Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 7 questions (Originally, it was 8. However, one question asked was about the Iranian hostage crisis and that became irrelevant once the hostages were released). The following 74 blogs responded,
Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, The American Princess, The Anchoress, Annika's Journal, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Argghhhh!, AtlanticBlog, Atlas Shrugs, Bad Example, Baldilocks, The Baseball Crank, Betsy's Page, Bit's Blog, Blackfive, Black Velvet Bruce Li, Blonde Sagacity, Bluey Blog, BrothersJudd Blog, Classical Values, Cobb, Cold Fury, Conservative Grapevine, Cpl Matt Sanchez, dcthornton.com, Dispatches from Blogblivion, Ed Driscoll, Drumwaster's Rants, Eckernet, Election Projection, Euphoric Reality, Freeman Hunt, Ghost of a Flea, GOPProgress, GOPUSA Northeast, Guardian Watchblog, Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media, GayPatriot, Gocinatlanta, GraniteGrok, IMAO, In The Bullpen, INDC Journal, Iowa Voice, Keith Burgess-Jackson, JackLewis, JustOneMinute, Knowledge Is Power, Jim Miller on Politics, Moonbattery, Moxie, Musclehead Revolution, Musings, Newsbeat1, The Nose On Your Face (Buckley F. Williams), The Nose On Your Face (Potfry) Peaktalk, Damian Penny, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Professor Bainbridge, Right Thinking Girl, Don Singleton, Sister Toldjah, Small Dead Animals, Solomonia, The Squiggler, Stolen Thunder, Suitably Flip, Don Surber, Texas Rainmaker, Toys In The Attic, Viking Pundit, WILLisms, Winds Of Change
The bloggers were asked to choose one of two answers to the following questions (because some bloggers skipped particular questions, gave answers that weren't listed, or gave answers that were difficult to categorize, there are not 74 responses to each question.)
1) If Scooter Libby loses his appeal and goes to jail, do you think George Bush, before he leaves office, should pardon him?
Yes (63) -- 86%
No (10) -- 14%
2) Should George Bush ask Alberto Gonzales to resign?
Yes (13) -- 19%
No (54) -- 81%
4) If the only way to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear missiles was through air strikes, would you support that course of action or do you think we should allow the Iranians to get nuclear weapons instead?
As a last resort,
Air strikes (70) -- 97%
Nukes for the Iranians? (2) -- 3%
5) Which side do you believe is more responsible for the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
The Israelis (1) -- 1%
Palestinians? (67) -- 99%
6) Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct?
Yes (40) -- 66%
No (21) -- 34%
7) Would you support an immigration bill that allowed illegal aliens to become American citizens?
Yes (23) -- 34%
No (44) -- 66%
8) Do you think abortion should either be banned or alternately banned with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
Yes (41) -- 63%
No (24) -- 37%
|
Score:
John Hawkins | 11:01 AM |
(5)
I honestly hope the two people that seem to be willing to give the Iranians the nukes misread the bold type above. Otherwise, I would like to know who they are so I do not visit their site any more.
Posted by SirDrake
2007-04-09 08:27:21
-I'd like to know who voted for the Israelis in question 5. Did they not understand the question?
-Heh. I bet the results of question 6 will have our resident libs scratching their heads.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 08:30:48
I don't get the Libby pardon vote though. Haven't we been maintaining that perjury is a crime since Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman?
Posted by Mike_M
2007-04-09 09:04:42
All I want to know is, who's the chucklehead that blames the Israelis more than the Palestinians.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-04-09 09:12:36
April 9, 2007 9:15 AM
Well goody for him.
Personally, I'm much more interested in how he'd answer question 4, but that's just me...
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 09:19:38
John dropped a question because it was about the Iranian hostage situation and it's been resolved already so it was irrelevant. I imagine that had been question #3.
Posted by Glibertarian
2007-04-09 09:25:48
This comes up when the fans of it don't have intelligent answers for simple questions - but have plenty of insults for questioners.
Haha - It should be a major hint when they ban open DEBATE on the subject.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-09 09:33:33
Posted by Mike_M
April 9, 2007 9:04 AM |
************************
The one thing the trial established is that no two people had the same MEMORY - but LIBBY ALONE was convicted of PERJURY because no one else remembered it THE WAY HE REMEMBERED IT - but none of the others who have solitary stories not backed up by others, none of them were charged with perjury for it.
Meanwhile, the PROSECUTOR KNEW who was guilty of the leak 3 days into his investigation, AND THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT CHARGED WITH THE LEAKING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!
OH! There WAS NO "CLASSIFIED INFORMATION LEAK" - yet they still pretend that PLAME was VIOLATED - even though they ESTABLISHED it was HER OWN HUSBAND who raked her name up - WHICH WAS NOT A CRIME but it WAS A SLANDER OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - and there were no charges for SLANDERING THE ADMINISTRATION!
EVEN THOUGH THEY SLANDERED FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS.
AND LIBELED, TOO!
There has been no justice YET in either case.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-09 09:40:51
April 9, 2007 9:33 AM
I thought that it would be the libs who'd be perplexed by the response to #6. I stand corrected.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 09:53:58
Those supporting a Libby pardon after slamming Clinton for lying are complete and total hyporcrites. Period.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 10:02:00
If nothing else, the Libby trial has finally gotten liberals to admit that Clinton was not impeached for "having an affair"; and for them to admit that perjury is actually a crime.
Or do you still believe that "everybody lies about sex", Tom?
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 10:05:59
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 10:09:52
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
April 9, 2007 9:53 AM |
Morning, GOB.
Not sure I get your question. 1 out of 3 conservatives who responded do not believe in evolution. That's a pretty good percentage, IMO.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-09 10:14:49
Can't answer a simple question, huh Tom. Imagine my surprise.
Let me make this clear. Anyone who repeatedly told us that Clinton was impeached for having an affair and thinks everyone lies about sex, yet wants "Scooter" Libby to rot in jail is a hypocrite.
Ready to answer my question yet?
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 10:15:51
If Bush pardons him? Fine; that is a President's right and privilege. If he doesn't? Well, its still not a big deal to me.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 10:16:24
I would also say that the perctange of the population who lie about sex is greater than that of conservatives who believe in evolution.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 10:20:14
So Stan, your turn. Do you support a pardon for Libby?
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 10:22:21
April 9, 2007 10:14 AM
Good morning, Robert.
That comment was directed more towards the troll variety of liberal posters. You know, the ones who swear up and down that all conservatives are Evangelical Christians bent on establishing an American Theocracy. I thought that they might be surprised, if not downright shocked, by the results of #6.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 10:23:03
But do you understand that the charge of hypocrisy goes both ways?
You charge Conservatives with hypocrisy because some want Libby pardoned, while they wanted Clinton impeached. Fair enough. But you also have to accept that many on the Left that are now crowing about the Libby conviction were dismissing Clinton's perjury as a witch hunt and just lying about sex. They are at least as much hypocrites as those on the Right you so casually denegrate. Do you have any words of condemnation for them, since you claim not to be one of them?
And for full disclosure, I think Libby's conviction will be overturned on appeal, with little to no news coverage. And if it is not, President Bush should not pardon him. The damage the pardon would do to his reputation would surpass Clinton's bought-and-paid-for pardon of Marc Rich.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 10:29:21
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
April 9, 2007 10:23 AM |
I see. You were pointing out the high percentage who believe in evolution.
Wonder how one figures out the sampling error of 72 self-selected respondents out of 240 specifically targetted interviewees. Should have paid more attention in statistics 101.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-09 10:30:31
April 9, 2007 10:23 AM |
Even more shocking: If you look closely at the numbers, you will see that among the conservative bloggers polled, the pro-choicers outnumber the anti-Darwinists.
Posted by President_Friedman
2007-04-09 10:32:11
Since you put it that way... I guess I should've also. ;)
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 10:35:13
#7 also a mushy middle question because there are a lot of ifs, ands and buts.
Posted by Trogdor
2007-04-09 10:44:20
That is indeed surprising, PF. That was also a good catch on your part; I hadn't noticed until you pointed it out.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 10:51:29
Posted by Trogdor
2007-04-09 11:17:29
The Dark Lord Rove will hear about this. His justice will be swift and harsh!
{/sarcasm off}
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 11:27:00
April 9, 2007 11:27 AM |
I agree wholeheartedly, Stan. You won't find a poll of liberal bloggers where close to 40% of them break w/ the party line on abortion. It is one of the things I like about conservatives, they tend to come in more flavors than liberals. However, it is also the Achilles Heel of the conservative movement: all this disgreement makes it difficult to move forward with solidarity on a lot of important issues. Libertarians are a lot worse off in this regard (and the libertarian element, myself included, contribute to a lot of this in the Republican Party) but it certainly seems to effect conservatives more than it does liberals.
Posted by President_Friedman
2007-04-09 11:52:10
What I find really sad about this is here we have an election that John Kerry could win.
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 12:07:33
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-04-09 12:10:04
April 9, 2007 12:07 PM
As bad as Kerry wants to be President of a country, I'm surprized that he he is not running for Chicken-In-Chief of France. After all he does have family that lives there, and I'm sure they would love to have a relative in charge over there.
Posted by lumberjack7393
2007-04-09 12:13:21
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 12:32:48
And the Swift Boater ads would actually help him!
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-09 13:02:12
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 13:03:50
The conservatives are at work and the liberals are still sleeping off their ham and chocolate bunnies.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-09 13:04:45
Kerry also hates American troops, that would be a definite vote grabber.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-09 13:08:48
And he could name Mumia as his running mate.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 13:13:08
April 9, 2007 1:04 PM
Mmmmmm, chocolate bunnies....
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-04-09 13:13:19
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 13:27:35
Maybe those with half a mind really did vacate these parts?
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 13:58:40
2) No.
3) [gone missing]
4) Air strikes.
5) This is an irrelevent question.
6) Yes.
7) Mostly no, but I think it's OK in some circumstances.
8) No.
It also astonishes me that 1/3 of this sample, which is presumably full of reasoned, educated people, do not believe in evolution.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 14:05:33
Many reasoned, educated people choose not to "believe" in evolution. They put their faith in greater things, and not a supposed "scientific fact" that requires as much, if not more faith to believe in.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 14:11:20
Posted by FairMindedLefty
April 9, 2007 2:05 PM |
Maybe that's because. as posted above, Macro or Darwian Evololution is an unverified THEORY with lots of holes in the scientific record.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-04-09 14:13:15
You could get the same results if you polled the left about hygiene.
I happen to believe in evolution. Why would my belief in an all powerful G-d stop me from believing he could come up with evolution too? Back when I was in school, they called it the "Theory of Evolution". Can you point out to me when it became the "Fact of Evolution"?
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 14:16:30
Why do you find this irrelevent? The entire Muslim world believes that a few million Jews living on less than 1% of the land in the middle east is the source of all evil in the world. A specific ex-President agree with this view. Does it become irrelevent in your world because many on the right happen to believe that Israel has a right to exist in peace when you know the exact opposite to be your firmly held belief?
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 14:24:12
That what is at issue here, BIG.
No one talks about a "belief" in gravity, or photosynthesis, or bacis math. They are provable scientific fact. I have no problem with evolution being taught as a theory, one of many as to how life began and changed. Where my opposition comes in is the zealous nature of the disciples of Darwinism. It is fact because they say so, and no opposition is allowed or will be tolerated.
People "believe" in religion, not science. I don't "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4, I *KNOW* that.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 14:25:04
This attitude severely misrepresents what "theory" means. It's only a "Theory of Gravitation" also, but I don't think anybody denies gravity who wouldn't be laughed out of a room/forum. The term "theory" just means that it's a model with supporting evidence/tests that fits known facts (like "when I drop a pencil, it falls to my desk" is a fact that the Theory of Graviation explains).
