Embarrassing lure of creationism

You know the syndrome: Someone is caught in a scandal relating to sex, and then they take an offer to pose nude for pornography, and end up merely as a naked embarrassment to everybody.

Same syndrome, but mercifully, without the nudism (yet): Creationists taking it just a bit too far. Two examples.

Example 1: Don McLeroy, newly appointed to the chair of the Texas State Board of Education, was embarrassed by the release of tapes of a talk he gave in a church, demonstrating for anyone who didn’t already know that he’s opposed to teaching science in biology, especially if that science involves evolution. Bad enough?

He’s posted a transcript of the tape on his own website. It almost appears he’s hoping for an appointment as a “fellow” of the Discovery Institute.

McLeroy may have posted the transcript to try to correct a statement the transcripts say he made: “”Remember keep chipping away at the objective empirical evidence.”

At McLeroy’s website, it’s listed like this: “Remember keep chipping away with the objective empirical evidence.” It’s a subtle difference, but it suggests McLeroy is ill-informed enough that he thinks there may be evidence to support creationism, rather than devious enough to urge the denial of reality. Bob, at Hot Dogs, Pretzels and Perplexing Questions, wrote:

I’m not quite sure what to make of all this. Was it a Freudian slip? Did he innocently misspeak? Or could it be that he edited the text after the fact? Either way, I don’t think it makes that much of a difference. They have no objective empirical evidence of their own to chip away with, just the objective empirical evidence they stubbornly attempt to chip away at, and to no avail. I’ll leave the discovery of any other discrepancies as an exercise for the reader, at least for now.

McLeroy shows no desire to appear neutral, as employees of TEA are now required to be toward science — or “neutered” toward science, as one might say.

Example 2: McLeroy’s Islamist partner, Adnan Oktar ( aka “Harun Yahya”), is a continuing embarrassment. This isn’t news, but I stumbled across the actual images he pirated — and they are impressive.

The Atlas of Creation purports to show that no evolution has occurred between a few fossil forms and modern forms of animals — therefore, Oktar concludes in his book, evolution could not have occurred at all. Oktar couldn’t sell the book, so he sent copies of the thing to school libraries across Europe, and then to selected people and school libraries across North America.

The book is beautifully printed and bound, with hundreds of full color plates — it must have cost a fortune to produce.

And so, Oktar had to make economies somewhere. He chose to plagiarize photos and not bother with lawyers to procure rights to print the photos. He also chose to abandon the use of fact checkers, it appears.

And so we get embarrassments, like Oktar comparing this caddis fly, below, to one caught in amber, and concluding there’s been no evolution. The problem, as you can plainly see from the photo I borrow from Forbidden Music, is that the “living” example is actually a fishing lure; Oktar has plagiarized a photograph of one of Graham Owen’s wonderul fishing lures.

Graham Owen's caddis fly fishing lure, mistaken by Adnan Oktar for a live fly

Jesus urged his followers to become “fishers of men.” McLeroy and Oktar have confused such imprecations, horribly, with the hoax P. T. Barnum line, that there’s a sucker born every minute.

Owen’s lures are designed to fool fish. If McLeroy and Oktar have their way, Texas school children may end up as ignorant as the fish, and as easily fooled.

212 Responses to “Embarrassing lure of creationism”

  1. Ed Darrell Says:

    To whom are you addressing your post, Nathaniel?

    Whatever makes you think that belief in God precludes or excludes understanding science?

  2. nathaniel Says:

    I love your unbelief in creation – you have such a strong faith in evolution.
    wow you dont belief in a creating God ! That must have taken some work over the years to get rid of that faith ! I hope you find it again – He loves you ±± :-)

  3. Ed Darrell Says:

    The organism hasn’t been unchanged for millions of years. Harun Yahya lies.

    If millions of people visited that site and got bad information, may he burn in hell.

    You, FrederickK, appear to be one of the few who was suckered in. There is no indication visitors took Yahya’s yammering over Dawkins’ accurate information (which you do no justice to in your summary).

