitting you're wrong - from everything I've seen of you, I think you have a lot of integrity, scientific and otherwise.

I really don't see the problem with somebody's credibility if he changes his mind once or twice..... It's the final theory that matters, not the entire lists of work-ideas. Again, it's not a credibility issue, but I think I've already explained enough on this subject (let me know if I need to more, tho :) )

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Before I answer some of your queries, Rian, I just want to further mention some aspects of the eye, which I think are important. Firstly, Darwin himself said that familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor. And I would not see those eyes as "plausible sequences", but as a variety of wonderfully designed eyes suited to differing environments and needs. :) I would agree that every TYPE (not stage) is "clearly useful to its posessor". I just disagree that they are steps in a sequence of increasing complexity. IOW, I can see how they are ordered in terms of increasing complexity, but I see NO compelling reason to say that the order IMPLIES that one level will evolve (in the sense of natural selection operating on random mutations) into another level. In fact, I would say that a conceptual eye-thing that is neither one nor another type of eye would NOT be selected for, since I don't think it would work.

Do you see what I mean? A list of increasing complexity does NOT in itself imply macro evolution (which is what it would involve, IMO). Would you agree?

Secondly, as Frank Zindel (biologist) mentions, "...unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors." My point in quoting him is that I want to make it clear that the human eye is not the perfect pinnacle of random chance - it is imperfect. Therefore, it would seem more likely that the eye was subject to a series of not necessarily progressive developments. I saw this idea a little while ago, I'll have to look into it some more. To me, tho, the eye sure seems to work in an amazing fashion, and it makes sense to think that areas that we don't understand are just because of lack of knowledge (which many evolutionists say about things that THEY don't yet understand, either). But the main points are that (1) the human eye is very intricate and complex, with interrelated parts, as Darwin observed, and (2) the human eye .... WORKS GREAT! :)

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Finally, we must remember that attributes such as eyes don't survive the fossil record. Therefore, it is very difficult to follow the development of the eye. For this, we have to turn to comparative means, such as examining other species in the fossil record. That the eye problem has not been solved, at least to some extent, is simply not true. I'm sure you know more about this than I do, so could you fill me in, if you know off the top of your head (or can quickly find it) - you say we have to examine "other species in the fossil record" - now this implies to me that we have at least SOME fossil info on eyes. How much is there, if you have that figure? I'm curious.

And the whole eye issue raises the interesting topic of homology and convergence/divergence, which to me raises some real problems for evolutionists, IMO.

RÃan

06-17-2003, 06:47 PM

Still no comments on my initial "evidence for creationism" post about the fossil record .... :( :(

jerseydevil

06-17-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I think it is an important thing to put in, because it definitely shows Darwin's thoughts on how new traits came about when he first posed the theory. And thinking they came by use/disuse VASTLY underestimates the problem, IMO. And if he knew that new traits DIDN'T come about by use/disuse, I think his O. of Sp. would probably have been very different.
It's not a high school biology class's requirement to teach the history of the theory. They may touch on it - but the purpose of the class is to learn the LATEST theory and facts. If Darwin said something that was found to be in correct 100 year ago - it has little bearing on what we know today. If they purely taught Darwin and didn't extend into the latest theories and didn't mention how he was wrong - that would give students a misunderstanding of what we know today.

Again - a lot of what I have a problem with that quote is the fact that it is used to show that Darwin didn't know everything and was questioning evolution. First oif all he was not questioning evolution - he was using that as an introduction to his hypothesis and as an example to demonstrate how it is conceivable for the complex eye to have evolved from a simpler eye. Second - of course he had questions and didn't understand everything - it was ONE HUNDRED years ago. The very beginning of the theory. Genetics weren't understood. So much of what we know today wasn't understood. The PCs we take for granted today are ONLY 20 years old. A lot has changed in the last 20 years let alone since the late 1800's (flight was believed to be an impossibility then).

RÃan

06-17-2003, 07:01 PM

I guess we just have different opinions on whether or not it should be included, JD :)

And here's your laugh for the day - I remember when .... *drum roll* .... the FIRST HARD DRIVES FOR PC's CAME OUT!! They were .... *drum roll* .... 10 MEG!

We thought we'd NEVER fill up 10 meg! :D

Cirdan

06-17-2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Still no comments on my initial "evidence for creationism" post about the fossil record .... :( :(

look again... And where is the evidence that there is a problem resolving evolution to the fossil record? Those quotes were not informational.

Here's a quote:

from Invertebrate Fossils (Moore, Lalicker, Fischer)

The fossil record shows indisputable proof of change and gradual development of life through time.

and

In summation, nearly a dozen lines of evidence, each measurably independent of all others, convergently support the theory of evolution. None conflicts.

GrayMouser

06-18-2003, 01:56 AM

GrayMouser

06-18-2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, no answer from GrayMouser yet, but I'll start.

(I'll be using mostly the Morris/Parker book, What is Creation Science, for reference, because I think it's well-written for laypeople with scientific backgrounds, like many of us here. I don't know of any Mooters that have PhDs in any of the sciences.)

Fossil Evidence for Creationism
I think there's several areas that can be covered first - according to the creationist model, you should find variation among type, not changes from type to type. Also, extinction is evident, just as it is today. Also, the same types of classification should work for complete-enough fossil remains as well as today's specimens. Also, constructs should be tied to use, not evolutionary development.

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

.

That is because that was the first period when hard body parts developed.

Since soft body tissues fossilize only in very special conditions, there's not going to be a lot of fossils from before that.

(I don't know about you, but the leftover Christmas cranberry sauce in my fridge is pretty-well decomposed by March at the latest.)

However many more fossils from the preCambrian have been discovered in the last few years, and show that the development from simple one-celled organisms to larger and more complex types was well on the way before the Cambrian Explosion.

[quote]Oh, right. The PRE-Ediacaran record consists basically of single celled organisms or aggregates thereof, i.e. algae-like and bacteria-like. We do find very similar rock lithologies below Ediacaran fossil-bearing rocks, indicative of similar environments, but, with one or two possible exceptions, there are no obviously metazoan fossils. In South Australia, the first Ediacaran fossils occur in eroded channels, suggesting a period of erosion and lower sea level prior to the deposition of fossil-bearing sediments. However, it is becoming clear that the Ediacara fauna can be divided into separate assemblages, with the most diverse and disparate (variation in bodyplan) occurring at the highest (youngest) levels. So while the Ediacaran fauna tends to emerge into the taphonomic spotlight with very little fanfare, the earliest appearances have relatively low disparity.

>I have heard
>suggested several times that the Cambrian explosion might be an artifact
>of fossil preservation, and I was wondering how much data we have to test
>that hypothesis.

Well one explosion is. There are two aspects to Early Cambrian evolution which although separate are often confused as one and the same. One is the rapid diversification of life during the earliest Cambrian, and the other is the rapid appearance of organisms in the fossil record. Neither event was instantaneous.

The rapid diversification of life in the earliest Cambrian was almost certainly derived from a pre-existing stem stock of organisms, representatives of which appear in the Ediacaran fauna. [quote].

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec97.html

One of the problems with these type of discussions is that they tend to degenerate into duelling websites.

GrayMouser

06-18-2003, 02:45 AM

Rian, what do you mean by the term "age/zone"?

Since you are relying a lot on Morris, I assume you are arguing a Young Earth Creationist model.

In which case, among the fossils found alongside the trilobites, nautiloids etc should be modern fish, itchyosaurs, whales, and the odd pre-Deluge shipwreck.

Cirdan

06-18-2003, 03:21 PM

...and trilobites, annelids, and other "complex" organisms are dated into the Pre-Cambrian. The Cambrian "explosian" refers more to the diversity within types (and the abundance of fossils, conveniently above the general non-conformity). Pelecypods and bryozoans didn't get going until the Ordovician. Why the long wait?

Are we debating the age of the earth? I thought that had been run around pretty good earlier but I'll give it a second run, if anyone wants.

Earniel

06-18-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But EÃ¤rniel, your Belgium info are FACTS (unless you're pulling the wool over our eyes :) ). Or at least, they're easy to check out. But at the point Darwin was at when he wrote that, it was NOT proven that, for instance, the traits were inheritable. :D Heehee.

I think that some of the points that Darwin wrote were either provable in his time or acceptable educated assumptions. I'm really no expert on this matter. But my guess is that he would never have written about the inheritable traits if he hadn't had some ground to accept that they were inheritable.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Morris/Parker DIDN'T attribute Lamarck's theory to Darwin, they just said he believed it at one point in his life. So it is NOT mixing up facts. I'm not saying he/they/whatever does. I haven't read the book so I won't judge. My reaction was aimed at this quote:

So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees.

It sounded to me that it said that the stretching theory was Darwin's. But it isn't. This is what I meant with mixing up facts. If I misinterpreted it, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'll repeat it again - "MY ONLY POINT WAS that when Darwin FIRST POSED the theory, he believed in pangenes, thus VASTLY underestimating the problem of the arrival of new traits." I hear you, I just don't seem to grasp the significance of it. We all know nobody gets a theory right the first time. This is only of significance to someone who want to know in dept, in detail how Darwin's thinkingprocess went to finally come to his theory. Right? Or am I finally becoming dense? :confused: There are dosens of little things like this that will have had effect on what and how Darwin was thinking when he was trying to form his theory. But to list them all goes way beyond the things highschoolstudents should learn. It takes the focus off the main issue: Darwin's theory. If they all have to know the side- facts they won't be able to see the wood through the trees anymore. Or was it the other way around? Oh drat, I AM becoming dense! :eek:

Oh, BTW my biology book says 'No hard feelings'. I think it was actually pretty proud of himself for being mistaken for a higher education book instead of a highschoolbook. ;) Also, I'm sorry if I gave you the feeling of being attacked. Really didn't mean to. :( :)

RÃan

06-18-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
Oh, BTW my biology book says 'No hard feelings'. I think it was actually pretty proud of himself for being mistaken for a higher education book instead of a highschoolbook. ;)
Tell your biology book "thanks", and that if I ever get to Belgium perhaps it can have an enjoyable visit with my physics books :) and that I expect my copy of Origin of Species to arrive tomorrow (along with War of the Jewels! Yay! Hmm, which shall I read first? WoTJ!!!!)

cassiopeia

06-18-2003, 08:40 PM

Wow, I leave for a few days and you guys post five pages. :) Yes, I had two maths exams. I would say 'maths is my favorite subject', since we're talking about one subject. (Actually, after the exams I've just had, I would NOT be saying maths is my favorite subject for a while.) :)

Rian: I didn't see your response to the 'Earth moving' thing. I posted something (I can't remember if it was on this thread, or the religion thread) and I thought nobody responded to it.