Theories don't get "promoted" to being facts once there is "enough" evidence supporting them.
The goal is peaceful coexistant. Who is "more responsible" for this is irrelevent to achieving peaceful coexistance, and hence the question is irrelevent. I am not sufficiently educated on the issue to make a judgement, anyway.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 14:35:33
Do you have any proof that the PLO-Arabs want peaceful coexistance or do you just elevate this theory into a know fact? They have repeatedly turned down peaceful coexistance so many times that I would think that even to you it is a known fact that all they want is the complete ethnic cleansing of the land of Jews. Ample evidence of this fact is available to all. Look at Gaza. After Gaza had been ethnically cleansed of each and every Jew, the PLO-Arabs instead of living in peace, started firing rockets over the border at Jews.
I would think you would believe that daily attacks by the PLO-Arabs against Israelis would be enough to put an end to the theory that Arabs want peace in the region. How can you even view the facts of evolution as being settled when in your own mind, those firing rockets at innocent people is a fact you place into the category of wanting to live in peace???
Posted by BIG
2007-04-09 14:54:07
If you think the Muslims are interested in peaceful coexistance with Jews, you really do need to do some studying up on this topic.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-09 15:00:38
True enough. There's far too many people who interpret 'theory' as 'scientifically proven', rather than 'best explanation with the evidence on hand'.
If you want to see some really insane stuff, read up on Einstein's theories of relativity, or even quantum mechanics and theory. Evolution is small beans compared to quantum theory, and even Einstein himself admitted his theories had flaws (which they're still trying to resolve today).
As I move, time slows down, and I become more massive? Wtf...
--TR
Posted by Toastrider
2007-04-09 15:08:20
I've told many people, "If the word 'theory' means 'complete crap,' then I invite you to disprove the theory of gravity by walking out your window." No takers... so far.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 15:33:10
Except that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nothing at all. It's just the best scientific model so far to explain the mechanism by which species slowly change in response to their environment.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 15:39:30
Wrong, theories that get proven become laws, hence Newton's LAWS OF GRATIVITY, vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-04-09 15:51:28
This is exactly right. Too damn many people suppose that "theory" means nothing more than "educated guess". That may be what it means to laymen in popular usage. That is NOT what it means in the field of science. Something can be both a theory AND a fact.
Something else people should consider: you cannot prove a scientific theory.
Science is not about "proof". That may surprise people to hear, but it is true. Final "proof" is not really possible in science. Science is about empirical accuracy of predictions generated by a model (AKA theory). That is how science works; you cannot PROVE a scientific theory; you can only fail to show that its predictions are in line with observation.
Theories are the best explanations we have to explain given sets of facts. When a new theory explains things better than a previous one, the old theory is overturned (usually not completely; modified might be a better word). Newtonian kinematics was accepted for more than a hundred years only to be overturned by Einsteinian relativism. How could that be possible, if Newtonian physics had ever been "proven"?
Newtonian physics was NEVER "proven". Like all accepted scientific theories, it was only shown to produce highly accurate predictions. When Einstein came along and produced even more accurate predictions, Newtonian physics was overruled. Einstein's theories of relativity have never been "proven" either; they have only been shown to produce very accurate predictions.
People ought to learn a little bit about science before ignorantly dismissing scientific theories.
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-09 16:01:01
Not sure I get your question. 1 out of 3 conservatives who responded do not believe in evolution. That's a pretty good percentage, IMO.
Posted by robert_miller
April 9, 2007 10:14 AM |
**************************
Not where I live - where even the school teachers do not believe in evolution.
Yeah, they were all taught it in the big city colleges, but they only have to pass the exams, they don't have to swallow the kool-aid, there.
As long as their goal in life isn't to stay on the campus as interns and professors the rest of their days.
Of course, they don't have vested interests in the LIFESTYLE of choice of evolutionists. But they are simple countryfolks who understand, you cannot plant a seed of corn and get a fish out of it. or a monkey, either.
And they know that a "simple" amoeba is a lot more complicated than a human colony on mars would have to be.
And that adding hundreds of thousands of years, or millions, or even billions, to the "accidental" recipes just isn't going to add the essential "Breath of Life".
Posted by Rose
2007-04-09 16:12:34
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science." http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
This is the best breakdown of theory vs, Law, I found quickly. But I have one question? What laws were used as the foundation for the Theory of Evolution?
Posted by bthewolf
2007-04-09 16:25:11
Posted by CavalierX
April 9, 2007 3:33 PM |
*************************
But there is a world of evidence regarding Gravity that just simply is not there for Evolution.
For instance, Darwin said if the Missing Links don't begin to surface as archeological finds increase, then so mething is t rag icly wrong with the Theory.
25 years ago, the British museum had 7 MILLION fossils - NOT ONE SINGLE missing l ink, let alone THE missing link between humans and monkeys or apes, et.
Now the world's collections of fossils numbers in the billions, and the only missing links have been discredited through modern forensic methods, whic h shoed one fossil to be a pig's tooth, another skull to be part human/part ape, filed and stained and fitted together, etc etc etc.
So this is STILL merely theory - as in the wild speculation definition of the word.
Different than GRAVITY.
And GRAVITY and one's willingness to jump out of windows without LSD is NO aggregate addition to the school of thought on Evolution.
Meanwhile, statistical, mathematical calculations as to the estimated time of Noah's flood, and the known qualification of that Biblical "Theory" of a time 5 thousand years ago of 3 mating, fertile, couples to begin the repopulation of a devastated earth, which adds in known relevant information about plagues and wars, etc, arrives at a realistic estimation of earth's human population not far different than the reality.
Some can say they met their intended goal - but the calculations are available for others to review - unlike many Evolutionist's postulations.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-09 16:27:25
What an absurd statement, Rose. Have you ever been to a natural history museum? Have you ever looked at the fossil record on display? The relationship of animals from one species to another throughout time is clearly visible. But you chose to ignore evidence that can be observed with your own eyes, instead citing "statistical" and "mathematical" "calculations" of the time of Noah's flood. Can you please provide a link to this evidence? I would love to see it.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 16:42:02
April 9, 2007 4:42 PM |
Show me the missing links between ANY two species!
Posted by bthewolf
2007-04-09 16:48:41
Gravity and evolution are both just theories. 2+2=4 is a fact, but it's also merely applying abstract concepts that can logically be proven from the definition. Gravity and evolution cannot be proven. There are merely models that explain behavior that are consitent with known facts.
I have no problem with non-Darwininan theories being taught in classrooms, so long as they are reasonably falsifiable. However, the only other theories I have seen come down to "God did it" (e.g. creationism and intelligent design), which is not falsifiable, and is not scientific, and therefore has no place in a science classroom. I will agree though, that Darwinists can be too aggressive in defending it.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 16:49:38
First, as has already been stated, it is not referred to as the Theory of Gravity, it is the Law of Gravity.
Second, if ID does not belong in the classroom, as it is not "scientific", then neither does evolution, which is unproved and unprovable. Both theories require faith. The difference is that one theory admits it requires faith, the other theory demands to be recognized as settled scientific fact.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 16:57:57
The concepts are very different. Evolution is falsifiable. For example, if it could be shown that a species spontaneously existed without evolution, then evolution would be disproven. It's not provable, but it's capable of being *disproven*. However, there is no way to demonstrate evidence FOR or AGAINST the existance of an intelligent designer. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory. It's using Judeo-Christian religious beliefs disguised as science by using scientific terms to describe them.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 17:04:49
"Missing link" is a term for a transitional form from the fossil record that connects two different species to an earlier ancestor. The missing link may have features common to both species; for example an early avian fossil could have feathers much like a modern bird but still retain the bony tail and teeth of a dinosaur. This would be considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds.
The missing link is a popular and not a scientific concept. Scientists studying the fossil record have long known that not every species that lived was 'lucky' enough to leave behind a fossil. More importantly, populations are constantly changing and species are statistical constructs and not ideal-types; therefore, there is not scientific meaning to the notion of a "transitional form."
This being said, a number of fossils exist that do indicate a link between earlier and later forms of animal. The lobe-finned fish Eusthenopteron is thought to be the first step towards land-dwelling amphibians; fossils of feathered dinosaurs in China seem to indicate that feathers were commonplace even before true birds evolved; and recently reexamined fossils of some amphibians have shown that some bones of these animals bear striking resemblances to those of fish.
To repeat: "Missing Links" are not a scientific concept. Just like Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-04-09 17:08:21
That's very funny, as I here often from your side of the deabte that the "fact" of evolution disproves ID.
And you can apply the same standard of Falsifiability to ID. If you can prove transitional creatures (the "missing link" if you will), would that not disprove ID?
Again, both are theories, neither have been proven, both require faith.
Posted by StanW
2007-04-09 17:08:58
Again...there's nothing mutually exclusive about creationism and evolution unless you happen to be in the tiny fringe minority that believes in Young Earth Creationism.
Heck, read between the lines a little and the Book of Genesis more or less explains the evolutionary process (plants, animals, people, in that order) and was written 3000 years before Darwin named his boat after a dog.
There's a buttload of stuff evolution can't even begin to explain as well (consiousness/the soul, the actual origin of life) so even the most religious don't need to get that bent out of shape about it. Example: did life on earth originate from proteiny water getting struck by lightning, seeded from an extraterrestrial source, or by God snapping his fingers? Science can give no definitive answer.
So relax. The only thing the militant Darwinists have is more questions about things they don't understand and can't comprehend.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-04-09 17:09:29
How would one show that a species "spontaneously existed without evolution" in order to disprove evolution?
Sure there is. Irreducible complexity is a concept that scientifically addresses the need for an intelligent designer.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-09 17:14:40
Posted by bjlillo
April 9, 2007 5:14 PM |
Ooops, now you've gone and done it, BJ!
Posted by bthewolf
2007-04-09 17:16:45
Posted by bthewolf
April 9, 2007 4:48 PM
Glad to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...aq-transitional.html
There a list of transitional forms for a very wide array of species.
Part I contains the following:
Introduction:
Types of transitions
Why are there gaps?
Predictions of creationism & evolution
What's in this FAQ
Timescale
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds
Overview of the Cenozoic
And a part II that covers transitional forms among mammals:
Primates
Bats
Carnivores
Rodents
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
Elephants
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
Conclusion:
A bit of historical background
The major features of the fossil record
Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
The main point.
References
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-09 17:29:09
6) Yes, but it is incomplete and covers only how species evolve must of the time, and neither covers the full mechanism, nor how species are created; 7) No; 8) Yes.
Posted by mannning2
2007-04-09 17:35:24
Is that what they're calling it now?
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-09 17:36:40
If one suddenly came into existance tomorrow, for example. Or, more simply, if over a long period of time we note that species never migrate into other species.
Complexity is not really evidence of an intelligent designer. Several complex things exist that were not designed. See a beautiful waterfall system, or arrangement of rocks in arches, or Mammoth Cave.
Also, saying an intelligent designer must have created humans suffers from the infinitely cascading problem.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 17:43:14
Also, saying an intelligent designer must have created humans suffers from the infinitely cascading problem.
Posted by FairMindedLefty
April 9, 2007 5:43 PM |
An infinite God presumbly could deal with that. PLEASE, leave theology to the professionals and be respectful of other's point of view.
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 17:57:54
Neither of these things are observable. If one just came into existence tomorrow, how would we know it hadn't just been discovered? As for the "long period of time", we're talking millions of years.
Do you have something more concrete that could disprove evolution or is it now by your own definition, not science?
Complexity isn't the question, irreducible complexity is. You have multiple traits that occur in animals which by themselves do no good, but if you believe they evolved, either all of those traits had to show up in one generation, or the species had some sort of plan in mind as the traits developed independantly over time.