  4. FrederickK Says:

    RICHARD DAWKINS SEEMS TO HAVE CAUGHT THE HOOK!
    Harun Yahya’s including a picture of a model insect alongside a fossil caddis fly in his Atlas of Creation was an excellent thing from his point of view. The insect, a model of which appears in the Atlas, is in any case still living today. Living specimens are identical in appearance to the model. There are pictures of the living insect all over the internet. There is also no such picture in other editions of the book, and original pictures of the insect are provided instead. Dawkins seized in this as an error and published it on his web site. In the wake of that, various newspapers and websites that imagined this to be a great discovery immediately carried the report on Dawkins’ web site. The fact is, however, that contrary to what Dawkins thinks, the issue is not one that works against Harun Yahya. The Atlas of Creation was about how an insect living today, pictures of which can be obtained from a great many sites on the internet, has never changed over the last 25 million years. THANKS TO DAWKINS, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE NOW VISITED THE ATLAS OF CREATION WEB SITE, AND HAVE LEARNED HOW THIS ORGANISM HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.

  5. Fred Flintstone waded here: Hoaxsters ready to teach creationism to Texas kids « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub Says:

    [...] comes as the State Board of Education begins rewriting science standards for Texas schools. The chairman of the SBOE is a committed creationist who publicly says he hopes to get creationism into the standards and textbooks in Texas, [...]

  6. Schadenfreude alert: Turkish creationist gets three-year sentence « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub Says:

    [...] Oktar: He’s the guy who publishes all those nasty anti-evolution and anti-science books, steals photos for his high-cost, low-information “atlas” of creationism, and successfully sued to [...]

  7. Ed Darrell Says:

    No, that’s just one tree that goes back to 4,767 years. Using other trees at that and other sites, dendrochronologists have taken the count back past 9,000 years — one guy I spoke with a few weeks ago said one of his profs said it was 12,000 years. That’s using at least two trees, but that’s pretty good for hard evidence, irrefutable as it comes from the hand of God, as they say.

    You asked for citations, I pointed out that you had made a wild claim completley unsupported by evidence. I pointed out that your rebuttal then was unsupported by any evidence, as is your claim here that “these sites prove nothing.” Not only is your claim unsupported by evidence, you seem to misunderstand what the evidence really is.

    The most accurate dating of the Earth’s age is about 4 billion years. The universe is not 27 billion years old (in its present incarnation). Was that a typo, or are you getting your numbers from shredded magazines found under the doghouse?

  8. evolution is false Says:

    these sites prove nothing and in fact if they take the oldest tree(”Methuselah” at 4,767 years,) it still proves nothing only that it to is trying to say that the world could and maybe only 4,767 years old and the world is somewhere around that time frame

    if the most accurate reading of the earth is 27billion years old (with only 1% waver for errors of the time noted) then this could be quikly shot down including the so called million old trees that where and are dead

  9. Ed Darrell Says:

    To a claim that tree rings can’t be relied on earlier, I said:

    “In repeated tests, since the beginning of history, trees have been found incapable of lying. Therefore, the counts they give are accurate, in almost every case.”

    Eif said:

    more so then not are they of being the type of telling a lie

    A retreat to the Babylonian faith, ascribing a spirit to each tree! How remarkably 8th century B.C.!

    Eif, you make wild assertions, such as your foolish claim that tree rings can’t be trusted, completely bereft of any citation, and then you have the gall to say the claim stands unless others offer citations? Whew!

    Dendrochronology is one of those sciences originally based in the Christian-influenced assumption that God is behind the cycles of nature, and therefore truthful completely. Do you have any citation to suggest the early Christians in science were in error in that assumption? Do you have any data to suggest tree rings have not been amazingly accurate anywhere on Earth?

    Here’s a site that will ground you in the basics, if you bother to read it:
    http://sonic.net/bristlecone/home.html

    Here’s a more encyclopedic site:
    http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/

    And more:
    http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext.html
    http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm
    http://www.dendrochronology.com/
    http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/dat_dendro.html
    http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/dendrochronology

    Please observe what happened here. A creationist made a wild claim, unsupported by any evidence. Confronted with a clear rebuttal, the creationist claimed the rebuttal might not be accurate because the rebuttal, while not challenged by any data or argument, was not supported by citation. A 15-second search turns up several reputable laboratories working in the field, with extensive explanations for the science and a few brilliant examples of its application.

    Why didn’t the creationist bother to get the facts so easily obtainable?