It seems I've come too late to respond to your first argument. I'm looking for to arguments about the flood and the second law of thermodynamics. :)

And I don't think Darwin's opinion on the eye is relevent. This was about 150 years ago, and we have learnt so much since then. Yes, he published the theory first, but it doesn't mean his views are relevent today. It's like asking Leonardo da Vinci about helicopters. Even though he thought up some designs, I doubt he would know very much about the helicopters of today.

RÃan

06-18-2003, 09:16 PM

Congrats on finishing maths!

I responded to the Earth moving thing, and I"ll try to find it later tonight - right now I'm madly trying to get people out the door to various places .... eep, there goes the pasta boiling over!!!

RÃan

06-19-2003, 12:59 AM

Here it is, cass - unmoving/stable earth (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=260636#post260636)

RÃan

06-19-2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Wow, I leave for a few days and you guys post five pages. :) Yes, I had two maths exams. I would say 'maths is my favorite subject', since we're talking about one subject. (Actually, after the exams I've just had, I would NOT be saying maths is my favorite subject for a while.) :) Gee, that sounds so funny to my ear! "Maths IS ...." But I can see how it makes sense.

It seems I've come too late to respond to your first argument. No, you haven't - I'd like to hear your opinion. What I wanted to do this time was to present scientific evidence for creationism (as requested :) ) and have discussion on that evidence, and NOT to get into back and forth "link wars", like GrayMouser noted. So I say again that no one has responded to my first post on fossil evidence for creationism (that I have seen - maybe I missed it) except by defending evolution.

(Cirdan - that's what I meant - I did note at one time that you responded to my post, but still not really in the sense that I was asking for - a scientific evaluation if the evidence in the fossil record supported the creationist prediction of what would be found.)

So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

And I don't think Darwin's opinion on the eye is relevent. This was about 150 years ago, and we have learnt so much since then. Yes, I know we've learnt a lot, but to me it's relevant because of the reasons I noted earlier. I guess we'll just have different opinions on the subject :)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-19-2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - [b]creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex.

I like your use of the scientific terminology: "critters". ;)

RÃan

06-19-2003, 01:27 AM

I try to keep the discussion on high scientific planes ;)

Cirdan

06-19-2003, 02:38 AM

Why is it important to find the one link between "major groups" of "critters"? If you evaluate the fossils it is easy to see the development of structures within groups that are progenitors of structures in the next more complex group. Are we supposwed to find a half bryozoan- half brachiopod?

Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet.

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front?

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try?

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die.

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course;)), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries.

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all?

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool.

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here.

cassiopeia

06-19-2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

Creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and that we should find (say) human bones with dinosaur bones. But we don't see this, we see human bones in different layers. On the other hand, evolution predicts exactly this.

Rian: I was talking about a different Earth moving post. I think it was in the religion thread, where Lief said that the Bible says the Earth doesn't move, and that it's correct because the Earth doesn't accelerate. I then posted that whenever I jump in the air the Earth accelerates a tiny bit towards me. I got no response.

GrayMouser

06-19-2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an

(Cirdan - that's what I meant - I did note at one time that you responded to my post, but still not really in the sense that I was asking for - a scientific evaluation if the evidence in the fossil record supported the creationist prediction of what would be found.)

So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully formed", if you mean functional, then of course both theories would predict this.

If you mean no transitional fossils, then of course the record falsifies creationism-
Archeopteryx and the lineage of the horse with all the intermediate stages being the best-known examples,
but there are plenty of others.

Creationism would also have to predict that there is no increase in complexity over time; see the references to the developments of the early Cambrian to show how that is wrong.

Since Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism would make very different predictions about the fossil record, it's hard to reply without knowing which model you are advocating.

I'll go on the working assumption that this is YEC, if I'm wrong please correct me.

Creationist predictions would include:
No sorting of fossils by date; primitive amphibians, dinosaurs, early mammals, later mammals (including humans) should all be mixed in together.
(There might be another sorting method; I'll leave you to reply on that.)

RÃan

06-19-2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Rian: I was talking about a different Earth moving post. I think it was in the religion thread, where Lief said that the Bible says the Earth doesn't move, and that it's correct because the Earth doesn't accelerate. I then posted that whenever I jump in the air the Earth accelerates a tiny bit towards me. I got no response. Oh, I remember that post - my answer still stands, tho, and I think it's the correct one :cool: I don't know if Lief was trying to explain some reasoning behind it, or if that's what he actually thought - you'll have to ask Lief. But I think my answer is the correct one (Lief, any comments?)

I'll get to the rest of your post, along with Cirdan's and GMousers, a bit later when I have a block of time...

afro-elf

06-19-2003, 07:07 PM

RIAN,

Wouldn't just be easier to teach creationism in religous schools and evolution in public schools?

RÃan

06-19-2003, 07:38 PM

AE - Easier, yes, but I think it presents a more complete scientific picture to present both at all schools. I'm more interested in what I think is "right" than what I think is "easy" (that's why I'm on this thread, 1 "against" 6 or 7 or more :) ) (I put "against" in quotes, because I'm not personally against the evolutionists - I like the vast majority of them quite a lot! :) But my opinion on which model is better, creationism or evolutionism, is different than theirs.)

Cassiopeia, GrayMouser and Cirdan - thanks for your evaluations of my first "evidence for creationism" post. That's what I was really hoping for when I first decided to present some evidence - some scientific evaluation (not just defences of evolution) - but it's a real uphill battle to just get to that point :( . I first have to get thru all the erroneous "evolution (as in the ENTIRE THEORY) is proved by the specked moths" type ideas, then I have to get thru the charges that scientists that believe in creationism aren't even scientists, then I have to get thru quote-mining charges (some of which are true, but they're also true of evolutionists) ......

.... and THAT'S just to get to a level playing field! :(

Let's see if I can answer some of your points.

Cass first, 'cause hers is the shortest this time (whew!) -

by Cassiopeia
Creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and that we should find (say) human bones with dinosaur bones. But we don't see this, we see human bones in different layers. On the other hand, evolution predicts exactly this. This is a good point, and I need to look into layers/geology more. But I think your creationism prediction isn't entirely accurate - I would say something like "creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and of varying complexities, including very complex". I think the complexity issue is extremely important, and it's opposite to what evolutionists would expect to see, IMO. And this is what we DO see. In the supposed earliest ages, there are very complex critters in the fossil record.

RÃan

06-19-2003, 07:59 PM

GrayMouser's most recent post -
Originally posted by GrayMouser
I'm not sure what you mean by "fully formed", if you mean functional, then of course both theories would predict this. I'm pretty sure I said "complex", too, which makes a big difference. And what I mean by "fully formed" is that wings are wings, feathers are feathers, etc.

If you mean no transitional fossils, then of course the record falsifies creationism-
Archeopteryx and the lineage of the horse with all the intermediate stages being the best-known examples,
but there are plenty of others.
Now this is where we could get into a link war (a polite one, of course :) ). From what I've read, I strongly disagree with Archeopteryx being transitional, since (1) the feathers are perfectly formed feathers, not semi-gill-semi-feathers, (2) there are other living birds today, like the ostrich, that have claws on their wings, (3) the wings are not semi-legs-semi-wings, they are completely developed and fully functional wings.

Also, there are some bird bones discovered in layers "deeper" than those that contain Arch. remains, so Arch. can't be an ancestor of birds, because birds already existed, acc'd to evolutionary dating methods.

So I would say as it stands, Arch. does NOT exhibit any leg-to-wing transitional forms, nor does it exhibit any gill-to-feather transitional forms. Both wings and feathers are the same as modern bird types. It IS, however, one of those not-run-of-the-mill birds, like ostriches.

I think many evolutionists have discarded Arch. as a transitional type, but I could be wrong. Do you want to look into it more and get back to me, or should we just leave it at "evolutionist PhDs say Arch. IS a transitional type, and creationist PhDs say it ISN'T, so it must be inconclusive, assuming integrity on both sides."

Creationism would also have to predict that there is no increase in complexity over time; see the references to the developments of the early Cambrian to show how that is wrong. I must have missed this, and from what I have read, I would disagree. Could you please direct me to where this was discussed, or summarize it for me?

Since Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism would make very different predictions about the fossil record, it's hard to reply without knowing which model you are advocating.

I'll go on the working assumption that this is YEC, if I'm wrong please correct me.
I think YEC is the best model.

Creationist predictions would include:
No sorting of fossils by date; primitive amphibians, dinosaurs, early mammals, later mammals (including humans) should all be mixed in together.
(There might be another sorting method; I'll leave you to reply on that.) I don't know what type of mix would result from a complex and catastrophic event like a world-wide flood. Like I told cass, I'll have to look into it more. I think that the evolutionist idea of different layers representing times that are millions of years apart is an assumption, though, so there's a little implied date assumption going on in your creationism prediction that I disagree with.

RÃan

06-19-2003, 08:20 PM

And for GrayMouser re the horse -

Same with the horse example, BTW - creationists point out other fossil finds that contradict this order, such as the South American ungulates (order Litopterna) - there is a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia), a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus), and a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) with reduced splints, just like the Eohippus-Miohippus-Equus. However, the two latter were contemporaries, and the three-toed Macrauchenia appeared AFTER the last two, acc'd to evolutionary dating!

There's also a place in Oregon where the three-toed versions are found WITH the one-toed versions.

Also, altho one could see a possible Eohippus to Equus change, the transitions are NOT in the fossil record - they are said to have happened too rapidly. Well, that's an assumption, then, not backed up by what is actually IN the fossil record. Assumptions are fine, but they should be called assumptions.

(and for your reference :) - info on the horse in this post is from Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish)

cassiopeia

06-19-2003, 08:43 PM

My answer was probably the shortest because I don't know much about that. I did one semester of Earth science a few years ago, and that's all. :)

Yes, I remember in the book it mentioned that there were seemingly more complex creatures in the past than now. In the earliest fossil records, we see bacteria called stromatolites (actually they can still be seen here in Western Australia). 600 million years ago we see jellyfish, sea anemone and earthworm like creatures (again this can be seen in fosssils from Australia). Plants then evolved from algae about 400 million years ago. 380 million years ago the first vertebrates moved onto land. This lead to reptiles, then dinosaurs. Birds then evolved from dinosaurs (if you believe the Archaeopteryx fossils). Mammals evolved from reptiles, then we came along. Are we not more complex than jellyfish?

I suppose that this evidence isn't valid if you don't believe the Earth is 4.6 million years old, or that geologic dating involves circular reasoning. But we don't see complex critters ( :) ) like humans or dinosaurs or flowering plants in the earliest fossil records, so I don't see any problem.