I'm not familiar with this problem, care to shed some light on it for me?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-09 17:58:00
If you don't choose to, fine. I never understood the atheist need to convert, so to speak, though... even back when I thought that I was an atheist. (I thought so, until I opened my eyes to the wealth of the intellectual thought that ranges far, far beyond the silly caricatures of religion that most atheists attack)
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 18:02:07
Posted by bjlillo
April 9, 2007 5:58 PM |
The proposition that in order for an intelligent designer to exist, someone had to design him. Either that or intelligent design can spring out of nothingness.
If it can spring out of nothingness, then there is no need for an intelligent designer to create the universe.
If intelligent design needs a designer, then the designer needs an intelligent designer, and backwards toward infinity.
Hope that made sense.
Posted by robertmiller
2007-04-09 18:15:20
I can't find a reference to that phrase, but I'm guessing you mean the problem of who created the creator and so on.
Modern physics takes care of that. Particles or complex energy patterns (same thing) can spontaneously form or dissipate in space. Considering the near infinate amount of energy in the universe (especially around the Big Bang), it's not much of a stretch to imagine that an intelligent consiousness was created from the surrounding energy (no more far fetched than saying life sprung up from a mud puddle anyways). Spontaneous creation solves the problem of a cascading who-made-who scenario.
Quantum physics actually makes the concept of an intelligent designer much more realistic and probable than was possible under classical physical concepts.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-04-09 18:18:58
It made sense, thanks. When the Creator is eternal though, that doesn't really have any bearing on the topic.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-09 18:21:08
Yes (40) -- 66%
No (21) -- 34%
Well, 1 out of 8 reasonable answers. Whewww.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 18:25:36
Posted by Mike_M
April 9, 2007 6:18 PM |
Ahhh....a soulmate. I've thought so myself.
It made sense, thanks. When the Creator is eternal though, that doesn't really have any bearing on the topic.
Posted by bjlillo
April 9, 2007 6:21 PM |
True. It's a philosophical game.
Posted by robertmiller
2007-04-09 18:29:20
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-09 18:32:10
I did not say God doesn't exist, merely that a particular argument does not indicate He exists. I am an atheist, but have no particular desire to enforce my views on others. (Though I do want to keep theistic views out of science classrooms.)
Posted by FairMindedLefty
2007-04-09 18:42:57
I'm willing to believe anything science offers with regards to either ID or Evolution. But from all I have read - and I've read a lot - ID is merely a mask for creationism. Evolution, on the other hand, has a better grasp of science and verifiable fact.
Now that doesn't mean that God did or did not play a part. Evolution does not answer that. Nor does it even attempt to answer that. Evolution is not an 'atheistic' theory. It is a theory based on observations by biologists, geologists and various other people in the scientific profession. Some of those scientists believe in God. God may have indeed chosed evolution to be the way life on earth proceeds.
It certainly is more elegant a theory than the 'poof' we are all suddenly here in our present form theory.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 18:44:10
But, for those that believe we sprang out of a bunch of primordial gases, at what point did our consciousness take hold? And why is the concept of irreducibile complexity ignored? I think bjillo mentioned that. It's solid mathematics, and it essentially proves that evolution is false better than anything that scientists try to say proves it to be true.
For the person that thinks there are links between species, "Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship." Simple as that.
"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." - Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History
Posted by Trogdor
2007-04-09 18:51:00
In fact, spontaneous generation was disproven hundreds of years ago, and the only other option is supernatural creation. However, that implicates you into believing something entirely different from what you WANT to beleive, because of fear.
Look, non-believers are rightfully fearful of the future. Global Warming - oh my! Over Population - oh my! Extinction of animals - bummer! They latch onto the "Scientific" religion of evolution because they can call it science, because non-believing scientists thought it up. But it is a religion.
Believers in God have faith. And that neutralizes the fear. Faith is the opposite of fear.
Posted by Trogdor
2007-04-09 19:00:16
Posted by Trogdor
2007-04-09 19:04:46
It's solid mathematics
What is solid mathematics?
You are simply saying Evolution cannot be. But you don't have a scientific answer to back up that claim.
You are saying that the complexity of the world is too much for mere evolution to complete. Why? Why must there be any design or any meaning?
There is no reason to believe that 'Irreducible complexity' could not have arisen without an intelligent designer.
And one should note that 'Irreducible complexity' is not an argument that evolution does not occur, but rather an argument that it is "incomplete".
That's why biologists continue to work on the issues of evolution.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 19:13:18
April 9, 2007 4:27 PM |
Rose, is it possible to get some kind of explanation from you as to how you arrive at these conclusions? I'm sorry but I not sure that 'Christianity' gets the 'good science' award. I mean, it wasn't such a stupendously long time ago that the church was persecuting the very people who came up with what is now recognised as scientific fact (or at least very solid theory) and whose theories you use to justify your own Bible. That and the fact the church was also telling people that the sun revolved around the earth, and that angels pushed the stars around.
Posted by scalt
2007-04-09 19:24:27
Science properly done and understood isn't a religion, but some people treat science as a religion.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 19:35:12
I have to say the 'fear' quip goes the other way.
I am not an atheist. I am open to many arguments. But you have to have some tests to prove your theory. You cannot use the 'God of the gaps' theory just because no one was around 500 billion years ago to verify the start of life.
I cannot give you a verifiable answer about the start of life. But that does not disprove evolution. That merely sets up a task that needs to be solved.
It seems to me that creationists are the ones who have the 'fear' because they fear that evolution somehow nullifies God and religion.
I'm here to tell you that it does not unless you believe that every [translated] word of the Bible is literally true.
Many Christians do not. But that does not lessen their faith. The Bible does not need to be literally true in order for someone's faith to be genuine. Evolution can exist in a world with God.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 19:52:14
It seems to me that creationists are the ones who have the 'fear' because they fear that evolution somehow nullifies God and religion.
I'm here to tell you that it does not unless you believe that every [translated] word of the Bible is literally true.
Many Christians do not. But that does not lessen their faith. The Bible does not need to be literally true in order for someone's faith to be genuine. Evolution can exist in a world with God.
Posted by Left_Turn
April 9, 2007 7:52 PM |
So you are one of those who believe lightning struck pond scum and a human walked out. OK.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 19:58:13
Posted by Left_Turn
April 9, 2007 6:44 PM |
Lightning + pond scum= a human being. Pretty elegant, if you ask me.
wink wink
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 19:59:38
wink wink
Posted by Dick_Nixon
April 9, 2007 7:59 PM |"
Well, 3 billion years later, yeah.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-04-09 20:10:14
God is smarter than we are.
And has a great sense of humor.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-04-09 20:11:36
What the heck are you talking about? It's pretty clear that you have not actually read a book on evolution. Or maybe you watch too many Simpson's episodes?
No scientist claims a man walked out of a pond after lighting struck.
Science embraced a theory this is exactly not a theory of man instantly walking the earth after a lightening storm. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. A lot can happen in that time.
[However, just to indulge your 'wink wink' let me remind you that can go from being a zygote to a full fledged baby in a mere 9 months - so the idea of a single celled organism becoming a man in a few hundred million years doesn't seem so odd].
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 20:13:17
A really uncomfortable thought for some, but that face just can't be denied!
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 20:19:58
Posted by Left_Turn
April 9, 2007 8:13 PM
I don't watch the Simpsons. And the idea of lightning striking pond scum and a human walking out, if you want to believe it, go ahead. Wahtever floats your boat.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 20:20:35
April 9, 2007 8:13 PM
I appreciate your reasonable tone.
Bear in mind, though, that the quesiton of evolution, really, is only tangentally related to the issue of God's existence. Quite a few Christians think that evolution is not at all incompatible with His existence. If he chose to so (intelligently) order the universe that the laws of physics led inexorably to life, evolution, and mankind... who are we to question His wisdom in doing so?
Remember, physicists believe that at the exact moment of the Big Bang, the Laws of Physics that WE know were fixed... in other words, they could have been utterly different - one and one could have very well equaled three, in other words.
So science doesn't threaten my faith in the least, but neither do I look to it to confirm it, either. Two different things.
My approach to the subject of God rests on moral grounds - that life is good, that the Universe's existence is positively good in an absolute moral sense... and that such a judgment can only be grounded in the existence of a God that willed it to existence because in His eyes, existence is morally superior to non-existence. That is the essence of His pronouncement, in Genesist, that He saw "it was very good" indeed.
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 20:35:23
I hate to take LT's side in this... I mean, I REALLY hate it... really really to the depths of my being hate it... but he's right. The theory doesn't say that lighting struck a pond of scum and a person walked out. That's a strawman.
Posted by EvilOtto
2007-04-09 20:37:45
Yeah the only issue that makes it tough to reconcile evolution with God is the concept of natural selection.
This idea has made many into atheists or at least agnostics.
But who's to really know at this point?
One could just let the mystery be. But scientists have an insatiable curiosity. And, ultimately, I think we are better for that so long at science does not purposely try to refute faith.
Thanks EvilOtto
I knew you weren't a "pond scum + lightning = man" kind of guy.
Posted by Left_Turn
2007-04-09 21:04:35
1) If Scooter Libby loses his appeal and goes to jail, do you think George Bush, before he leaves office, should pardon him?
No, if he lied under oath, he should pay a price.
2) Should George Bush ask Alberto Gonzales to resign?
No, but I wasn't a fan of Gonzales to begin with so if he resigned and someone better stepped in (read: someone interested in enforcing the law) I would welcome it.
4) If the only way to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear missiles was through air strikes, would you support that course of action or do you think we should allow the Iranians to get nuclear weapons instead?
Air Strikes
5) Which side do you believe is more responsible for the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
None of the above. Look outside the area.
6) Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct?
Parts of it, yes.
7) Would you support an immigration bill that allowed illegal aliens to become American citizens?
No, but I do support temporary guest workers.
8) Do you think abortion should either be banned or alternately banned with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother?
In no circumstances except the life of the mother.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 21:05:49
I knew you weren't a "pond scum + lightning = man" kind of guy.
Posted by Left_Turn
April 9, 2007 9:04 PM |
I am. Your theory is just that, a theory. When things are facts, they are not called a theory.
Sorry Otto, no strawman. The odds on lightning hitting some tidal pools full of random chemicals and causing life to come from nothing, then said life eveolving to a human is around a billion to one. The odds, I read somewhere, that a Deity created life was around 8000 to one. I'll play the odds, as I see them. Lefty, no need to try and change my mind. I'll go with my view, til proven wrong. Which hasn't happened yet.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 21:14:57
On the other hand, you have to pity anyone stuck in the Liberal version of a particularly hellish sort of purgatory: having to kowtow to no less an abject racist than "the Reverend" Al Sharpton, he of Tawana Brawley infamy, for his racial offense is the closest thing we have today to the sort of purging one Holy Roman Emperor had to endure after his excommunication by the Pope over some political spat: whipped in public.
I keep thinking that Imus's best comeback would have been: "Listen, all I did was paraphrase a "Rap Artist's" lyrics about Ho's, OK?!"
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 21:18:45
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-09 21:20:27
Posted by CoolCzech
April 9, 2007 9:20 PM |
There is no racism on the left. Oh wait........
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 21:22:05
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 21:22:33
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 21:27:46
It's actually "Hoist from his own petard"
The Petard is an archaic shaped charge, a metallic object packed with gunpowder (shaped like a bell in most cases) and used to blow a hole in a wall or gate. I don't know where the origin is, but Shakespeare uses it in Hamlet:
‘Tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard.
Act 3, Scene 4
It basically means "you blew yourself up with your own bomb."