RÃan

06-19-2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why is it important to find the one link between "major groups" of "critters"? If you evaluate the fossils it is easy to see the development of structures within groups that are progenitors of structures in the next more complex group. Are we supposwed to find a half bryozoan- half brachiopod? I think it is VERY important to find links between 2 vastly different things like wings and legs, and non-flying to flying parts (including feathers and the specialized avian lung), if you are going to suggest that these transitions happened; don't you?

*rats, out of time again! I hope I can finish discussing your post later tonite, Cirdan*

scheduled for a later time : discussion on Cirdan's :
Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet.

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front?

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try?

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die.

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course;)), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries.

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all?

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool.

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-19-2003, 09:13 PM

Noahic Flood theory

'Scuse me for butting in, but I was just saying that I believe the term is "Noahide" or "Noachide". Although of course, I am not sure of this.

Lizra

06-19-2003, 09:43 PM

Cirdan's right. Reading, writing, and evolution! :D Everytime I read this thread title...I think of creation science being taught in school, and I just say NO! (repeatedly!) If they taught creation in public school, I would home school my kids! (sounds familiar! I guess it's one or the other! :D )

*thank you Nancy Reagan! :rolleyes: :D

Gwaimir Windgem

06-19-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
Cirdan's right. Everytime I read this thread title...*I just say "NO"*! :) If they taught creation in public school, I would home school my kids!

Isn't the title, "Should evolution be taught in schools"; or am I missing something here? :confused:

What if they taught both, as alternative theories?

P. S. Nancy Reagan? :confused:

HOBBIT

06-19-2003, 09:53 PM

Teaching Creation in school as a scientific theory is ludicrous. It is NOT SCIENCE. That is not my opinion, that is fact (by the definiton of science ..... lets not get into this again, unless you really want to). It seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that, rian. Correct me if I wrong.

It is nothing more than a belief. I have no problem with you or anyone believing this, but I DO have a problem with people trying to force their BELIEFs onto others. Which is what you want to happen - you'd love to see creation taught in schools. I see you that you really believe it to be true, and that you really believe it to be very scientific, but it just isn't.

And how exactly would you present this in a class or textbook? Surely not the adam and eve myth? In my school, there must be at least a handful of diff creation myths that the study body believes in - well there are that many diff religions at least, i'm fairly positive that more than half the school's student body are atheist or agnostic. Creation does not imply a christian god at all - it could also be any kind of aliens.

Creation Science is nothing more than a cover to try to get religion taught in schools (for one thing).

The book "What is Creation Science" seems to be geared towards people who believe as you do, Rian. You want to believe in it - so go ahead and keep believing in it :). From the pages that I have read and reviews that I have read from it (maybe I'll actually get the book) and from other Creationist stuff I have read and seen on tv, they seem to substitute quotes often for evidence and they only make points by completely leaving out contrary evidence and/or completely misinterprting data and info.

That is just my opinion though...

Doesn't it mean anything to you that even most (if not all, i don't know about all) CHRISITAN RELIGIOUS private schools teach evolution in science class and creation in religious studies? They keep em separate.

You constantly say that you've evaluated both sides and picked creation, but it seems to me (just my own observations, correct me if I am wrong) that you had your mind made up beforehand. You were raised a christian, correcT? You believed in creation and you drifted towards info that supported what you believed in. IMO, if you really looked at all the evidence you would probably believe in evolution - or at least evolution started by god (a supreme being).

Plus, the "creation theory" is nothing without some supreme being.

But of course, we all know that the Mice rule this planet and the Earth was built by the Magrathean's to solve the question of life, the universe, and everything to which the answer is 42. Anyone who debates this is silly :P

Lizra

06-19-2003, 10:09 PM

Gwai! I'm missing something!:D (too much salmon and wine!) I mean YES! I'll go edit. Should creation theory be taught in school "NO" (a hundred million times NO!)

Nancy Reagan coined the phrase "Just say no" (to drugs)

Lizra

06-19-2003, 10:21 PM

The creation bit is so empty! What's to teach..or understand? On the first day, the invisible magic being did this...day two, this... what about all the science stuff we have concrete evidence of, (all the things that have been mentioned on this thread and much, much more) Will someone find their specific time in the *magic week*! Really! :confused:

HOBBIT

06-19-2003, 10:24 PM

Yes, I completely agree with you Lizra. I don't think that "the theory of creation" will EVER be taught in public schools, so we don't have to worry.

Ararax

06-19-2003, 10:54 PM

well its interesting that there are books on creation, so as much can be taught about it as evolution, but obviously you havent read them, but i agree that it will never be taught in schools

HOBBIT

06-19-2003, 11:02 PM

don't believe everything you read in books

Ararax

06-19-2003, 11:10 PM

thank you captin obvious ;)
same goes for book on evolution, its a theory not a fact, jsut because you believe it does nto make it out to be factual

Gwaimir Windgem

06-19-2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I DO have a problem with people trying to force their BELIEFs onto others.

With all due respect - unless it's you. :)

Surely not the adam and eve myth? In my school, there must be at least a handful of diff creation myths that the study body believes in - well there are that many diff religions at least, i'm fairly positive that more than half the school's student body are atheist or agnostic. Creation does not imply a christian god at all - it could also be any kind of aliens.

Personally, I think it would be best to present as many different myths as are (relatively) widely believed. Though, I must say that if there were only one, while it does make me uncomfortable to say this about my own religion, I think that if one myth were taught (something which, in the mythical hypothesis that beliefs which are not primarily atheistic were actually acknowledged in this day and age by government as more than just "religious institutions", and maybe, just maybe, VALID (yeah, right :rolleyes: :p) should not be necessary), the Adam and Eve one would, in my experience, be the best one, as it represents the belief of a) at least two (I believe three) different religions, and b) the great majority of those who believe in any creation myth; indeed, quite possibly the majority of people. However, confining it to a single creation myth should not be necessary, in the mythical hypothesis
Creation Science is nothing more than a cover to try to get religion taught in schools (for one thing).

You want to believe in it - so go ahead and keep believing in it :).

To which it could be said, "You refuse to believe in it - so go ahead and keep rejecting it." :)

and they only make points by completely leaving out contrary evidence and/or completely misinterprting data and info.

Leaving out contrary evidence is something which both sides are guility of. And as for misinterpreting: only the evidence is absolute. By saying that they misinterpret the data, you state (implicitly) that you act on the premise that your interpretation is the correct one. What is so wrong about others having that same right?

[/quote]Doesn't it mean anything to you that even most (if not all, i don't know about all) CHRISITAN RELIGIOUS private schools teach evolution in science class and creation in religious studies? They keep em separate.[/quote]

Not any that I know, and I've been enrolled in three different ones in my time (due to moving).

You constantly say that you've evaluated both sides and picked creation, but it seems to me (just my own observations, correct me if I am wrong) that you had your mind made up beforehand.

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong [and I do mean that :)]) that you had your mind up before you heard any creation evidence.

IMO, if you really looked at all the evidence you would probably believe in evolution - or at least evolution started by god (a supreme being).

Out of curiosity, why is Divine Evolution "less", as the statement "at least" implies?

But of course, we all know that the Mice rule this planet and the Earth was built by the Magrathean's to solve the question of life, the universe, and everything to which the answer is 42. Anyone who debates this is silly :P

Pfffft. The Magratheans are a myth. It is the Tyngroathi who constructed the Earth. :p

HOBBIT

06-19-2003, 11:38 PM

With all due respect - unless it's you.

If thats what you think I am doing, then ok. I only discuss religious things in religious topics. I do not try to imprint my beliefs on others. I really don't. ALL i do is just SAY WHAT BELIEVE and also say what things others have said that I don't believe. I do not expect anyone to change their beliefs based on what I say. My intention was never to get people to think as I do.

If you are refering to me thinking that evolution is truth and of course should be taught in schools, then yes.

I really have no wish to have others believe exactly as I do. What fun would that be?

Personally, I think it would be best to present as many different myths as are (relatively) widely believed. Though, I must say that if there were only one, while it does make me uncomfortable to say this about my own religion, I think that if one myth were taught (something which, in the mythical hypothesis that beliefs which are not primarily atheistic were actually acknowledged in this day and age by government as more than just "religious institutions", and maybe, just maybe, VALID (yeah, right ) should not be necessary), the Adam and Eve one would, in my experience, be the best one, as it represents the belief of a) at least two (I believe three) different religions, and b) the great majority of those who believe in any creation myth; indeed, quite possibly the majority of people. However, confining it to a single creation myth should not be necessary, in the mythical hypothesis
Creation Science is nothing more than a cover to try to get religion taught in schools (for one thing).

Well if it is really "science," then why would ANY myth be taught? That is DEFINITELY not scientific. I have NO PROBLEM with the option of religious studies classes in public schools - already the study of many different religions was incorperated into my world history class this year.

To which it could be said, "You refuse to believe in it - so go ahead and keep rejecting it."
Ty, I will :D

Not any that I know, and I've been enrolled in three different ones in my time (due to moving).

The Christian private schools in your area don't ? that is interesting, thanks for that bit of info. All of them in my area (id assume all of NJ) do. They teach evolution in science classes and the creation story in religious study classes. I have also heard from many ppl who have been to christian private schools and they say the same. Go figure.

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong [and I do mean that ]) that you had your mind up before you heard any creation evidence.

I had my mind up before entering this topic, yes. But I was not raised an atheist or evolutionist or anything. I infact did choose myself with all the data. I guess I am agnostic. I was raised Jewish (parents wanted me to choose for myself and didnt want me to blame them later for not exposing me to religion) and I still am a little jewish - except for the fact that I don't believe in a lot of it.

Out of curiosity, why is Divine Evolution "less", as the statement "at least" implies?
Well, because it involves a supreme being still :D I still have not rulled out that possibility. If anything I'd believe in Divine Evolution over any young earth models.

Pfffft. The Magratheans are a myth. It is the Tyngroathi who constructed the Earth.

:p

afro-elf

06-19-2003, 11:57 PM

same goes for book on evolution, its a theory not a fact, jsut because you believe it does nto make it out to be factual

I'd be curious to see your defination of theory vs. fact. It seems form your statement that you are using the lay version of the definition.

In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 12:02 AM

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 12:04 AM

*bravo Afro-elf*

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
*bravo Afro-elf*

muchos gracias

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
If thats what you think I am doing, then ok. I only discuss religious things in religious topics. I do not try to imprint my beliefs on others.

Again, with all due respect: one could argue that the manner in which you attack the great majority of religions is doing that. I must say, that I find it interesting that it is (usually) the atheists who tell everyone that they are arrogant, judgemental, hypocritical, etc., rather than the Christians telling everyone that they're sinners, hellbound, etc. Quite fascinating how many kinds of proselytisers there are. :)

I do not expect anyone to change their beliefs based on what I say. My intention was never to get people to think as I do.

Sounds like someone I know. ;)

If you are refering to me thinking that evolution is truth and of course should be taught in schools, then yes.

I was rather referring to the rather dogmatic way it seems that you approach arguments which have/may have religious connotations.

I really have no wish to have others believe exactly as I do. What fun would that be?

You WILL be assimiliated. Resistance is FUTILE.

Neither do I. ;) Though I must say that by your derogatory statements about those who believe differently than you (especially that scientists who believe in creationism are not true scientists), that is an impression which can be gotten. Not of course, that I believe that, just that it is something which you can be interpreted as (implicitly) saying.

Well if it is really "science," then why would ANY myth be taught? That is DEFINITELY not scientific. I have NO PROBLEM with the option of religious studies classes in public schools - already the study of many different religions was incorperated into my world history class this year.

Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, no myth would be necessary for the essentials of creation science. However, I think it is important to know where one is coming from. Without creation myths, there is no reason for creation science. While obviously an in-depth study wouldn't be necessary, I think that a basic knowledge of creation myths would be something included.

Ty, I will

As I'm sure Rian will. :)

The Christian private schools in your area don't ? that is interesting, thanks for that bit of info. All of them in my area (id assume all of NJ) do. They teach evolution in science classes and the creation story in religious study classes. I have also heard from many ppl who have been to christian private schools and they say the same. Go figure.

Make that areas, and as far as I know. :) I don't go through all of them, finding out how they handle it. But there is a vast amount of variance amongst Christianity; the fact that some believe one way does not really have much bearing on others.

If I remember correctly, JD informed us that the Eastern coast folks (especially Joi...Jersey ;)) were more intelligent and enlightened, as a whole, than those country hicks further west. ;)

I had my mind up before entering this topic, yes. But I was not raised an atheist or evolutionist or anything. I infact did choose myself with all the data. I guess I am agnostic. I was raised Jewish (parents wanted me to choose for myself and didnt want me to blame them later for not exposing me to religion) and I still am a little jewish - except for the fact that I don't believe in a lot of it.

Agnostic? So then, you don't think that man can know if God(s) exist...I could have sworn you'd said that there was no God, and all religions were man-made. Ah well, my memory is failing in my old age. ;)

Well, because it involves a supreme being still I still have not rulled out that possibility. If anything I'd believe in Divine Evolution over any young earth models.

And that makes less worthy/worthwhile, because of a variance as to an undeterminable cause?

:p

Well, that's common knowledge.

NOTE: Emoticons in quotes have been largely removed, due to a smiley limit. Emoticons I would have put are also removed.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:12 AM

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.

"Some" biologists. Or are those who don't agree with you a bunch of liars who call themselves biologists? :)

It is also a fact

Your opinion.

By the way, since you're posting here, I've often wondered what you meant when you said that you have "too much blood on your hands" in topics like this. Do you mean that you've killed people (I doubt this one ;))? Destroyed faith? What?

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 12:22 AM

"Some" biologists. Or are those who don't agree with you a bunch of liars who call themselves biologists

Not when they forget to leave their religous beliefs at the lab door.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also a fact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your opinion.

Did you just skip the rest of the article?

The part that gave a definition of fact and theory.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:28 AM

"Not when they forget to leave their religous beliefs at the lab door."

Hmm. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. When they forget to leave their religious beliefs, then they are not liars and false scientists?

Also, I love the way people say that, as if atheists always leave their lack of religion at the lab door. :)

Did you just skip the rest of the article?

The part that gave a definition of fact and theory.

Personally, I never saw Rian as "perverse", but each to his own. :)

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 12:41 AM

GW - im not limited to anything I have to believe, my views change. I probably did say things about there not being any god. I am undecided, but I favor more evolution, athiesm. My veiws and ideas change daily. I AM very openminded. It also seems more likely to me that organized religions are wrong.

I really am still keeping an open mind to what Rian is saying, but she still has not seem any NEW arugments for creation or any NEW arugments against evolution. I've seen all the ones she has mentioned so far.

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 12:44 AM

and btw, we are more enlightened up here. New England and Middle Colonies ares. :D ;)

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 12:49 AM

When they forget to leave their religious beliefs, then they are not liars and false scientists?

No, I do not think they are liars, but have a conflict of interest in a manner of speaking.

scientist try to make their beliefs fit facts

religionist try to make the facts fit their beliefs.

Also, I love the way people say that, as if atheists always leave their lack of religion at the lab door

If they are "good" scientist they shouldn't.

They are two mutually exclusive realms.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
GW - im not limited to anything I have to believe, my views change. I probably did say things about there not being any god. I am undecided, but I favor more evolution, athiesm. My veiws and ideas change daily. I AM very openminded. It also seems more likely to me that organized religions are wrong.

I know what you mean, lately I've been exploring religion with a more open mind as well. My views have been changing a lot, too. This time last year, I would never have considered joining the Catholic Church. I also might very well have instantly jumped away from Kabbalah, despite my lifelong belief that the Jews are God's chosen people (God LOOOOOOOVES you, HOBBIT! ;)). I believed that Satanism was actually the worship of the Christian Satan. I probably hadn't even heard of Wicca. I have grown and changed very much as a person in the last year, so let me say that I certainly know what you mean about changing your views and ideas.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by afro-elf
Also, I love the way people say that, as if atheists always leave their lack of religion at the lab door
If they are "good" scientist they shouldn't.

So then, Atheism is a prerequisite for science?

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 12:53 AM

Don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.:)

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 12:54 AM

No, they are separate things as long as you don't let your personal religious beliefs interfere (is what i know Afro-Elf is trying to say).

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:55 AM

No, I do not think they are liars, but have a conflict of interest in a manner of speaking.

The same applies to many atheists. I don't see why people always accuse creationist (or "Christian" in any remotely traditional sense) of twisting the facts to fit his own belief, but atheists are exempt of this?

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by afro-elf
Don't keep your mind so open that your brains fall out.:)

I hear ya, and couldn't agree more. ;)

Sheeana

06-20-2003, 01:00 AM

Science is not perfect. The fact of the matter is that atheist/agnostic scientists can have just as much of an agenda as religious scientists. I guess I'm pretty cynical, but the reality is that science is driven by agendas, and if you don't believe me, go on down and visit your local uni, and witness the petty rivalry between the researchers, professors, etc. We all have agendas - to presume that religion is the only one is somewhat erroneous.

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 01:08 AM

I don't deny that Shee-Bop,

However, the FACT that when I flip the switch my lights come on is independent to of my belief.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 02:01 AM

As Hobbit said - religious schools here teach evolution. I went to three Catholic schools - all of them taught evolution.

And yes - New Jersey, as well as the northeast, is more enlightened than the southern, midwestern and prairie states. :D

GW- I am glad that you have seen that the world is a lot more. I am surprised you didn't know about Wicca though :D

As for atheists leaving their beliefs at the door - all scientists should leave their beliefs at the door. But as I said - god and the belief has nothing to do with science. You can not say that someone must have created the world because you don't understand how it is possible without a supernatural being. Intelligent Design is just evolution with a supernatural being thrown in to satisfy the creationists and try getting it taught in school. I haven't read anything here that would indicate otherwise.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
GW- I am glad that you have seen that the world is a lot more. I am surprised you didn't know about Wicca though :D

Well, I might have known about it, I'm not sure. But I know a heckuva lot more about it now, that's for sure. ;)

As for atheists leaving their beliefs at the door - all scientists should leave their beliefs at the door. But as I said - god and the belief has nothing to do with science.

Just as God and the lack of belief...or rather belief against...has nothing to di with science.

Intelligent Design is just evolution with a supernatural being thrown in to satisfy the creationists and try getting it taught in school. I haven't read anything here that would indicate otherwise.

What you refer to is what I call Divine Evolution; Intelligent Design is generally special creation.

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 02:57 AM

oops edit

GrayMouser

06-20-2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, I might have known about it, I'm not sure. But I know a heckuva lot more about it now, that's for sure. ;)

What you refer to is what I call Divine Evolution; Intelligent Design is generally special creation.

Gwaimir is making a good point here; you have to keep the terminology straight. Divine (or Theological ) Evolution is the belief that Evolution happens, but that it is directed, either by setting initial conditions or later interventions.

He's also right that all scientists ahould leave their religious convictions or lack thereof at the laboratory door; many scientists have religious faith, many don't.

As for the "some biologists believe in evolution, some in creation" it's the equivalent of saying some biologists believe infectious diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses, while others believe they are caused by evil spirits. What's the proportion?

And of course, while the majority is not always right, neither are the minorities.

Just because Galileo was attacked, doesn't mean everyone who's attacked is Galileo.

afro-elf

06-20-2003, 11:51 AM

Just because Galileo was attacked, doesn't mean everyone who's attacked is Galileo.

Or they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Anglorfin

06-20-2003, 12:41 PM

So should we teach both evolution and creationism and let the pupil decide what is more to their liking? That sounds the fairest. Or is it the school's responsibility to only teach evolution and let the students learn creationism through strictly religious interactions?

GrayMouser

06-20-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[b]GrayMouser's most recent post -
I'm pretty sure I said "complex", too, which makes a big difference. And what I mean by "fully formed" is that wings are wings, feathers are feathers, etc.

Now this is where we could get into a link war (a polite one, of course :) ). From what I've read, I strongly disagree with Archeopteryx being transitional, since (1) the feathers are perfectly formed feathers, not semi-gill-semi-feathers, (2) there are other living birds today, like the ostrich, that have claws on their wings, (3) the wings are not semi-legs-semi-wings, they are completely developed and fully functional wings.

Also, there are some bird bones discovered in layers "deeper" than those that contain Arch. remains, so Arch. can't be an ancestor of birds, because birds already existed, acc'd to evolutionary dating methods.

So I would say as it stands, Arch. does NOT exhibit any leg-to-wing transitional forms, nor does it exhibit any gill-to-feather transitional forms. Both wings and feathers are the same as modern bird types. It IS, however, one of those not-run-of-the-mill birds, like ostriches.

I think many evolutionists have discarded Arch. as a transitional type, but I could be wrong. Do you want to look into it more and get back to me, or should we just leave it at "evolutionist PhDs say Arch. IS a transitional type, and creationist PhDs say it ISN'T, so it must be inconclusive, assuming integrity on both sides."

B]

I can't honestly claim to know more about bird morphology than is necessary to carve a Thanksgiving turkey but:

Yes Arch. has fully-formed feathers (shouldn't that be scale-to-feather transitions? Discoveries in the last few years show that feathers originated before flight, though the feathers on non-flying dinosaurs were symmetrical, unlike flight feathers.