And thank you Cav, there are theories that relate to evolution about origins of life, but evolution is about the origins of species. It is, however, to do with the existence of God if you ask guys like Richard "intellectually fulfilled atheist" Dawkins.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 21:28:30
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 21:30:06
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Are you saying that all the creatures on Earth at this moment have always been exactly as they are now from the very beginning, and have never, ever changed?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 21:32:47
That's not an inability; it's a completely different set of questions. Evolution deals exclusively with the question of creatures slowly changing in order to better survive in their respective environments. That's it. Nothing more.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 21:35:37
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 21:38:41
You want to discuss philosphy, I'm game. But evolution is strictly science. One could, I suppose, construct an argument that morality is a function of self-awareness, which in turn grew out of our our increasing intelligence, which was in itself a survival trait selected for over and over again during the course of our evolution. But it's still a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 21:42:38
Actually, I've never met an evolutionary scientist who wouldn't have answered your questions by saying, "the philosophy department is down the hall." I don't think that qualifies as ripping one's hair out.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 21:44:56
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
April 9, 2007 9:30 PM
Our superior capacity for abstract thought is not that difficult to explain, given our more specialized and highly evolved brains; morality is not at all difficult to explain given our nature are social creatures who are adapted to live in societies and to cooperate with each other for the success and mutual benefit of the group; and as for the soul... where is your proof that such a thing even exists?
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-09 21:56:23
If evolution cannot even begin to answer this, then there's something else at work at the very least. You can't simply shrug at the parts that are tough to deal with, Cav.
And the fact that you're unfamiliar with the efforts along this line is surprising considering your family. This has been an area of work and scientific endeavor for quite a while.
Irish, while I appreciate your position, you are actually wrong about odds. You are starting a priori with an assumption: "we're here so the odds must have worked." You have to step back and stop presuming that its true to really analyze a theory.
If the odds are monumentally, astronomically against something happening, then you can't shrug and figure the theory is sound anyway - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That's a pretty basic principle of science. I could claim the moon is made of marshmellows, but nobody would believe me if I didn't have some pretty compelling proof. Nobody would even listen to me without some amazing evidence.
This is one of the major flaws of the catastrophic global hysterics: they are making extraordinary claims with no evidence, let alone proof. Simply insisting on the cautionary principle is absurd. I could caution people that the moon is going to crash into the earth and kill us all, but that does not somehow negate the burden of extraordinary proof that lies on me.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 22:00:16
Miracles and supernatural events are extraordinary, and thus to prove them, you must have extraordinary evidence, but the unlikelihood is no disproof.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-09 22:03:01
Unfortunately, evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life or the existence of the soul. Nothing. So you can't call it a flaw in evolutionary theory any more than you can attack quantum physics for not being able to explain why O.J. Simpson wrote his book.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 22:10:11
Actually, it's not. Only certain branches of ID have anything to do with religion, and unless you consider outside intelligence "god" the two aren't dependent on one another.
I'm no expert but there's certainly evidence out there for ID. Just one example is "phi" or the Golden Ratio...found in everything from celestial mechanics to sea creatures. Why does nature seem to "favor" this number? Why does it keep showing up in totally unrelated natural constructions? Even if that's not support for a Christian God, it's certainly conspicuous and is more of an argument for a controlling intelligence than not.
But as has been said before, I'm not arguing for creationism over evolution. I believe in both and can see no dealbreaking contradictions or exclusions. I also happen to think that belief in only things that you can prove or see proof of as true is bunk. Nobody lives that way, and everybody has assumptions or irrational beliefs that they live with and rely on every day. After all, who says you can believe the scientist? Considering how human knowledge and perception has changed and will change over time, odds are some of today's most dearly held scientific beliefs are dead wrong.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-04-09 22:16:14
I don't entirely agree. Our consiousness (or "soul") is an integral, identifiable part of what makes a human being. Would we excuse evolution if it could not explain the heart or brain?
Our ability to think, self-identify, and improve our methods of communication came from *somewhere*, right? *Something* ought to be able to explain where they came from, right? Unless you think we're no different from a pine tree or earthworm, it's a legitimate question that should be and should be able to be answered.
Perhaps our perception just isn't good enough to detect it yet...or perhaps it's evidence of God. Either way it's a giant question mark sitting right on top of the theory of evolution.
Posted by Mike_M
2007-04-09 22:25:30
Posted by CavalierX
April 9, 2007 10:12 PM |
You mean it doesn't? LOL
Lets agree to keep our beliefs to ourselves. You do agree that the liberals in this country are the root of all evil, don't you?
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2007-04-09 22:25:32
If the odds are monumentally, astronomically against something happening, then you can't shrug and figure the theory is sound anyway - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That's a pretty basic principle of science. I could claim the moon is made of marshmellows, but nobody would believe me if I didn't have some pretty compelling proof. Nobody would even listen to me without some amazing evidence."
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
April 9, 2007 10:00 PM
In the first place, when you are looking at the situation from hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of years after the event, with AT BEST incredibly incomplete information to go on, you can't be so certain you've calculated the odds that accurately, nor can you dismiss the possibiblity that you really did just get lucky.
And in the second place, the truth of the matter is, the odds are not necessarily anywhere near so astronomical as creationists and ID proponents would like to think. Creationists, again, SEVERELY mischaracterize things: think of Fred Hoyle's example of a typhoon sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a 747 -- an event so astronomically improbable that it is, essentially impossible. But this impossibility exists because such an event WOULD BE entirely random. Such mischaracterizations are flatly DISHONEST, because because chemical reactions, which are believed to be an essential part of life's origins, are deterministic NOT RANDOM!
Did you get that? They. Are. Not. Random.
When you combine certain elements, they always come together to form the same compounds. They don't combine in different ways with different numbers of atoms of each element each time.
This cuts the odds down by many orders of magnitude. Given this I never cease to wonder why creationists insist on mischaracterizing abiogenesis as some sort of entirely random, and therefore probablistically impossible event.
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-09 22:34:05
Nope. Maybe you're thinking of string cheese theory.
Ahh, most of them are merely tools. Actual evil requires some level, at least, of intelligent and independent thought, don't you agree?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 22:40:25
Point to it. Measure it. Quantify it. Track it. If you can't, it's not science, strictly speaking.
Sure, but that's philosophy, not science. Actually, I'd love to debate philosophy all night, but have to work tomorrow. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining how species slowly change over time to better compete for available resources... that's all it is.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-09 22:48:21
We've been over this tons of times but no one on the right wants to acknowledge the incredible period of time that has elapsed since earth was formed all those billions of years ago.
And it seems to me that it is possible to evolve life over an extended period of time under the right condtitions.
Earth obviously had those right conditions.
However it doesn't bother me a bit if someone wants to believe in God as long as they respect the timeline.
But I can see where some people don't want to hear stuff like this for eg:http://help.com/wiki/Muscle/Muscle_evolution
I mean how do they know that anyways, right?
In any event I respectfully disagree with CX and other posters who say evolution changes species over time.
If the theory on muscles is true then muscle evolved and then was incorporated into other species and thus started the process of the big critters going on this planet ie dinosaurs.
Similarly and more basically the same is true for mitochondria.
IOW, if life is possible evolution will tease it out of the surface of a planet providing the conditions are right.
Clearly the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.
But basically we're just machines organic but nonetheless machines.
Posted by libliever
2007-04-09 23:25:47
In any event I respectfully disagree with CX and other posters who say evolution JUST changes species over time.
Posted by libliever
2007-04-09 23:28:57
And to ignore this, is to fool yourself.This idea that the bible is not a scientific book too is wrong. Their are hundreds of examples probably I could give to show you. That science is in the bible.
And their is no way the men could've known these scientific statements were true in their time when they wrote the bible without God.
As a matter of fact. There were times when the bible seemed to contradict known scientific things it stated.
Like the seven stars of Orion. Some bible scholars even changed the verse in new translations to say the 6 stars of orion.
But eventually with more advanced scientific telescopes,etc. It was proven that the bible was right the whole time. Their is seven stars that make up Orion.
But the one star in the middle is the dimmest of the other stars and is not as visible of the other 6. So the bible was right the whole time.
And their are some different newer translations of the bible that are now wrong and claim that Orion only has six stars when it really does have seven just like the bible said.
With the naked eye you can only see six too. Which is the only thing the biblical writers could use in their time. Now how did they know Orion has seven stars?
Posted by abel
2007-04-09 23:33:25
Frankly, it probably is the culmination of how the ancients dealt with the reality before them and the limited knowledge they had on that reality. You can get only so far and then you come to the inevitable question: How did I get here?
Hence the bible.
Animism evolved (for lack of a better word) into polytheism which in turn lead ultimately to monotheism which the Egyptians actually started.
Real blood and guts science didn't meet its destiny until much later. Although it has been brewing for quite sometime.
Posted by libliever
2007-04-09 23:40:46
http://www.apologiaonline.com/conf/source.pdf
Posted by abel
2007-04-09 23:51:02
Frankly, it probably is the culmination of how the ancients dealt with the reality before them and the limited knowledge they had on that reality. You can get only so far and then you come to the inevitable question: How did I get here?
Hence the bible.
Animism evolved (for lack of a better word) into polytheism which in turn lead ultimately to monotheism which the Egyptians actually started.
Real blood and guts science didn't meet its destiny until much later. Although it has been brewing for quite sometime.
Posted by libliever
Say what you will. I cannot change your mind. But if their are many examples I could give where the bible made a scientific statement that modern day science later proved, then how could you just dismiss it as coincidence,etc?
I mean if the bible had been wrong then you might have a point. But I can give many examples and show you that science is in the bible. And it has been proven to be true too. Now you can ignore it if you want to. But I challenge you to take a serious look at it. And you will see that the bible can be amazing with what's in it.The bible is a vast book and its got all kinds of neat stuff in it.It does'nt just have biblical stories and tell us about salvation,etc. There is whole lot more in it.
Posted by abel
2007-04-09 23:59:32
Posted by libhater
2007-04-10 00:03:05
heck, even dinosaurs
Posted by libhater
2007-04-10 00:06:30
heck, even dinosaurs
Posted by libhater
If there is no astronomy in the bible then how do you explain the 12 signs of the zodiac that line up with the bible? I know that most people see them as horoscope signs. But if you honestly examine them everyone of them lines up with the bible. You could say they are like a picture book in the heavens.Pslam 19:1-4.
For instance Leo the lion is a sign. Well biblically Jesus is the King of kings, the Lord of Lords. And Jesus is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah. I'm not going to list all of them. But they line up with the bible.
And they don't line up with any other religion on earth either. And archeologists dug up an ancient jewish temple in Israel and it had painted on the floor of it. The 12 signs of the zodiac. And I assure you they were not into astrology which was forbidden.
Also the bible does talk about dinosaurs too. But in order to understand it. You have to ask yourself what is God describing to Job? And I can see him describing a dinosaur.Read Job 40:15-24. And the bible even tells us there that God can make his sword approach it. And we know the dinosaurs died out.
And the bible explains the whole hydrological water cycle of the earth in Job 36:26-28 also a few other places too.It also describes the Jet Stream that the weather guy shows us on his weather map which effects our weather - Ecclesiastes 1:6.That would cover meteorology.
But it also explains that lightning has a leader stroke first before it strikes, and it is invisible to the naked eye too, you cannot see the leader stroke either so there is noway Job could have been able to know this, but read Job 28:24-26 and check out how everything it says has been proven true by meteorology and check out where it says "a path for the thunderbolt".
You see first before lighting even strikes a leader stroke comes down out of the cloud down to the earth and when it makes contact lightning strikes and the lightning follows the very same path that the leader stroke made first. This is a true scientific fact and meteorologists teach about it too. Again these are true scientific facts that are in the bible.
But these are just a few there are many more examples of this.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 00:34:07
Don't misunderstand what I meant in my last post. I was not directing that at you. I was trying to make a point to other people.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 00:46:38
The only reason I included soul in the list of abstract thought and morality is because you personally included it, which suggested to me that you believed in the existence of the soul. If you don't, then leave it out.