The wings of ARCH. were not fully functional wings ( compared to modern birds)

And the claws on ostriches and others ( the Hoatzoan ) are neotonous i.e. juvenile features carried into adulthood by slowed development

No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:

"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."

Teeth, tail bones and no beak,among many others.

It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.

This latter point is made in reference to the claim by Dr. Duane Gish that the skull of Archae is "totally birdlike" (R. Trott pers. comm. 1994). This claim is false.

No, other than in Creationist tracts, Arch is fully recognised as a transitional form( not ancestral, there's a difference).

As far as evolutionist PhDs vs. Creationist PhDs, the difference is that the evolutionist Phds are in the fields that are in question (i.e. avian morphology, paleontology, etc) while the creationists are in other fields entirely.

It may be unfair, but the people searching for, analysing and comparing the actual fossils are evolutionists, just like the people scanning the heavens are believers in the Big Bang- that's their job.

quotes are from Talkorigins; Archeopteryx, but a Google search will find many more.

GrayMouser

06-20-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And for GrayMouser re the horse -

Same with the horse example, BTW - creationists point out other fossil finds that contradict this order, such as the South American ungulates (order Litopterna) - there is a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia), a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus), and a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) with reduced splints, just like the Eohippus-Miohippus-Equus. However, the two latter were contemporaries, and the three-toed Macrauchenia appeared AFTER the last two, acc'd to evolutionary dating!

There's also a place in Oregon where the three-toed versions are found WITH the one-toed versions.

Also, altho one could see a possible Eohippus to Equus change, the transitions are NOT in the fossil record - they are said to have happened too rapidly. Well, that's an assumption, then, not backed up by what is actually IN the fossil record. Assumptions are fine, but they should be called assumptions.

(and for your reference :) - info on the horse in this post is from Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish)

Uhoh, here we go with the quotes again!

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Talkorigins: horse, evolution of

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Anglorfin
So should we teach both evolution and creationism and let the pupil decide what is more to their liking? That sounds the fairest. Or is it the school's responsibility to only teach evolution and let the students learn creationism through strictly religious interactions?

It sounds fair but it is rediculous. You do get that creation is only a belief and not a scientific theory, right? And also, public schools could not even teach creation because of seaparation of church and state.

It is the school's responsibility NOT to teach creation. Evolution is in the ciriculum of many science courses, and history courses (social darwinism), and english (we read "Inherit the Wind" this year, the play based on the Scopes or "Monkey Trial"

Just because you believe it does not make it true OR a scientific theory. You could say the same to me - but evolution is a scientific theory.... *sigh* It is a scientific FACT that evolution exists. Do you guys know what a scientific fact is? AFro-Elf gave us all a very nice definition of it, and he is correct.

Hmm since Creation is completely based in religion, of course it is his/her parent's concern how much they want to teach their kid - through church/temple or/and religious school (after school and/or on weekends if not private school)

Anglorfin, how is this even an issue?

Creation being taught in science classes is just so laughable it isn't even funny. Especially in this area of the US, can you imagine the lawsuits and the HUGE amount of kids switching to being homeschooled or private schools? It would be completely unconstitutional.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Creation being taught in science classes is just so laughable it isn't even funny.

Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution! :p

Cirdan

06-20-2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution! :p

Yes, maybe we need alternate theories for gravity, atomic theory, etc as well?:rolleyes:

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 01:42 PM

Obviously, you should teach that people fall because little faerie pull them to the ground, and that everything is made up of tiny legos! ;)

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Obviously, you should teach that people fall because little faerie pull them to the ground, and that everything is made up of tiny legos! ;)

thats about the equivalent of creation being taught as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. good anology GW :) :p

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Yeah, imagine, actually offering an ALTERNATIVE to evolution! :p
Why teach an alternative - when the prevailing wisdom and science supports evolution. As Cirdan said - why not have alternatives for everything? Hell - let's just make it easy on all the students and just teach Adam and Eve - then we can all happily stay in the dark ages.

Whether you like it or not - science supports evolution - it does not give any evidence or proof to creationism (except people's belief). People can go to Sunday school to learn about creationism. Creationism doesn't belong in public schools - because it relies on a god and god is a belief. Would you be willing to only have Indian (Native American) creationist story? Why don't we teach the creationist story as it appears in Watership Down while we're at it - that's "Intelligent Design" in there. :p :rolleyes:

GrayMouser

06-20-2003, 01:57 PM

For increasing complexity in the fossil record;

Archaean : The first few billion years, simple one-celled organisms without a nucleus, the prokaryotic cells.

Protoerozoic: Next stage, appearances of eukaryotic one-celled organisms possessing nuclei.

Ediacarian (670 million years ago [mya] ) ; first multi-celled animals

However, it is becoming clear that the Ediacara fauna can be divided into separate assemblages, with the most diverse and disparate (variation in bodyplan) occurring at the highest (youngest) levels. So while the Ediacaran fauna tends to emerge into the taphonomic spotlight with very little fanfare, the earliest appearances have relatively low disparity.

(This is from my post on p.57, but I messed up the quote function.)

The life-forms from this period range from sponges, coelenterates, flatworms, roundworms to (maybe) molluscs and arthropods.

Then with the Cambrian comes the trilobites, brachiopods etc.

But- no chordates , much less vertebrates; no life on land.

So, yes, the fossil record has a well-established gradation from simple to more complex.

Again, the YEC fossil record should show no sorting by age- there shouldn't be a recognisable "Cambrian system" or "trilobite age/zone"

It should be impossible to take a fossil such as a trilobite and say that this came from a lower level of rock than a fish or a dinosaur or a mammoth.

The geologic column shouldn't exist- and yet it was discovered by avowed creationists decades before Darwin.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
thats about the equivalent of creation being taught as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. good anology GW :) :p

I knew as soon as I said that that it would be misinterpreted. :p

Why teach an alternative - when the prevailing wisdom and science supports evolution.

So, because the majority of scientists operate on the premise that evolution is accurate, it automatically is?

Whether you like it or not - science supports evolution - it does not give any evidence or proof to creationism (except people's belief).

Whether you like it or not - science merely provides evidence. This evidence can be used to support pretty well any belief.

People can go to Sunday school to learn about creationism.

The vast majority of people have to go the public school and have evolution shoved down their throats. If creationism were taught in schools,

Creationism doesn't belong in public schools - because it relies on a god and god is a belief.

No, it does not. There are numerous possibilities for creationism; God is the most commonly believed one, but it does not rely on a god any more than evolution relies on atheism.

Would you be willing to only have Indian (Native American) creationist story?

Certainly; it wouldn't apply to as many people, and of course I don't know which specific NA creation myth would be used to represent Native American beliefs, but I'd have no problem with it. The actual myth would just be for a bit of background, telling why creation theory is studied. But by no means would I have a problem with it, as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

maybe I'm not the intolerant "Christianity-is-the-only-belief-that-should-be-taught" bastard you thought :p

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 02:23 PM

What JD meant was would you accept a Native American myth as the be all and end all of what is being taught about Creation? Probably not. He did not mean teaching many different creation myths.

Of course creation relies on God. SOME supreme being - be it a aliens, god, gods, whatever. It is a religious belief.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
What JD meant was would you accept a Native American myth as the be all and end all of what is being taught about Creation? Probably not. He did not mean teaching many different creation myths.

As I said before:
Originally posted by "Guess Who"
as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

1) Of course creation relies on God. SOME supreme being - be it a aliens, god, gods, whatever. It is a religious belief.

Nope; it relies on a "superior" being, not supreme. Many myths believe that in creation by a lesser divinity, I believe. But as I said before, it does not rely on "a god". Many have a multideity belief. :p Seriously, there are other beliefs, such as Raelian.

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 02:30 PM

GW - its the same thing. Raelian's believe that aliens created the earth and created us in their image by cloning us. Also that the word Elohim is mistranslated and it is really the name of the alien race.

Raelians and Creationists more or less beleive the same thing, imo. The the world was created by ok "superior" being/beings.

I also said in my posts "god, gods" including multi-deity beliefs.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 02:32 PM

Indeed, you did. I was referring to jd's "a god" statement.

I disagree; I don't think it's the same thing, any more than I think that Gnostic Christian (though I think Christian Gnosticism would be more fitting) is the same thing as what mainstream Christianity believes.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
So, because the majority of scientists operate on the premise that evolution is accurate, it automatically is?

It's the most accurate at this time. There is no basis in creationism other than belief.

Whether you like it or not - science merely provides evidence. This evidence can be used to support pretty well any belief.

I guess then you can say "god created gravity because he needed to keep things on earth". Why don't we teach that in science class as an explanation for gravity? :rolleyes:

The vast majority of people have to go the public school and have evolution shoved down their throats. If creationism were taught in schools,

I wouldn't call it having it shoved down their thoat anymore than having physics, algebra or Spanish shoved down their throat. If creationism was taught in school - it wouldn't be science.

It's the PARENTS responsibilty to teach their children their beliefs if they want. Schools don't teach beliefs - they teach science and facts. All Catholic Churches have Sunday school before mass. The few years I went to public school - I went to Sunday school sometimes. Just like schools should teach sex education and condom use. If parents want their chidren to not have sex - then it is THEIR responsibilty to teach their children that. Schools should be teaching teenagers how to not get pregnant and how to prevent diseases if they decide to have sex.

No, it does not. There are numerous possibilities for creationism; God is the most commonly believed one, but it does not rely on a god any more than evolution relies on atheism.

Yes it does. Creationism - CREATED. If you have creationism then you are implying that we were CREATED. Then the question comes around - by who? Do you really believe we popped out of no where?

Certainly it wouldn't apply to as many people, and of course I don't know which specific NA creation myth would be used to represent Native American beliefs, but I'd have no problem with it. The actual myth would just be for a bit of background, telling why creation theory is studied. But by no means would I have a problem with it, as long as it was specified that there were many, many creation beliefs in the world, and this was only one; the same thing applies applies to the six-day-Adam-and-Eve myth.

Why should it though? It's not science - it's part of religion. Has nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with religious history classes - similar to WORLD history classes. I don't have a problem with religious clubs - just as long as they don't restrict it to just CHRISTIAN clubs.

maybe I'm not the intolerant "Christianity-is-the-only-belief-that-should-be-taught" bastard you thought :p
i didn't actually think YOU were - but I know from experience in Indiana - that they have no problem with prayer in school - as long as it is CHRISTIAN prayer. They don't have a problem with their beliefs being taught in school - but they don't want other religious beliefs taught in school. I'm talking from personal experience in Indiana and the midwest.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Indeed, you did. I was referring to jd's "a god" statement.

I thought you would be able to know from past posts I have made that I mean gods, god, aliens, whatever. I didn't think you would take it so literally and nitpick at it.

RÃan

06-20-2003, 03:01 PM

And here's comments on the rest of Cirdan's post...

Originally posted by Cirdan
Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes. But in that example, Cirdan, there is an intelligent designer behind the process!! Acc'd to evolutionism, there ISN'T intelligence behind the process, just chance and time. So why is that example any good in this situation? The intermediates, by def., had to be more SUCCESSFUL to be selected.

But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on. And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes. It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet. I haven't heard of this one, could you provide any details/names please?

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front? Why? Perhaps because it's FUN to populate? :D (well, I think that prob. just applies to humans) Really, I don't see any valid objection here - it certainly doesn't contradict anything, it's rather just a point of style. Why NOT just start out with a few, with lots of genetic variation built in, and let 'em go and see where you end up?

(tb continued...)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
1) It's the most accurate at this time. There is no basis in creationism other than belief.

2) I guess then you can say "god created gravity because he needed to keep things on earth". Why don't we teach that in science class as an explanation for gravity? :rolleyes:

3) I wouldn't call it having it shoved down their thoat anymore than having physics, algebra or Spanish shoved down their throat. If creationism was taught in school - it wouldn't be science.

4) It's the PARENTS responsibilty to teach their children their beliefs if they want. Schools don't teach beliefs - they teach science and facts. All Catholic Churches have Sunday school before mass. The few years I went to public school - I went to Sunday school sometimes. Just like schools should teach sex education and condom use. If parents want their chidren to not have sex - then it is THEIR responsibilty to teach their children that. Schools should be teaching teenagers how to not get pregnant and how to prevent diseases if they decide to have sex.

5) Yes it does. Creationism - CREATED. If you have creationism then you are implying that we were CREATED. Then the question comes around - by who? Do you really believe we popped out of no where?

6) Why should it though? It's not science - it's part of religion. Has nothing to do with science. I don't have a problem with religious history classes - similar to WORLD history classes. I don't have a problem with religious clubs - just as long as they don't restrict it to just CHRISTIAN clubs.

1) The most accurate of it's time? Does Truth then change and switch back and forth through time?
2) I don't know. Those teachers are majorly screwed up! :p
3) I seem to have broken off in mid-thought on this one, and have no idea what I meant (didn't even finish the sentence), so I'm going to leave this alone, since I don't even know what I meant. :p
4) And it is the school's responsibility, from my personal experience, to disparage creation belief, and tell those who believe in it that they are fools.
5) I agree. But creation does not necessitate deity.
6) I would like to respectfully submit that from my experience most atheists believe that only their beliefs should be taught in schools, and any teaching of all others are automatically invalid, simply because they do not have as many followers in respective fields, and should be relegated to nothing more than a part of culture.

This is not an attack of any sort; merely a respectful observation.

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) The most accurate of it's time? Does Truth then change and switch back and forth through time?
2) I don't know. Those teachers are majorly screwed up! :p
3) I seem to have broken off in mid-thought on this one, and have no idea what I meant (didn't even finish the sentence), so I'm going to leave this alone, since I don't even know what I meant. :p
4) And it is the school's responsibility, from my personal experience, to disparage creation belief, and tell those who believe in it that they are fools.
5) I agree. But creation does not necessitate deity.
6) I would like to respectfully submit that from my experience most atheists believe that only their beliefs should be taught in schools, and any teaching of all others are automatically invalid, simply because they do not have as many followers in respective fields, and should be relegated to nothing more than a part of culture.

This is not an attack of any sort; merely a respectful observation.

1. Truth does not change, but we do not yet know the absolute truth, thoeries change, ideas change - as is the nature of Science.
2.as would ones that would teach creation as science.
3.:p
4. sure, so be it then. the school is just provided the students with factual credible information. they do not teach beliefs. around here, schools don't really touch religion with a 20 foot pole (unless in history ... just no preaching, etc, we just learn the facts of the religions; origin, what they believe, etc). Here , schools DO NOT say that student's beliefs are not credible. There are a lot of evolutionists - and there also are many creationists which I have discussed this with in my class :) (there are well over 500 ppl in my class).
5...... yes, but same difference ;)
6.Ok - but being an atheist is not a religion. Only true things, sceintific facts, etc should be taught in schools. IMO as well, a lot of Christians WOULD NOT be satisfied with many religions taught in school.

First of all, it would invalidate their point and would cause Christians to quesiton. And if there is to be no preaching, what would be the point? Christian students would not get I guess "the full christian experience." They would be better off at Sunday school, do you not agree?

How would it be any different then a religion studies class if everything is taught simply from a historical viewpoint?

Many Christians would not want Islam taught as fact or Judiasm - (IM NOT SAYING ALL) a lot would only want THEIR views as to what is right taught.

I'm Glad that this is not you GW :)

RÃan

06-20-2003, 03:19 PM

(Responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try? I believe I said it was consistent with. IOW, it fits in w/o contradiction. It also fits in with evolutionism, of course - no disagreement there :)

That's a good point about a creator making badly-adapted species. Yay! That's what I was hoping for - intelligent discussion on points I brought up instead of just defending evolution. I like to investigate intelligent objections. I think everyone should, no matter what side they're on. That way I think we can all learn. I know I need to look into the layering issue more.

I think that extinction still fits into the model, tho, for several reasons - First, as far as specifically the Biblical model, man's sin clearly has a detrimental effect on nature. I would say that man's greediness is a big factor in many of today's extinctions, wouldn't you? Now back then, I think it could have the same effect in SOME of the extinctions.

Also I think there's a major difference in viewpoints here - the Biblical model does NOT agree with philosiphies like PETA's (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), for example, that say people are on the same level as animals (and even bugs, IIRC) - there was just an ad out recently by them that compared turkey breeding farms to Jewish prisoners in Nazi concentration camps! Well, I would disagree with that comparison - to me, turkeys are not as valuable as people. However, animals SHOULD be treated with respect and care, and abuses SHOULD be looked into and fixed, and there SHOULD be regulations in industries like that. Anyway, this is getting long, but basically, man is given the HUGE responsibility of being caretaker of the earth, and extinctions could come about as a result of many things, and that's OK in the sense of it's not on the level of PEOPLE becoming extinct. It's a loss, and man could see that it's a loss and then work to prevent another one. I'm really not expressing myself too well here - let me know if you want to talk about this more and I'll try again.

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die. I don't think that's what creationism is saying. It says (IMO) that it is reasonable to think that there is an intelligent designer behind extremely complex things. Given that, what should we expect to see in the fossil record? (note - prediction - a very important part of a scientific hypothesis, right? The ORIGINAL prediction of evolutionism relating to the fossil record was wrong, so it was changed.) And the model I think is correct is a creative act at the BEGINNING, not at random times throughout history. I don't understand what you mean by the "Is every non-conformity in the fossil record...." sentence. And I don't understand how you put the Flood and creation at the same time. Could you explain?

(tb continued)

RÃan

06-20-2003, 03:28 PM

(responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course;)), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries. If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence. I've only made ONE - that's ONE - post on evidence for creationism - as I noted before, I had to spend many pages to even GET to the point where I could make that post. I hope you won't make up your mind on the basis of one post :)

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all? Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense. It's on the same plane as what some other people have asked, roughly - Why didn't God put scientific info in the Bible? Well, why SHOULD He? The Bible is about God's incredibly powerful and holy character, and and the incredible beauty and importance of people's souls - that's what's really important - and that's why it's timeless and always applicable. Also, if you think it through, it's pretty rough on a large majority of the population. We all know how scientific knowledge increases over time - well, that of course means that, if God put some TRUE scientific info in the Bible, that people that lived before these ideas could be validated would think the Bible is wrong!

Let people discover DNA, and all the wonderful and amazing scientific FACTS, and then they can see how well it fits in with creationism. And if it doesn't fit in, then it needs to be examined further. :)

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool. I don't creationism is a tool (well, some branches are, but so are some branches of evolutionism people). And I think evolution sometimes "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way. And I think your last sentence applies more to evolutionism than creationism - punctuated equilibrium, IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here. Don't worry about being negative! I appreciate intelligent objections! And please let me present some more info - as I said above, I've only given ONE post on evidence for creationism.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed),

And let's get this straight? Your problem with evolution is that "beneficial mutations have NEVER been observed. When was the last time it was observed where an animal appeared out of nowhere?

As for it being obvserved - it takes millions of years for changes to come about. I don't see why it is so IMPROBIBLE. I find a designer and superior being more improbable.

which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on. And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes.

What is so difficult to believe about that - unless you believe in the young earth theory. Over the course of a million and billion years - things slowly change, mutations take place. The time that man has been on earth is a very tiny fraction of that time. I think on the geologic clock they describe it as the last seconds before midnight on a 24 hour time scale.

It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

I took most of Cirdan's post that he was saying that this seems to be what Intelligent Designers believe - not evolutionists.

Why? Perhaps because it's FUN to populate? :D (well, I think that prob. just applies to humans)

The enjoyment of sex is not just restricted to humans. If animals didn't feel enjoyment from sex - they wouldn't have it and they wouldn't populate. Sex is part of the very basic of brain functions and during the process release a lot of chemicals which make the brain feel enjoyment. Most "unintellient" beings - sex occurs as a result from some outside influence.

Really, I don't see any valid objection here - it certainly doesn't contradict anything, it's rather just a point of style. Why NOT just start out with a few, with lots of genetic variation built in, and let 'em go and see where you end up?

Why? If god is perfect - then wouldn't you think that he would get it right the first time? It seems as if he/she didn't know what they were doing and had to keep going back to the drawing board then. Doesn't seem to be the perfect and all knowing god as it appears in the bible. :p

RÃan

06-20-2003, 03:37 PM

NOTE - I'm going to be out of town for a week!

I'm going to have to stop at this point. I finished responding to Cirdan's post of a few days ago, and that's a good stopping point. I need to finish packing so we can enjoy the beauty of God's creation in the Arizona high desert (the stars should be INCREDIBLE!! I'll be thinking of Varda & co. :) )

I'd like to pick up with presenting more evidence for creationism when I get back, since I've only done one post so far on that topic. I hope those that said that they would consider the evidence will be patient with this week's delay and ready to start again when I get back.

Have a good week, everyone! Thanks for making this an enjoyable and stimulating discussion :) I really am so glad I found Entmoot and all the nice people on it.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea.

I see you still need god in there - even though there is NO evidence to support god. But you won't believe in evolution because it's - in your opinion - not strongly supported by evidence. :rolleyes:

But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence.

So your argument is that you find creationsim more elegant and consistent with the "nature of god"?