My point still stands even without it: abstract thought and morality cannot be explained by evolution, and yet they must be - where did they come from suddenly in one species on earth? If we simply are evolved from other, simpler creatures, why this different mechanism in humans, whence its origin?
You can't simply say "that's not part of the theory" and brush it aside like that, not if you are intellectually honest, Cav. And I know you better than that.
This cuts the odds down by many orders of magnitude. Given this I never cease to wonder why creationists insist on mischaracterizing abiogenesis as some sort of entirely random, and therefore probablistically impossible event.
I'd like you to consider the possibility that the people who worked up the odds aren't ignorant of these factors. Just as you'd like people to believe you aren't ignorant of what you speak of.
Just something to consider.
But basically we're just machines organic but nonetheless machines.
Sounds pretty in theory, and it fits evolution - but is it true? I suspect you know that humans are more than complex organic machines, and that humans are different from every other animal in key, critical ways. Unique in a way that evolution cannot explain; which is what I am pointing out to Cav.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-10 01:33:05
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
April 9, 2007 4:42 PM |
*************************
Sorry Tommy boy - that isn't what DNA says about them.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 01:35:59
Merely describing natural events is interesting, but it's not actually science. Science attempts to explain the mechanisms behind these things, which the Bible does not do. The ancients, especially the Babylonians and Greeks, had advanced astronomy, medicine and other sciences quite far. The fact that some of these things are mentioned in the Bible is evidence of how widespread this knowledge really was. Sadly, most of the records were destroyed in the centuries following the fall of Rome, leaving only vague descriptions of scientific phenomena such as contained in the Bible, preserved as part of the religious text.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 03:46:11
Neither can time travel or orbital mechanics. Evolution has as much to do with explaining those things as it does with explaining abstract thought and morality. In other words: nothing at all. Why do you insist on trying to "disprove" the theory of evolution by saying that it can't explain things it was never meant to explain? Just address the science, instead of beating up strawmen.
I certainly can, because it's not part of the theory. It's not supposed to be a global explanation of everything. It's just a method of explaining how species change in response to population pressure and competition for resources.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 03:52:59
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-10 07:19:20
- thanks for that explanation & correction, Christopher!
Posted by CoolCzech
2007-04-10 07:22:22
So were the scientists of the day. Does that mean that today’s scientists can’t be trusted?
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-10 07:30:28
Captain of the Starship Enterprise NCC 1701D.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-10 07:43:24
heck, even dinosaurs
Posted by libhater
libhater, nothing personal, but please NEVER mention astrology in the context of science again. EVER. Same to you abel (again, nothing personal). The signs of the zodiac only prove that someone looked up at the night sky and saw pretty outlines.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry Tommy boy - that isn't what DNA says about them.
Posted by Rose
Rose, is it possible for you to provide an explanation for any of your 'scientific' conclusions? What was the DNA evidence that said that? Who researched it? Where was it published? At the VERY worst, name the tv show or article that said that.
--------------------------------------------------
So were the scientists of the day. Does that mean that today’s scientists can’t be trusted?
Posted by Don_cos
It's true that a lot of 'scientists' were very wrong nack then, the point I was making was the church was stifling scientific advancement by throwing anyone with a different idea to theirs in jail.
Posted by scalt
2007-04-10 08:56:56
April 10, 2007 7:19 AM
I was answering a querry about the Infinite Cascading "problem", or who created the Creator. Not trying to give a definative answer.
Pesonally, I do not see an inherent contradiction between science and religion, nor between Creation and the Theory of Evolution.
If God's "day" is one billion years long, a speculation,of course, but not beyond the realm of possiblity since God would not necessarily be limited to earthly time (especially if earthly time did not exist in the Void), then He could have created life through evolution in "days".
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 09:25:49
This cuts the odds down by many orders of magnitude. Given this I never cease to wonder why creationists insist on mischaracterizing abiogenesis as some sort of entirely random, and therefore probablistically impossible event.
Posted by Irishflatfoot
April 9, 2007 10:34 PM |
**************************
You mean, Irreduceable Complexity is a law that benefits Evolution?
WHO KNEW!
You need to write a new book explaining this one in detail! It would make a large fortune for you!
That hundreds of proteins, hundreds of enzymes, hundreds of systems will automatically combine in standard, certain ways to form millions of different creatures, and their features in way that are not random, not accidental, and NOT by specific Design - and while doing all this, will type its activities into the DNA code with perfect transcription accuracy.
WOW! You have a fortune to be made, Irish, no doubt about it!
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 09:26:40
Posted by Dick_Nixon
April 9, 2007 9:27 PM |"
It's a semantic distinction, DN.
In science a theory is a hypothesis, a best guess description of how the world works.
Unfortunately, in science, "Theory" is also established fact, i.e. the Theory of Gravity, or as is being discussed here, the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-04-10 09:33:06
Posted by robert_miller
April 10, 2007 9:25 AM |
***********************
Leaving one major question - WHY WOULD GOD DO SUCH A THING as take billions of years - just to satisfy the wild speculations of atheistic non-believers, whose speculations are designed for NOTHING but explaining how all this exists WITHOUT GOD in the first place?
I mean, God has a set purpose, and speaks of a pattern from one end to the other of the Bible, and His numerical patterns of cycles are heavily based on a recurrent pattern of 7 24hr days, they found our MONTHS AND YEARS.
And the Bible indicates God created everything for one set purpose - to get Himself human companionship who are desirous of having a warm and positive personal committed relationship with Him, and this life is to begin AFTER the wind-up of human affairs during this staging time on earth designed to serve as a culling pen between those who choose Him and those who reject Him.
We still have only about 6,000 years of RECORDED history of mankind - which at this point in time shows hundreds of various prophetic fulfillments towards being the end of the ages of the affairs of Men, coming down hard on The Seven Years Tribulation to be followed by Armageddon. That in turn will be followed by one more Thousand Years - the Millenial Reign of Jesus on the earth - then the Judgement, and the entering into Eternity.
Since this earth is - from a Biblical standpoint, merely the CRUCIBLE of Man's issues with God, why should God be interested in spending BILLIONS of YEARS setting the stage for Mankind? But only about 7,000 years altogether on the "stage production" itself of the affairs of men on earth.
He is either God or not, and if HE is God, why should He lie, when He says, "The evening and the morning was the first day,...evening and the morning was the second day,..." etc
...PARTICULARLY WHEN - IF HE BE GOD - THEN HE HAS THE POWER TO DO IT WITH ONE SPOKEN COMMAND: LET IT BE..." - just as He said.
If the Evolutionists want to make sense of their postulations, I might agree with them - but clearly all they want to do is try to explain things so mysteriously that it covers the blotches in their flawed speculations, while still removing the "NEED" for an Intelligent Designer" - GOD, to whom they might suffer a need to BOW THE KNEE.
Just like their Global Warming speculations which "NEED" to be independent of the sun or the volcanic activity of the planet, so they can screw our taxes and government over us til life is unbearably Socialistic.
And when someone asks a simple question of th em like why CIRCULAR REASONING is allowed to be used to date their fossils and rock layers, they will escort the person out AS A TROUBLE MAKER instead of answering the questions.
You don't find their professors willing to DEBATE with Creationists - they are scared silly of getting on stage with accreditted Creationists and letting all the new discoveries that benefit THAT "THEORY" out of the bag - and let the AUDIENCE hear all those new details.
Especially those parts the Creationist can show were blown more than 25 years ago BUT ARE STILL IN BRAND NEW TEXTBOOOKS in spite of 1970's and 1980's confessions in science reviews of the TRUTH! AND USE GOVERNMENT LAWS TO PROTECT THEM in their propaganda.
Sorta like when my son said the Mayflower Compact is in his textbook - MINUS the parts that dedicate their pioneering mission to the LORD GOD!
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 09:56:08
Posted by n_obrain
April 10, 2007 9:33 AM |
**************************
And exactly WHAT FACTS have ESTABLISHED the THEORY of EVOLUTION as FACT?
I've heard a lot of speculation, a lot more postulation, and I've heard very simple questions dismantle both - but I've not seen a lick of substantiation ESTABLISHING Evolution.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 09:59:05
True. However that is not true today (except maybe in some Islamic areas). You cannot classify today’s Christians by the misuse of power by some Pope a few centuries ago
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-10 10:04:06
Sounds like we are mostly on the same page.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-04-10 10:08:24
If God's "day" is one billion years long, a speculation,of course, but not beyond the realm of possiblity since God would not necessarily be limited to earthly time (especially if earthly time did not exist in the Void), then He could have created life through evolution in "days" ".
Posted by robert_miller
April 10, 2007 9:25 AM
That is exactly the view taught to us attending a private Catholic high school, on the subject. No contradiction whatsoever.
Posted by PaulN33
2007-04-10 10:08:26
Consider the Hindu mythological timescales. A single day (and night) of Brahma is 8,640,000,000 years long. Interesting, isn't it?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 10:38:50
http://college.hmco.com/chemis.../students/index.html">Here you go.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 10:42:02
Simple. If God set the whole universe up, he had to do so in such a way that there would be no proof of his existence, as such a thing would destroy the value of faith. If it takes tens of billions of years, what is that to him?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 10:45:39
As your own posts in this comments section have shown, there's no point.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 10:47:05
Posted by CavalierX
April 10, 2007 10:38 AM |
Talk about thinking long-term!
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 11:07:41
Posted by Rose
April 10, 2007 9:56 AM |
If anything, He might do it that way to establish the conditions for faith and belief, not to satisfy the thinking of atheists.
At any rate, we are now a long ways away from evolution.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 11:16:56
I'd like you to consider the possibility that the people who worked up the odds aren't ignorant of these factors. Just as you'd like people to believe you aren't ignorant of what you speak of.
Just something to consider."
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
April 10, 2007 1:33 AM
For creationists to characterize a deterministic event as a random one, they either ARE ignorant of this, or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-10 11:35:09
Robert, one problem with your thought here from a Biblical perspective, take a look at Rom 5:12 which says that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. Evolution depends on death existing before sin and suggests that sin and death is the natural condition of man. We were created in God's image.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-10 13:21:41
Keep in mind one need not be a "creation scientist" to believe in a theistic creator - in fact many Intelligent Design advocates believe in evolution for that matter. They just see it as clearly guided and designed by an intelligent force.
However, the scientists and mathematicians who first came up with the odds of life appearing on earth were not creationists at all - and their calculations are, in a different context, rather embraced and appreciated by atheist evolutionists. They believe that this simply points out how special and amazing life is.
You can't dismiss this problem by claiming everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of imbicile.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-10 14:56:45
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with sin, morality, God or creation. I think I've been quite consistent on that point.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 15:27:45
The clock on my wall with the dead battery that I haven't changed in two days has been consistent as well, that doesn't mean it has been right.
Evolution requires death to progress, that much we know. The Bible tells us that death entered into the world as a result of sin and that sin entered into the world by a man. Therefore, in order for you who are Christians and also believe in evolution, you have to come to terms with text in the New Testament being false despite it being the divinely inspired Word of God.
Am I wrong CavX? If so, how?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-04-10 15:38:18
April 10, 2007 1:21 PM |
Since your post was stated in such a friendly manner I did not want to ignore it.
Truth be told, I would only reveal my ignorance of the Bible to get into a discussion about it. I can not talk intellegently about the Book.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 17:25:07
-Rose
ha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
/out-of-control-laughter
Rose, you don't even bother to explain things, let alone mysteriously. Here is my equivalent of your DNA statement earlier: "Due to my having READ THE BIBLE it is quite obvious to me that there is no 'God'". And by me saying I've read the Bible, I mean one page of it somewhere in the middle of it. As soon as you start saying something credible, or else give up on your crackpot science altogether, I think more people may start to take you slightly more seriously.