I've only made ONE - that's
ONE - post on evidence for creationism - as I noted before, I had to spend many pages to even GET to the point where I could make that post. I hope you won't make up your mind on the basis of one post :)

Can you please stop pussy footing around and just state your evidence on this - WITHOUT using the bible - which is complete UNscientific. Your just going on and on and on and saying that you haven't presented all your evidence. Get on with it already. I personally don't think you have any evidence- I think it's just your belief - as you stated you feel creationism is more elegant. How is that scientific?

Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense. It's on the same plane as what some other people have asked, roughly - Why didn't God put scientific info in the Bible? Well, why SHOULD He? The Bible is about God's incredibly powerful and holy character, and and the incredible beauty and importance of people's souls - that's what's really important - and that's why it's timeless and always applicable. Also, if you think it through, it's pretty rough on a large majority of the population. We all know how scientific knowledge increases over time - well, that of course means that, if God put some TRUE scientific info in the Bible, that people that lived before these ideas could be validated would think the Bible is wrong!

Oh and the bible has never been wrong about anything?

Let people discover DNA, and all the wonderful and amazing scientific FACTS, and then they can see how well it fits in with creationism. And if it doesn't fit in, then it needs to be examined further. :)

So I see - it's creationims or nothing then. if it doesn't fit then there is something wrong with the science - not something is wrong with your belief in the bible.

I don't creationism is a tool (well, some branches are, but so are some branches of evolutionism people).

How is evolution a tool. It never says whether there is or isn't a god. Creationism whole premise is that someone of intelligence HAD to creat earth and all it's inhabitants.

And I think evolution sometimes "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way.

How does it continue to "continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries...." in an unscientific way? Seems like your describing the Intelligent Design theory to me.

And I think your last sentence applies more to evolutionism than creationism - punctuated equilibrium, IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

Can you pleae provide the link so we can determine the legistmacy of this site?

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 04:28 PM

Rian, you just aren't making any sense.

Lizra

06-20-2003, 04:45 PM

This thread is whacky. :rolleyes: Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"! ;)

RÃan

06-20-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Lizra This thread is whacky. :rolleyes:
Then why in the world are you on it??

Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"! ;) Sure, if you want to. I would guess that there's lots of things you're unaware of that relate to that question.

Cirdan, GrayMouser, Earniel, Cass and Sheeana (just to name a few off the top of my head - there are others) have offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject. If posters like these want to stop, then I think we should wrap up. What's the consensus of the posters like these?

And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.

Hobbit - what part doesn't make sense? And in what way? (if you feel like getting into details - maybe you're ready to drop off the thread, I don't know...)

Earniel

06-20-2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on.

The chance on a beneficial mutations is relatively small but there's of course the time factor to be reckoned with. I don't think anywhere in the records of human history an new animal just popped into existance. And then I'm not talking about discovering it.

Also I think beneficial mutations do occur. I may be going down the wrong track here but I saw a documentary a while ago about AIDS and its simularities to the Black Plague. Some people actually became or were immune to these diseases, as were some of the their offspring. Can't that be considered as beneficial mutations? Of course that kind of mutation doesn't involve physical changes.

Have fun on your trip RÃ*an! :)

Originally posted by Lizra
This thread is whacky. Should I start a new thread..."How'd they get all those animals, plants, and everything else under the sun in the ark?" That might be "interesting"!

Heehee. :D

And suppose the couple of animals they put on the Ark can't stand eachother! :eek: I wonder if that happened to the unicorns..... :p

Lizra

06-20-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Then why in the world are you on it??

Sure, if you want to. I would guess that there's lots of things you're unaware of that relate to that question.

Cirdan, GrayMouser, Earniel, Cass and Sheeana (just to name a few off the top of my head - there are others) have offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject. If posters like these want to stop, then I think we should wrap up. What's the consensus of the posters like these?

And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.

Hobbit - what part doesn't make sense? And in what way? (if you feel like getting into details - maybe you're ready to drop off the thread, I don't know...)

I'm on it (occasionally) because it's on Entmoot, and it started out being quite interesting. I think it has become "whacky" now because after MANY excellent explanatory posts (by many different mooters) about "why evolution should be taught in school", you and Gwaimir have dug your heels in, (IMO) and are very politely talking in circles, and not making much sense. ;)

I have a feeling a Noah's ark thread might go the same way! ("Just because you believe modern science doesn't make it right") ;)

I'm sorry if I've offended you Rian, (really! I like you! ) but I only have so much tolerance for sugar coated (once again, IMO) malarky. Why should I pussy foot around! :) I may as well say what I think here too! Though I think you and Gwaimir are lovely people, and I would like to continue to be internet friends, I also think you have both plunged your heads deeply into the sand on this thread. I'm not trying to be a smart a**, but how long can a thread go on like this! Sorry, I was raised to be direct. Nothing personal intended. Enjoy your vacation. :)

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And JD - I'll post the link if (1) you share your criteria of how you evaluate a site's legitimacy, and (2) I agree that your criteria is fair and unbiased.
Why not just share it? Then we can all look at it. If I don't agree with the site - I will say and i will give reasons. No reason to state something and then refuse to provide the source - especilly if you want me to take you seriously.

HOBBIT

06-20-2003, 06:35 PM

Lizra is very correct. You are just going in circles Rian. You aren't posting anything new that we haven't already seen and can easily pick apart :p. You also are making very little sense - in almost everything you say.

There is no point in continuing this dicussion any further, i'd say.

I also completely agree that this thread is going nowhere. Rian seems to be dug in a little deeeper than GW though ;)

I also notice that you distinctly left both JD and I out of your list of ppl who "offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject," well EXCUSE ME. [jar jar]How Wuuude[/jar jar]

Its as if your mind is completely shut off to what we are saying. Have you even read the last several of my long posts? I make tons of great points and you completely ingnore them and continue on babbling. You really are making little sense - i hope you realize.

Of course you could just say that we are doing the same to you - and here we go in circles again.

How long can this topic go on like this?
EVEN LIZRA agrees :D

Thats three people in a row who have said that are making no sense - me, lizra, JD.

jerseydevil

06-20-2003, 06:46 PM

Actually the original topic of this thread was whether evolution should be taught in school. Which is easy enough to answer - YES. The question abotu creationism is all based on belief and is not science and actually isn't even part of the subject of this thread. So technically this thread is very off topic - not that I care though. We let it get off topic and it is an interesting discussion - but I haven't seen any evidence to support creationism other than belief and the "possibilty" that it might be true.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-20-2003, 08:51 PM

Now, people, I think you're being overly critical of Rian (bet that surprises you :eek: ). Firstly, she is a mother of several (three, I believe) children, and a wife. This is a full-time job. You can't expect her to be on here as much as losers like me who don't have anything better to do. :p Though of course, I have been busy lately with moving, but other than that. ;) Secondly, she has a different style of posting and "debate" than most of us. She tends to build up, to lead to something, to help others to see her point of view, whether or not they agree with it. Is this so wrong?

cassiopeia

06-20-2003, 11:29 PM

Rian: And I think your last sentence applies more to evolutionism than creationism - punctuated equilibrium, IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!
I believe I've already posted that the Paluxy footprints were thoroughly examined and the evidence was either faked or misinterpreted. No study has found evidence of human footprints with dinosaur footprints. I assume these studies were done with integrity.

We have much more to talk about in this thread. Although I believe the orginal question has been answered (anyone who believes evolution shouldn't be taught in schools is living in the dark ages), we still have much more evidence for creation to get through. There's the flood, the second law of thermodynamics, young Earth... :)

Have a nice holiday, Rian. Hope there's not too many pages to read when you return. :D

HOBBIT

06-21-2003, 01:56 AM

Don't forget the first law of therm. as well. As well as a few other arguments.

Its a noble effort Rian and I like you as a person.

But lets just face it guys, we've heard all the arguments for Creation and they don't make sense. I've done my own research on the matter and completely read through the old "Creation Science" topic. That thing is a douzy and believe me when I say that all the evidence for creation and more is in that topic.

As for the footprints thing, well by the end of the old topic everyone was in agreement that they were false - even the main person for creation (quickbeam, the guy who started the topic). It was also shown well that a great deal of creationists even view these as false. So rian, that gives you the red light to actually consider it ;) j/k

I encourage everyone to look at this site on the matter if they care about this issue:

http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm - this site is pretty interesting

that was a very good link originally posted by Juntel, a real genius - too bad he left the moot :( He was the main person refuting the "evidence" for creation and was not completely for evolution.

jerseydevil

06-21-2003, 02:25 AM

Well I figured I'd post the link for the thread from archives that Hobbit was referring to...
Creation science (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1780)

RÃan

06-21-2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I also notice that you distinctly left both JD and I out of your list of ppl who "offered polite, intelligent criticism and discussion on this subject," well EXCUSE ME. [jar jar]How Wuuude[/jar jar]

*sigh*

I just finished packing and popped on and saw your post, Hobbit.

I'll repeat what I said: "Cirdan, GrayMouser, Earniel, Cass and Sheeana (just to name a few off the top of my head - there are others)...."

I didn't have time to go back and pick out EVERYONE - I was rather rushed and behind in packing (try packing camping food for 20!) - that's why I said "off the top of my head" AND "there are others". Please don't take offense, there was none meant. :(

And I haven't ignored your posts, Hobbit - if you notice, I"m going sequentially, post by post, and treating each one seriously and thoughtfully and with respect. And that takes a long time. And I've said whenever I agree with some info that doesn't jive with creationism, either, like the layering of the fossil record.

Thanks v. much for your defense of me, Gwai. That was very nice, and it made me feel better. Perhaps it's time to stop if some permanent hard feelings are developing, altho I see that at least several of you say you still like me as a person...

Well why don't you guys all post whether you want to continue or not. As I said, I really only did one post on creationism evidence -the rest has been responses and defences and things like that. I"ll check the thread when I get back. I'd like to share more, but am willing to stop. What do the other posters here think?

I'm sad :(

I hope our trip goes well, I'm a little apprehensive - thanks for the wishes, Cass, Lizra and EÃ¤rniel (and if I missed anyone, sorry- and thanks.) I'll think of you guys when I'm at the Grand Canyon.

cassiopeia

06-21-2003, 03:14 AM

Oh, Rian, don't be sad. That makes me sad. :(

I still think we should continue this discussion. I think it's one of the best in GM. I do feel strongly about this topic, as do many others on both sides of the debate. Perhaps when we have exhausted this discussion we will have to agree to disagree, because, despite the evidence, I don't think anybody's going to change their minds. But it's fun learning new stuff, and this discussion has made me at least consider the evidence for creation.

HOBBIT

06-21-2003, 08:07 AM

ah, don't stop before you've actually posted any evidence ;)

Lizra

06-21-2003, 09:27 AM

I guess I've used all my "political correctness" up! Sorry, but that's the way I feel at this point in time, about this subject! :) I've mentioned this before on Entmoot, but one of my dad's favorite lines, repeated daily was ..."Cut the crap!" I've lightened it up to "Be real", and I just don't think the " faith" people are (being real) IMO. I still think the whole creation defense is a "grasping at straws" mindset. I'll check out HOBBITS link to the past disscussion. Sounds like a good one!