/restraint
Posted by scalt
2007-04-10 18:02:18
Well of course you don’t. That’s because there isn’t one.
Evolution has precisely nothing to do with the creation of life on Earth, only what happened after the Creation. Nothing about the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. In fact, evolution does not necessarily even conflict with the concept of a six-day Creation and a 6,000(?) year-old Earth.
In his book, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, the writer Philip Henry Gosse proposed the idea that, if the world (by “world” I mean everything that exists) was created from nothing in an instant, it must have been created to look older than it actually is.
For example, when God created the first tree, He must have created it with concentric rings already inside the trunk. Normally those rings would be indications of years and years of growth, yet here they are in a tree that was created a millisecond ago.
The same principle would apply to living beings such as humans. When God created the fully-grown Adam, He must have created him with signs of past growth that never actually occurred. It is easy to imagine Adam without a belly-button since he was not technically “born” but it is slightly more difficult to imagine Adam without bones, teeth, or fingernails, all of which would necessarily show signs of past growth.
One can also apply this principle to the Earth’s geological and evolutionary history. Evidence of the slow erosion of land by rivers, mountains of limestone formed by remains of marine life, lava which flowed from long-extinct volcanoes, footprints of prehistoric animals, teeth marks on buried bones, and millions of fossils sprinkled through the earth are all signs of a past events which never actually took place.
“It may be objected,” wrote Gosse, “that to assume the world to have been created with fossil skeletons in its crust—skeletons of animals that never really existed—is to charge the Creator with forming objects whose sole purpose was to deceive us. The reply is obvious. Were the concentric timber-rings of a created tree formed merely to deceive? Was the navel of the created Man intended to deceive him into the persuasion that he had a parent?”
Gosse was so thorough that he even discussed the existence of coprolites (fossil excrement). “Up until now,” he writes, “this has been considered a more than ordinary triumph of pre-existence.” Yet, he pointed out, it offers no more difficulty than the fact that waste matter would have existed in the intestines of the newly-created Adam. Blood must have flowed through his arteries, and blood presupposes chyle and chime, which in turn presupposes an indigestible residuum in the intestines. “It may seem at first sight ridiculous,” he confessed, “...but truth is truth.”
As Gosse pointed out, we might even suppose that God created the earth a few minutes ago, complete with all its cities and records, and memories in the minds of men, and there is no logical way to refute this as a possible theory.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-10 18:26:20
You're new here so I feel compelled to let you in on something.
Rose is not worth responding to. She is not going to argue with you, only rant at you. Responding to her only wastes time and bandwidth. It's better if you ignore her like the rest of us do.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-10 18:29:58
April 10, 2007 6:26 PM |
Clever. I've heard of the book and it's premise, though haven't read it.
You do not give yourself away.
Is the universe older than it is or does it only appear so?
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 18:42:27
Is the universe older than the literal interpretation of the Biblical account or does it only appear so.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 18:44:17
Posted by bjlillo
April 10, 2007 3:38 PM |
I think this is mistaken. Evolution requires life to progress. It is the gradual reproduction of traits that survive (that is, live) that get passed on. Not the changes that lead to death.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 19:03:19
So you're telling me that you believe nothing ever died until mankind came along? That the use of the word "death" couldn't possibly be a metaphor? That the priest who told me, when I was a child and asked a lot of questions, that it meant the knowledge of death was lying?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 19:26:42
Sorry, but I'm agnostic.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 19:28:46
Posted by bjlillo
April 10, 2007 1:21 PM |
*******************
EXCELLENT POST! GREAT POINTS.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 19:57:16
April 10, 2007 6:02 PM |
*************************
I have responded with meticulous details in the past - they don't change anyone's opinions, and frankly, the Liberals and atheists and those who want to "get along to get along" really could care LESS what facts are out there to support Creationism and also the 6 day Genesis as 6 24 hour periods of time.
It isn't convenient, both politically and spiritually.
I spout off to let you know there are other trains of thought and I am hardly alone, proven by the fact that Evolutionists won't allow this subject to be adjudged Constitutionally by the voters, and the parents of hte children in Public Schools.
IF someone shows genuine interest, I'll supply something, but for the most part, I find that many of the sites who deal in FACTS get bombarded with DEATH THREATS by Liberals, and am thus loath to supply links.
When the only debate tactic one side can come up with is namecalling and death threats, I guarantee you that most Americans are far less impressed with Evolutionists than they are with Creationists.
Therefore yours and Mighty Samarai's opinions of me really don't leave me devastated at all.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 20:06:28
Easy enough to remedy, it's pretty common, being the best selling book of all time for every single straight year :)
So you're telling me that you believe nothing ever died until mankind came along? That the use of the word "death" couldn't possibly be a metaphor?
Metaphor isn't exactly the right term, death entered the world because people didn't die until that point - other than that, we simply do not have the information to know for absolute certainty either way. Nor is it important, particularly.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-10 20:08:32
As your own posts in this comments section have shown, there's no point.
Posted by CavalierX
April 10, 2007 10:47 AM |
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Au Contraire, Cav.
The refusal of University professors to debate Creationism in front of their students isn't reflective of the quality of Creationist arguments.
It is a glaring signal to the students that they dare not RISK exposing their CAPTIVE AUDIENCE to the TRUTH! and SIMPLE questions that unravel the Evolutionist poppycock.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 20:15:56
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
April 10, 2007 8:08 PM |
***********************
Well, the question of it (Death), which Evolutionists have gone to so much trouble to obfuscate, is actually very critical to the issues of SOVEREIGNTY.
Now THAT is the crux of the entire matter. And aside from that, all other issues are irrelevant, all they do is serve to display what each individual has decided, regarding Sovereignty.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-10 20:20:15
Posted by Rose
April 10, 2007 8:20 PM |
Despite the hints against argueing with you...I am going to do it anyway.
Evolutionist do not argue for death. On the contrary, the whole theory of evolution is based on the concept that "life will find a way". You can say all you want that death is a theory that evolutionists argue against, but that is not true.
Evolution is a theory that argues for life, not against death.
If, in theological terms, sin is death, then I can understand why those who believe in original sin believe in death, but if God is life, then he conquers sin, and death. Life is an affirmation in God, not death.
That is why people with common sense do not believe in the ultimate doom nor the ultimate paradise.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-10 20:44:53
The refusal of University professors to debate Creationism in front of their students isn't reflective of the quality of Creationist arguments.
It is a glaring signal to the students that they dare not RISK exposing their CAPTIVE AUDIENCE to the TRUTH! and SIMPLE questions that unravel the Evolutionist poppycock."
Posted by Rose
April 10, 2007 8:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
No Rose, that'd not it. They don't waste time DEBATING creationist drivel for the same reason that they don't waste time debating the Copernican Theory of the Solar System or the Germ Theory of Disease -- it's elementary, universally accepted in science, and disbelieved only by the ignorant.
Posted by Irishflatfoot
2007-04-10 20:54:14
Merely describing natural events is interesting, but it's not actually science. Science attempts to explain the mechanisms behind these things, which the Bible does not do. The ancients, especially the Babylonians and Greeks, had advanced astronomy, medicine and other sciences quite far. The fact that some of these things are mentioned in the Bible is evidence of how widespread this knowledge really was. Sadly, most of the records were destroyed in the centuries following the fall of Rome, leaving only vague descriptions of scientific phenomena such as contained in the Bible, preserved as part of the religious text.
Posted by CavalierX
If what you say is true? then how come man had not discovered these facts yet that are in the bible that science has now proven to be true?
And you talk about ancient empires,etc and talk about their knowledge,etc and act like it was impressive or something. I mean sure some of the things they did were advanced for their time.
But most of todays knowledge and technologies, inventions, etc of today that we use came from either the jewish culture or Christian culture. And the things that we do today thanks to jewish and christian's finding out what we know today. Puts them ancient empires to shame.
And also the bible does not have to explain the mechanisms behind the statements it makes. Because God knew Science would prove it to be true eventually and it would give his people solid evidence that his word he gave them is true. Like it has. Like the lightning example I gave. In the bible it says "The path of the thunderbolt".
Well regardless that we don't call lightning a thunderbolt today, it is still talking about lightning and science has proven that lightning has a path.and it is called in science a leader stroke but is a path just like the bible said.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 20:56:06
As I said, they did. Observations that made it into the Bible came from the Greeks, Babylonians, etc. Unfortunately, much knowledge was lost during the Dark Ages which followed the fall of Rome. The only real repositories of knowledge for hundreds of years were the monasteries... and guess what one book they preserved over and above all others?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 21:22:35
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 21:27:23
No, it's a glaring signal to the students that they dare not RISK wasting their PRECIOUS TIME debating NONSENSE!
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 21:29:56
Not really. You might want to read up on the Renaissance. Then I'll ask you two questions: What does "renaissance" mean, and what was it a renaissance of?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 21:35:48
Then you have another group that tries to mix creationism with evolution to seem reasonable,etc.Because I believe they have never been taught true ctreationism in order to know the difference. Plus to fit in with the evolution crowd too.
Most people have only been taught evolution. And they have not been taught creationism along with the evidence that proves it is true.
But now we have came so far that when somebody truly stands up for creationism and gives evidence that is in the bible that proves creationism, people just cannot concieve it. And it goes against everything they have learned about evolution.
But that still does not change that there is more evidence to prove the creation theory over the evolution theory but alot of ya'll have never seen it.And so all you know is evolution.
Plus it will seem like a creationist is preaching when presenting the evidence, because there is noway around it. To see the evidence and be able to examine what the bible sais and show how science,etc proves it, causes you to quote the bible regardless if you are trying to preach or not.
But the evidence is clear once you fully examine it. God created the universe and creationism is true and evolution cannot be proven.
Just because somebody cannot change your mind, does not mean that they don't have much more compelling evidence to prove evolution cannot be true because creationism is.
Many of you have never seen the evidence that proves creationism is true or if you have you have'nt seen much of the evidence.I'll admit that it is not as easy to find information about creationism compared to information about evolution and thats another reason too that most people accept evolution.
But I have yet to see anybody who believes evolution is true give as much evidence as I have to prove creationism.
Throughout the times I have been here on this blog evolution has came up from time to time. And yet not one person has given as much evidence as I have(proving creationism) to prove evolution is true.
And I am just barely scraping the surface of the evidence I could give. Of course it would produce very long threads and require alot of reading.I mean there is alot of evidence.Unlike with evolution.
But I guarantee. I can give much more compelling evidence to prove creationism is true than a person who believes in evolution, even if he is a scientist too. But the evidence I give will go against everything you have been taught about evolution. And it will require you to re-think evolution.Which will not be easy to do for probably most people who think they already have it figured out.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 21:42:40
I haven’t the foggiest. You’ll have to ask God the next time you see Him (which is hopefully a long way off :)).
Besides, it doesn’t really matter. The age of the universe has no affect on whether I follow the teachings of Christ.
Actually it’s a bit of both. In order for desirable traits to become prominent, individuals with disadvantageous traits must die before they are able to reproduce and individuals with advantageous traits must live to pass on their genes.
This (I think) is when you get into the concept of the immortal soul. Our bodies may die, but our soul lives on eternally with God.
Incidentally, that is why sinners are forced to suffer in Hell for eternity, rather than for a thousand years or something. If your soul is eternal, then putting a sinner in Hell for anything less than eternity won’t do any good as a punishment for sinning. Even if a sinner stays in Hell for a thousand years, when he is released he will be able to spend the rest of eternity in Heaven. A thousand years in Hell is nothing when you have an eternity of happiness to look forward to. It would be like imprisoning a mass murder for one night, then showering him with riches for the rest of his days.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-10 21:57:13
Posted by CavalierX
No they did'nt because despite the jews being in bondage to these empires they still followed and observed their own teachings from the Torah. The jews have never forgot who they are. No matter how many times they were held in bondage.