GrayMouser

06-21-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And here's comments on the rest of Cirdan's post...

But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on.

It has been observed- in fact all varieties of plants and animals used by humans derive from exactly that process. Lately , with Genetic Modification, we've been able to skip the stage of waiting for mutations and go straight to the source.

BTW, micro-evolution depends on exactly the same process. Problem for creationists who accept micro-evolution but not "macro-evolution": whati s the mechanism which prevents macro-evolution from occurring?

.And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes.

Exactly. That's a very succinct definition of Evolution by Natural Selection

GrayMouser

06-21-2003, 02:19 PM

And Rian, if you're positing a YEC scenario, could you please give a date for what you believe the age of the Earth to be.

I know some YECs push it as far back as 10,000 years (8,000 BC)
but most , including AnswersinGenesis accept approx. the 6,000 year-old-model.

Since you discount the estimates of the standard geological model, (4.5 Billion years) what's a rough (plus or minus 10 per cent ) figure?

GrayMouser

06-21-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) The most accurate of it's time? Does Truth then change and switch back and forth through time?
2) I don't know. Those teachers are majorly screwed up! :p

Reverse order reply;

2) If they're anything like the ones that tried to get me to appreciate poetry, you're absolutely right. Took me years to recover. Which is why schools should teach sex education- they'll make it so boring that abstinence will become hugely popular.

1) Scientific Truth? Of Course! That's the difference- science doesn't claim to know the the capital-T Truth. It can only judge on the best evidence presented at the time.

Anything it claims is tentative, and subject to revision, unlike the Truth provided by Revelation.

RÃan

07-01-2003, 08:34 PM

Hi guys - I'm baaaaaack! :D I thought of you all when I was at the Grand Cyn and saw fossils of trilobites! Such complex critters, those trilobites! :)

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Oh, Rian, don't be sad. That makes me sad. :(

I still think we should continue this discussion. I think it's one of the best in GM. I do feel strongly about this topic, as do many others on both sides of the debate. Perhaps when we have exhausted this discussion we will have to agree to disagree, because, despite the evidence, I don't think anybody's going to change their minds. But it's fun learning new stuff, and this discussion has made me at least consider the evidence for creation.
Cass - Thanks for both the empathy and the openness to consider the evidence I present. I'm glad you find it interesting; I know I do, too. I enjoy vigorous, logical discussion, but friendship is even more important :)

Hobbit - ok, I'll keep going :)

Lizra - Since I don't consider this "crap", I won't "cut it"! :D And it's MY opinion that evolutionists are "grasping at straws" in many areas :)

GrayMouser - (drat! I keep spelling it "grey" - is that an American vs. British thing?) The problem I see with macro ev. vs. micro ev. is HUGE - it's beneficial mutations causing increase of information - the so-called "fish to philosophers" thing. IOW, grossly (in the scientific sense of the word) improper extrapolation. Change has boundaries - when I first started typing, it was about 10 wpm; now I type at about 90 wpm (fast little sucker, ain't I?). Does that mean in another 20 years I'll type at 200 wpm, and in another 20 years I'll type at 400 wpm? No. I think there are boundaries to change.

IMO, saying macro is just "more" micro is like saying: "I can observe my hair changing from brown to gray (micro evolution), and look, I can even use hair coloring stuff to change it to magenta! (micro evolution with scientific intervention)- so therefore I think given lots of time, my hair will change into arms (macro evolution)." Iimproper extrapolation, because arms represent a gain in information, not just a change of already-present features or a mutation keeping things on the same level (ie, hair is still hair).

by GrayMouser
BTW, micro-evolution depends on exactly the same process. Problem for creationists who accept micro-evolution but not "macro-evolution": whati s the mechanism which prevents macro-evolution from occurring?
Absolutely NOT the same process, and no problem for creationists (see above).

by GrayMouser
Exactly. That's a very succinct definition of Evolution by Natural Selection
Yes, isn't it :) And that's why it's so absolutely improbable statistically. But more on that later.

Also, if you wouldn't mind terribly, I think I'll pass on the age thing for now, because it's one of the minor points to me, and I have enough to keep me busy discussing the major points!

RÃan

07-01-2003, 08:46 PM

note to self :D = comment on eye program

RÃan

07-01-2003, 11:43 PM

I was thinking about this thread over vacation, and I think because of the way I post (long! - as Gwai mentioned :) ) that it might be best if I start a new thread after all... so I think I'll start up a thread something along the lines of "Evidence for Creationism" in a few days, after we finish up here (because I'm bringing up one more topic first). I hope the people that are interested will transfer over to the new thread (unless you think we should just keep it here - what do you guys think? esp. Cass, who has said she would like to continue) We could transfer over pending questions and keep going. Opinions? Hobbit, JD, GrayMouser, Cirdan, etc. (I know Lizra wouldn't like it :) - but I still like her!)

Anyway, I thought I would wrap up here (if we DO start the new thread) by returning to the main topic - "should evolution be taught in schools?" I would answer yes, I think it should, but it is extremely important, when teaching it, to clear up some of the misconceptions floating around, in the name of maintaining scientific integrity, which any good scientist would agree is very important.

So I wanted to bring up 2 topics (possibly 3) - Kettlewell's Peppered Moths experiment, Haeckel's Embryo drawings, and possibly also the Miller-Urey experiment, because I think there's some SERIOUS integrity issues involved, especially in the first 2.

cassiopeia

07-01-2003, 11:54 PM

It would probably be best if we made a new thread, since we are OT with the original question. I think nearly everybody answered 'yes' to that question.
The thing is, lots of good points have already been made in this thread. But I'll go to the new thread if it's created.

HOBBIT

07-02-2003, 12:03 AM

A new thread would be best. Lets discuss the issues to death again.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 12:58 AM

OK, Cass and Hobbit - new thread it is! (and you don't HAVE to come, Hobbit, if it bores you to death :D)

But first - the Peppered moths!

(I wish it wasn't summer, because we don't have as good access to school textbooks now, but at least we can check EÃ¤rniel's book, if it doesn't mind :) )

The peppered moths experiment showed up in both the original section of this thread, and then the new start-up of this thread. One of my BIG objections is when people say that the peppered moths' change from mostly white to mostly black in Kettlewell's experiment PROVES evolution. I think that misconception was dealt with very well here, and I think the people that brought up the moths eventually saw that all it showed was a SELECTION between ALREADY EXISTING moth colorations. This is NOT "proving" evolution. It's demonstrating natural selection on PRE-EXISTING moth types. Neither creationists nor evolutionists have any problem with this.

Now what I DO have a problem with (once the above-mentioned misconception has been cleared up) is that there are some serious integrity issues involved in that experiment, and in the textbooks, lectures, etc. that use that experiment as an example - because the photographs commonly used to illustrate the experiment are -- STAGED/FAKED! And scientists and textbook writers have known about it for years, but have not corrected it. The pictures are either of moths that have been PLACED on the tree trunks (which is NOT their natural resting place!, and since they are noctural, they stay where they're put during the day); or even worse, sometimes the pictures have been of DEAD moths GLUED onto tree trunks.

Now how many people have seen those moth-on-tree-trunk pictures in their textbooks? I know that I certainly have.

HOBBIT

07-02-2003, 01:48 AM

I honestly don't know what you are talking about, I have never seen any moth pictures. Maybe I'll look it up later to see what you are talking about.

And because some moth pictures are fact that means that it is less likely for evolution to exist? How so? It seems to me what you are getting at is a small thing (correct me if I am wrong). There are many many more 'proofs' for evolution.

And even if some moth pictures were faked, surely not every single picture of moths to prove evolution were faked. But I really have no idea what you are refering to. Do you have any links or anything to show what you are talking about and WHY you think they were all faked?

Probably Cass can answer that better.

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 01:57 AM

Well the moths were never used to show "evolution" it was used to show natural selection - which is a PIECE of evolution. I had seen the pictures of the moths on trees - that doesn't mean anything. The example that we were given was the height of the industrial age. Whereas before the industrial age - the white moths would survive and the black mosts would be eaten my predators - during the industrial age this was reversed. During the Industrial age - buildings, trees, everything was covered in a thick black dust. This was especially true in London. White moths now showed up against the black soot and were now eaten by predators and the black moths now blended in with their surroundings.

Rian's argument about moths or anything else so far does not disprove or even put a wrench in the theory of evolution.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 02:08 AM

I'm too tired tonite to go any further, but disproving evolution was NOT my point, JD.

I'll see you guys tomorrow :)

RÃan

07-02-2003, 02:32 AM

Hobbit - I'm heading off to bed now, so I'll post some links/refs tomorrow.

I was trying to remember what year I saw the moth pictures. It was definitely in high school, but back in my time, HS was 10th thru 12th. You will prob. see the pics this coming year.

JD, did you see the moth pics in a school textbook? If so, what year, if you remember?

g'nite!

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
JD, did you see the moth pics in a school textbook? If so, what year, if you remember?

For me it would have been in 4th or the beginning of 5th grade because I remember learning about the moths in St Peters in Pt Pleasant. It was probably 4th grade though.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 03:17 PM

4th grade, huh? Well, schools are different all over the country, aren't they?!

I really can't remember exactly when I heard the moth example, but I remember those pictures vividly. I also remember the embryo drawings vividly - showing how similar embryos for different animals were. Do you remember those?

Anyone else remember the moth and/or embryo pictures?

Sheeana

07-02-2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But first - the Peppered moths!

Rian, I have no problem with the point that there are integrity problems with the peppered/birmingham moths - but where is the proof of your statement? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the moths subsisted partially on the lichen that grows on the bark. But yes - there are integrity problems with the example - science textbooks hardly ever, if at all, mention that there was a transitory/inter-mediate moth as well, that was between the black and the grey.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not sure of this, but aren't the moths nocturnal?

Ruinel

07-02-2003, 03:32 PM

JD is right. The moths were used as an example to show natural selection. Nat'l Selection is a part of the process for the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is 'change over time'.

My two cents: theory of evolution should be taught in schools. But theory of creation as taught through the christian bible should not, unless you bring the creation stories of ALL religions into the classroom. Our country (USA) has laws that govern a separation of church and state. Unless direct evidence can be provided to prove that the christian god created the universe, this world and all the life within it, it should be eliminated from the science classroom of all . :rolleyes: However, it can not be proven. That is the trouble with religions, they are based on faith in the stories. I would be just as upset if any religion's creation story was being taught in a science classroom (that I pay taxes for) as an alternative to the evidence at hand.