And Cav. None of them empires knew in their time the things that were in the bible that modern science has proven to be true.
For example they did not know lightning had a path like the bible said which science later thousands and thousands and thousands of years later proved. And they did not know about the jet stream either which effects the weather.
You are failing to see that nobody including the jews themselves could have known these things that would later be proven by science. Up until science proved it they would'nt know for sure if it was true or not. But now we do.
The bible said that man was formed by God from the dirt of the ground and science has proven that every element/mineral that is in dirt is also in the human body.The bible said that water is in outerspace.And astronomy has proven it to be true.The bible tells about the gulf stream that is in the Atlantic ocean. Where did the jews live?.The bible said the earth hangs on nothing while the greeks believed it was on the back of titan other cultures back then believed the earth was balanced on the back of a turtle but which one was correct? The bible was.
The babelonians, greeks,romans,etc did not know these things. As a matter of fact they did'nt know any of these things I have given as evidence. It was'nt until modern day science that they were discovered and proved to be true. Which proved that the bible was correct.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 22:05:01
Actually, most people who "believe" in evolution do so because it is a valid theory. It is not a belief system, not a faith, and not some kind of rival to religion. It's just a theory to explain certain observations. It amazes and stuns me that some people see a simple scientific theory as some kind of threat. Do you feel this way about algebra? (Actually, that's a bad example, as bad as I am at math.)
And rightly so. Most people have only been taught the theory of gravity to explain why things fall, completely ignoring my "the Earth sucks" theory. Why? Because one is good science, and one is not science at all.
It's not science, and yet is not in any way contradicted by the theory of evolution. As I have stated more times than I care to count, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life.
Surely, abel, you can see that you're saying translates to "what the Bible says is true because it's found in the Bible."
Clearly, you do not know me at all, abel.
And your evidence for the truth of the Bible is in the Bible. Very convenient.
(waving hand) You can't see me? Abel, evolution is a valid scientific theory. If you have an alternative scientific theory to offer, please post it. If all you have is "God created things, and the Bible proves it," then you're not offering an actual scientific theory, but a religious one. And that's fine; you will find few people as ready to defend religion as I. It's just not science. Science explains the mechanism by which things happen. Religion explains the why. There is no conflict.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 22:06:37
Which hasn't got a damned thing to do with science. Are you saying the Greeks did not have science because they had Jews to do it for them?
Have you ever actually studied the Babylonians? And I don't mean in the Bible. Have you ever studied the writings of Greek scientists and natural philosophers? How easily you dismiss their vast stores of knowledge, claiming that it was all written for the first time in the Bible. Yet the Bible only contains the barest mention of a few observations, without a hint of the science behind them... nor of the methods used to arrive at those conclusions. That tells us that those observations were common knowledge, like a person writing a book today might mention cars without launching into a detailed explanation of the combustion engine.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-10 22:12:41
Which hasn't got a damned thing to do with science. Are you saying the Greeks did not have science because they had Jews to do it for them?
None of them empires knew in their time the things that were in the bible that modern science has proven to be true.
Have you ever actually studied the Babylonians? And I don't mean in the Bible. Have you ever studied the writings of Greek scientists and natural philosophers? How easily you dismiss their vast stores of knowledge, claiming that it was all written for the first time in the Bible. Yet the Bible only contains the barest mention of a few observations, without a hint of the science behind them... nor of the methods used to arrive at those conclusions. That tells us that those observations were common knowledge, like a person writing a book today might mention cars without launching into a detailed explanation of the combustion engine.
Posted by CavalierX
Cav buddy I'm not trying to upset you. This is just maybe one area where we may disagree. My point was that the science was in the Torah even if the jews at that time did not even realize it. And I really don't dismiss the knowledge that existed in these past empires, my point was only that compared to the knowledge of today's knowledge to the knowledge back then pales in comparison thanks to mostly jewish and christian cultures.And I'm talking mostly about knowledge,technology,inventions,etc.I'm trying to make the case that as advanced as they may have been they did not know these things that are in the bible that science has now proven to be true. That does not mean I dismiss other contributions either though that came from them like government,etc.And yes I have studied and read about the babylonians,greeks,romans,etc. I think you kinda have to in order to compare what they knew compared to what is in the bible.Plus it can be interesting anyway to learn about them. I may not know as much about them as you do though.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 22:42:47
Posted by CavalierX
I understand evolution is a scientific theory but I don't think it is valid.Maybe you are in a different evolution denomination,etc than others.Because evolution does try to explain the origins of life.
Because I have heard many evolutionists try to make that case. Of course with very little evidence to go along with it.I have heard evolutionists try to explain that there is no God and that everything in the whole universe, including the complexities of biological life, has developed by random chance over billions of years.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 23:07:30
For example. Dr. Harold Urey a Nobel Prize winner for his work in chemistry wrote about the impossibility of evolution, but still admitted that he believed in the theory.
He said "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere."
He then added. "We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great,it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
He admitted that his acceptance of evolution was not based on logic or evidence, but on blind faith. He could not accept the idea of a devine creator.
Posted by abel
2007-04-10 23:31:52
Posted by mightysamurai
April 10, 2007 9:57 PM |
Amen. I grok that.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-11 00:11:29
Posted by CavalierX
April 10, 2007 10:12 PM |
Study your own navel, and find peace:)
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-11 00:20:39
Posted by scalt
It was not the church that was teaching that the sun revolved around the earth,it was bible critics who did trying to disprove the bible. they did not read their bible.
Because the bible did not say that. King David wrote in psalm 19:4-6 this: " Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And their is nothing hidden from its heat."
King David declared that the sun traveled in its circuit(we say orbit today) unto the ends of the heavens.
During the last few centuries many bible critics denounced this statement declared that the sun moved in an orbit around the earth. However, the bible never said that.
Now Recent discoveries with the Hubble telescope confirmed the accuracy of this verse when they proved that the sun actually moves through space in a circiut covering an enormous orbit that lasts over two hundred and sixty million miles. Proving that the sun does have it own circuit/orbit and it moves in its orbit.
And by the way you can go to google and punch in sun's orbit and see for yourself that the sun does have its own orbit. Just like King David wrote thousands of years ago inspired by God of course.
Posted by abel
2007-04-11 02:38:35
Yet you have no alternative scientific theory to offer. Not even a valid argument against it.
Scientific theories do not have "denominations." Perhaps that's part of your problem -- you desperately want to see evolution as a competing religion instead of the simple science it really is. Tell me, is it really your belief that nothing ever changes?
(sigh) Why do some people persist in repeating this lie?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 06:17:10
Can't be done by using the theory of evolution. I don't know who these people were, but they were obviously using science to push their own personal anti-God agenda. But you can't blame the hammer if someone misuses it, can you?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 06:21:01
At about the same time, Indian astronomers determined that the sun was a star and that the stars move in predictable patterns over the millenia. David obviously heard of their scientific observations. In fact, it was probably "common knowledge" among the learned men of the day, as you might imagine the latest discoveries might be. I don't see your point.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 06:30:05
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 06:38:48
Now, I'm in no way denigrating the Bible or Christianity. I'm just saying that because the Bible mentions a few scraps of scientific knowledge that were afterwards lost does not mean that the Bible should replace actual science. It proves that at least some of the text from which the Bible was compiled was written by learned men, conversant with the leading scientific theories of their day. We should be glad that we've not only recovered that lost science, but surpassed it. There is no conflict between science and religion, and I wish you (a general you, not specificall you, Abel) would stop trying to create such conflict.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 06:57:04
Evolutionist do not argue for death. On the contrary, the whole theory of evolution is based on the concept that "life will find a way". You can say all you want that death is a theory that evolutionists argue against, but that is not true.
Evolution is a theory that argues for life, not against death.
If, in theological terms, sin is death, then I can understand why those who believe in original sin believe in death, but if God is life, then he conquers sin, and death. Life is an affirmation in God, not death.
That is why people with common sense do not believe in the ultimate doom nor the ultimate paradise.
Posted by robert_miller
April 10, 2007 8:44 PM |
____________________
After your kindness in taking up the debate with me after all the dire warnings about it, I hate to say this, but I am not making the argument against what you just said.
I am not saying that Evolutionists argue "for" or "against" life or death.
What I am saying is that their premise does presuppose Death came to earth before Adam's sin.
They are only arguing a system that is opposite the Bible contentions. They "sidestep" the issue very subtlely.
And it is my contention that THAT foundation is at the heart of WHO IS SOVEREIGN on earth.
If Death came to earth before Adam's sin, then God did not create the earth, or Adam - and Death did NOT enter into the earth as the direct result of Adam rebelling against God - Life - and bowing the knee, surrendering his God-given sovereignty of earth to the Devil and to Death, in one act of deliberate disobedience.
According to the Bible, it took Adam over 900 years to fall over after he "died" that day, because Life on earth was so very healthy, before Adam opened the door for chaos, death and destruction to enter onto the earth.
The Bible doesn't say that Adam entered into Death when he sinned - but that ALL CREATION does.
So, although a lot of Christian evolutionists haven't been exposed to a lot of detailed teachings about Creationism and the extentions that flow from it through a lot of Bible Scriptures; those who teach Creationism, professionally (I do not), can demonstrate with only 3 or 4 basic salient points why Evolution and Christianity do not mix, in fact.
This is not a premise that is critical to one's salvation - but it muddies the water and though the Christian doesn't always realize how and why, he begins to doubt the veracity of what God says - he doesn't realize this and if you ask him if God is a liar, he will vehemently defend God's honor!
Yet I doubt if any of the Christian evolutionists have gone through a single book of Christian Creationism to discover what the precise arguments against evolution actually are - as developed within the last 20 years.
For instance, evolution generally teaches that plant life began billions of years before animal life - yet any biologist knows that plants cannot survive one season without animals.
The NEWS is carrying one story now - Drudge carrying it for over one whole week on his front page, about the panic over a shortage of BEES (pollenators), right now.
In Genesis, the animals whose activities are vital to plant propagation, arrive on the next day after the plants.
But all of this arrived AFTER God set the stars and sun and moon in the skies THAT CONTROL THE PLANTING SEASONS - and a good Creationist can tell you precisely why that is vital and crops wouldn't grow without it, either.
Farmers STILL plant AND HARVEST by the seasons delineated by the MOON. NOT due to moon worship, either.
The professional Creationist doesn't just tell you it is best - HE CAN AND WILL TELL YOU PRECISELY WHY!
Just as he can tell you what is technically involved for a creature to develop a new physical characteristic, what parameters make it impossible, which parameters prove FATAL every single time - and what that does mean in regard to DNA structures.
And just which of you thinks you can manipulate your photographs on your NOTEPAD SOFTWARE?
DNA and irreduceable complexity have added a burden to the premise of evolution they simply cannot bear up under. Period.
One hundred years ago, nobody could IMAGINE the complexity of "simple one-celled living things", or the eyeball, or the human brain.
Darwin never imagined an amoeba was more complex than a space shuttle or space station, and an exponential number of times more efficient, too!
But the simple fact remains, the Evolutionary theory originators all have statements amounting to declarations that as silly as THEY think the Theory of evolution to be, it is infinitely preferable to the alternative - Creationism - and a God to whom they must bow the knee.
It is all about Sovereignty - who reigns? Nobody/everybody? or God Jehovah!
Posted by Rose
2007-04-11 10:01:04
Posted by CavalierX
April 11, 2007 6:57 AM |
**************************
How was Job a leading scientist of the day, when he reported God hung the earth on NOTHING, when the prevailing theories were that it was held on the back of Atlas or a giant turtle or a giant elephant? And the space telescopes only in the last couple of years have reported that STRANGELY, there are no solar systems or planets or galaxies, due North of the Earth?
How was Moses a leading scientist when he told the Jews to wash their hands before meals, and to not put dairy or fruit in the same pottery vessels, thousands of years ago - causing the Jews to be ridiculed for thousands of years for their silly rituals? Simultaneously slaughtered for witchcraft, for causing plagues on their neighbors in which they themselves remained unscathed?
Posted by Rose
2007-04-11 10:12:29
(sigh) Why do some people persist in repeating this lie?
Posted by CavalierX
April 11, 2007 6:17 AM |
**************************
Because that is what the university professors are still pushing. Still expelling Creationist students for opposing.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-11 10:15:25
(waving hand) You can't see me? Abel, evolution is a valid scientific theory. If you have an alternative scientific theory to offer, please post it. If all you have is "God created things, and the Bible proves it," then you're not offering an actual scientific theory, but a religious one. And that's fine; you will find few people as ready to defend religion as I. It's just not science. Science explains the mechanism by which things happen. Religion explains the why. There is no conflict.
Posted by CavalierX
April 10, 2007 10:06 PM |
***********
Oh, you have EVIDENCE for Evolution?
Great! I've been waiting many long years to see some EVIDENCE for Evolution. About 45 years, as a matter of fact.
Goody goody - GIVE ME SOME OF THAT!
Posted by Rose
2007-04-11 10:21:58
Posted by mightysamurai
April 10, 2007 9:57 PM |
************************
Is this what the culture of Samarai teaches?
I've been looking for the source of this teaching, that Hell is only for 1,000 years, then those in Hell get to go to heaven after "paying for their sins" in Hell.
There are a few people in my community who believe this teaching, and they cannot tell me where they got it from.
Posted by Rose
2007-04-11 10:29:49
Do you have a dog, Rose? If so, what breed?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 10:50:41
Err... not really. "Irreducible complexity" is just another way of saying "it's too complicated for me to understand using our current knowledge, so it cannot possibly be understood." That's just arrogant as all hell. I'm pretty sure someone said that about fire at one time, too.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 10:58:32
Prevailing theories among whom, Rose? You're confusing common mythology with scientific inquiry, in much the same manner as global warming enthusiasts often do.
Rose, there is no "north" in space. Are you perhaps talking about the plane of the ecliptic? Anyone looking at the night sky can see that there are plenty of stars in some directions but few in others, and that planets appear in some areas but not others. Again, you confuse what the average person probably knew about science -- next to nothing, in pre-industrial cultures -- with what learned men knew. You think Jim the plowman knew as much about the movements of the planets as the wise men? That's the foundation upon which you base your idea of "prevailing theories?"
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 11:06:39
They can't now, Rose. Because they've evolved a dependency on animals over the last billion years or so, see? No, I don't suppose you do, to be honest.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 11:54:46
Those who wash their hands before meals and separate dairy from other foods tend not to get sick as often, Rose. Those are facts. Moses ascribed a religious cause to illness. Do you?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 11:58:47
Untrue. He ascribed a symbolic gesture of holiness to cleanliness, and warned that sickness might occur from annoying God. That does not equate to religious cause to illness. I am glad that you are agreeing that the Mosaic dietary laws were good for the people, though.
Because they've evolved a dependency on animals over the last billion years or so, see?
You have some sort of evidence or scientific reason to believe this claim or are you simply asserting it because otherwise there's a serious flaw with evolutionary theory? Keep in mind if you have to retrofit data to fit your theory... that's not a sign of a robust theory.
Do you have a dog, Rose? If so, what breed?
I truly hope you're not going to launch into an explanation of how the INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED animal breeds are evidence of evolutionary forces.
There's zero evidence or scientific basis for the idea of species change or changes in reaction to environment that extend outside the genetic code of creatures. None. It is extrapolation and a series of guesses about what could happen and then an insistence that this must have happened in order for the theory to work out properly, but not one shred of evidence.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-11 15:11:19
April 11, 2007 10:01 AM |
I appreciate your response.
Hopefully, we can continue this kind of dialogue. I think you might be surprised at my criticism of Marxism.
Posted by robert_miller
2007-04-11 17:18:55
Which is, as I said, ascribing a religious cause to sickness.
Of course. They make perfect sense in that environment, at that technology level.
Logic, reason, that sort of thing. If plants are dependent upon animals for pollination now, but appeared before animals, then reason dictates that they previously had some other method of reproduction, but changed to take advantage of what must have been an easier, more efficient method of pollination than, say, releasing spores to the wind. Plants that could only release spores to the wind, or were somehow unattractive to animals, did not leave as many descendants, and died out. Likewise, some kind of creature must have found some advantage in helping spread pollen that would enable those so inclined to leave more descendants than those who did not... like, say, an easy food supply. And so, bees slowly evolved from some other insect. And many plants evolved flowers to attract bees. None of this precludes God from guiding the process, you must admit. It merely describes the process itself. That's science.
Oh, absolutely! If Rose -- and you -- will agree that animals can change in response to alterations in their environment, and that those changes breed true, then you must surely see that the same scientific principle holds true in nature as in captivity. Otherwise it would not work in captivity without actual genetic alteration by surgical means, and we all know people were breeding animals for desired traits long before that technology became available.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 18:28:18
No more than ascribing stepping on nails as the cause of sickness: it is one potential cause, but not the exclusive one.
Oh, absolutely! If Rose -- and you -- will agree that animals can change in response to alterations in their environment, and that those changes breed true, then you must surely see that the same scientific principle holds true in nature as in captivity.
Yes, when directed by an intelligent force, animals can be bred for specific ends. You are stating the Intelligent Design line very well, sir. That's exactly what they say.
The problem you run into is... none of those changes were species to species, and all were within the bounds of their preexisting genetic code. Which we already know happens with animals and nobody disagrees with: people change to adapt to their surroundings or to external stimula within their genetic code. When you cross into macroevolution is when you leave the realm of evidence and scientific inquiry and step into speculation and projection.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-11 20:37:02
You mean a sickness like tetanus?
But when faced with population pressure or a changing environment, there's just no cotton-pickin' way those best suited for survival will leave more descendants than the others -- descendants who will carry the same traits. It can ONLY happen when consciously directed. Does that about sum up your argument?
...except all the ones listed on the several articles already discussed in this same thread. Guess they don't count for some reason.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-11 21:59:24
No, that is what http://www.christianfaq.com/hell.html">this guy teaches.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-11 22:34:29
You got the reference: there can be one kind of sickness contacted by this specific action. In other words "not every kind of sickness is caused by this one source."
But when faced with population pressure or a changing environment, there's just no cotton-pickin' way those best suited for survival will leave more descendants than the others -- descendants who will carry the same traits. It can ONLY happen when consciously directed. Does that about sum up your argument?
My argument is that using dogs to explain how random natural selection works clearly is an example of how Intelligent Design works, instead. As to your presumption that the passing on of survival traits must happen, perhaps it does, but that's not evidence of macroevolution. It's simple adaptation, like how my hair grows thicker in the winter. Usually, though, when the environment becomes hostile to creatures they.... die.
They don't climb out of the water to learn to breathe air to find food, for example.
...except all the ones listed on the several articles already discussed in this same thread. Guess they don't count for some reason.
Because none of them list a change outside the genetic code of the creatures involved. Go ahead and check them again.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-12 01:29:15
You've lost me. In what way does tetanus relate to people who believe disease is caused by God's displeasure, as opposed to germs and viruses?
No, it's an example of how the scientific principle of evolution works. You may decide for yourself whether there is some kind of guiding hand. Evolution is merely the mechanism. This is why I say there is no conflict between religion and science.
Not all of them, especially when the environment changes slowly (which it usually does). That's the whole point. Mountains rise and fall. Lakes grow and shrink. Beaches move inland. Islands appear and disappear. Rivers cut channels in the land. Tectonic plates shift. Continents join and separate, and sometimes slowly collide (like India slamming into Southeast Asia). The Earth heats and cools over tens of thousands of years. The Sun warms and cools. Animals adapt. They survive. And they proliferate those traits that allowed them to survive. And the changes to the environment go on and on. We look at the whole thing from the perspective of a single eyeblink -- all of recorded history -- and say, "well, nothing's really changed much that we can see."
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-12 07:16:37
That is, in fact, precisely what happens when you have a population overburdening its environment and a practically empty unexploited food source nearby. Sooner or later, some mutation will occur that allows a creature from the overpopulated species to barely survive in the new environment, even for short periods of time. That creature will live better and longer, and leave more descendants... which will carry that same trait. Some of them will be even better adapted, and so on. The African lungfish is one example of a creature that can survive in both water and air. Amphibians like the sea turtle originally learned to leave the water to lay eggs on land, where there were fewer predators. Such a massive change might take hundreds of millions of years. Yet you insist that changes cannot possibly take place because you cannot see them in process.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-12 07:32:56
First: saying "God caused this illness" does not mean "and he didn't use any germs or virii." So please do avoid that fallacy. Second, not every single illness is believed to be caused by God's anger or by his direct application. Thus: isolating sickness to a specific event is akin to God causing sickness in a specific event.
That is, in fact, precisely what happens when you have a population overburdening its environment and a practically empty unexploited food source nearby. Sooner or later, some mutation will occur that allows a creature from the overpopulated species to barely survive in the new environment, even for short periods of time.
Cav, you seem to understand science pretty well, and I know you are a smart, well educated guy. You certainly are able to tell the difference between "we know this happens" and "this must happen in order for the theory to work," right? You can't say something "in fact" occurs without some sort of scientific burden and evidence, without some manner of demonstration of it. That's what fact means.
See, we can look around us and through testing, experience, and observation see what happens to overburdened environments: the overpopulated portion dies off it does not somehow persist without sufficient food for millenia while incremental tiny mutations occur til creatures are able to transcend their problems.
They just die. We see this happen over and over again in every single environment around us. Now, you want everyone to believe this happens observably and measurably with predictable repeatability ... but that regardless of this well known and established trend, somehow creatures evolve to leave their environment and seek food elsewhere.
Your example of this is Sea Turtles and Lungfish, which is known as an "a priori" argument. The conclusion is true because you have presumed it, and then argue backwards. This is one of the most basic logical fallacies, Cav, and science is absolutely based on logic. It's called bad science to reverse engineer like that with an assumed conclusion then insist it is factually and obviously so.
And you accuse me of being irrational when we deal with science?
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2007-04-12 15:29:51
Chris, the only logical, scientific explanation for these things is that they evolved from other things. We know that evolution takes place because we can make it happen. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you think that simple scientific theories are worthy of attack.
No, Chris, most of them die off. There is a difference.
Those that have the slightest advantage will survive a little bit better and leave more descendants. It's not just science; it's common sense.
No, they are known as "examples of creatures that are able to survive in two different environments," which you said could not happen. "They don't climb out of the water to learn to breathe air to find food, for example." Apparently, some do.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-12 20:46:33
Actually, as sea turtles are air-breathing, it probably went in the reverse. Sea turtles learned that swimming offered them much more mobility than living on land where they could only plod along on their stubby legs. If a turtle laid its eggs underwater the babies would likely suffocate before they could reach the air.
Also, turtles are reptiles, not amphibians.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-13 16:14:30
Actually, as sea turtles are air-breathing, it probably went in the reverse. Sea turtles learned that swimming offered them much more mobility than living on land where they could only plod along on their stubby legs. If a turtle laid its eggs underwater the babies would likely suffocate before they could reach the air.
Also, turtles are reptiles, not amphibians.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-13 16:15:25
Actually, as sea turtles are air-breathing, it probably went in the reverse. Sea turtles learned that swimming offered them much more mobility than living on land where they could only plod along on their stubby legs. If a turtle laid its eggs underwater the babies would likely suffocate before they could reach the air.
Also, turtles are reptiles, not amphibians.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-04-13 17:32:44
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-13 20:09:02
Posted by CavalierX
2007-04-13 20:10:40