  10. evolution is FALSE Says:

    “Science as commonly understood in the modern day has only really been available since the 19th century. Before that, humanity had little choice but to make up religious stories to explain the world around them – for example, believing that the sun was Ras firey chariot racing across the sky or that the Earth was flat.
    Of course, since the rise of science … these stories have been shown to be false. However, several thousand years of cultural ingraining has left certain such superstitious stories hard to expunge from society, even though the evidence is clearly against them”

    i would like to point out a specific religion (not really religous) christianity wich has none of these believes and is the oldest

    Explained above. Religion is no more than the product of early human ignorance, trying to find explanations for the world they saw around them.

    in a way yes (but you dont say what a nice earth rise you say what a nice sun rise the evolutioner himself)(the christian God tryed to love the human race he made things esier for them but then they rebel

    You have one unreliable witness who says Darwin recanted and a reliable one who says he did not. Which one will you believe, hm? Of course, even if Darwin did recant then it changes nothing about the theory at all – since, as stated, it relies on observable evidence and not the word of any one man.

    this has nothing to do with proving/disproving the theoryi dont care what darwin said on his death bed allot of people “say” things on their death bed

    This technique was invented and developed
    COPIED FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

    EXACTLY it was invented it wasent found that is another reason you need to go to school again to learn how to read

    wiki is not a very reliable source please find a more in stone site

    Carbon dating is actually very accurate within a certain range. You get beyond that range and it starts to not be as accurate. However, there are many other isotopes and other substances used to date things extremely accurately.

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
    http://www.icr.org/articles/view/293/275/
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php
    http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

  11. evolution is FALSE Says:

    just like all evolutioners you dont site any references
    please do so so that we may fully edify the right from the not so shures

  12. evolution is FALSE Says:

    “In repeated tests, since the beginning of history, trees have been found incapable of lying. Therefore, the counts they give are accurate, in almost every case.”

    more so then not are they of being the type of telling a lie

  13. evolution is FALSE Says:

    “which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.”

    “Not much credibility there, sorry.”

    as usal you still site no! source and just put them down you say it from thy own mouth with no credit or even lest notation about what it or how it is shot down in fact you are shooting yourself down for not noting any info but just saying by your word that what i have sited is wrong in the fact you are in the wrong and i see the need for a redo on your part for not showing proof of you THOUGHT.

  14. evolution is FALSE Says:

    “I find it humorous that you claim not to know what AiG is and then copy/paste a link to it. And an angelfire site, for some reason. Not much credibility there, sorry.
    Same with godsaidmansaid.com, which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.”

    first of this has nothing to do with what we are talking about second i really dont know what AiG is i just went searching on the internet to find some info and i might have happened to stumble on one of their sites but that has nothing to do with our main topic

  15. Ediacaran Says:

    I need to correct something I wrote in an earlier post: “I think humans typically have one less caudal (”tail) vertebra than our chimp and gorilla cousins – no big deal.”

    Apparently, it is chimps that typically have one less tail vertebra than humans.

    I hope the hit-and-run poster anonymous returns to defend her/his claims. I still want to know what s/he thought were “quite different” between the blood proteins, since they seem to be pretty similar.

  16. Ediacaran Says:

    Anonymoustoo, your alleged Hitler quote doesn’t appear in Mein Kampf as far as I can find, and as you seemed to try to imply. But here are two quotes from Mein Kampf (translated into English. of course) as I found on the web, with references:

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.

    “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562.

    Here’s another series of quote translated from the German:

    “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
    “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
    “Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
    “Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
    “Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
    “Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. … Such money should now be used in … the following [way]… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]…”
    “Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
    “If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies)

    That last series of quotes wasn’t from Hitler: it was from the founder of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther. Hitler was a Christian of the Catholic faith.

  17. Ed Darrell Says:

    Hitler didn’t admire Darwin, and in fact banned the teaching and use of Darwinian theory (especially with regard to blood transfusions). Is there no fact of history creationists will not distort? Is there no fact of science creationists will not distort? Is there any fact creationists will honor?

    Can you find any textbook that features Haeckel’s error published since 1950? Please apprise us of it. You guys are stuck so far in the past it’ll be Jetson-city before you hit the 21st century.

    Hoary old creationist quote mines — I suppose that if one holds no understanding of any science at all, then those quotes might seem either accurate, or damaging to evolution. But in fact, they are neither.

    And that’s the major problem with creationism, A2. I suppose you don’t regard yourself as an inherently dishonest person given to larceny and slander. But to make a case against evolution, you must hack up the words of honorable men, make claims at variance with the truth, and pretend to be a stuffy know-it-all who worries about history, though apparently not knowing the history you cite. Is that what you set out to do?

  18. anonymoustoo Says:

    Ed,

    You still haven’t answered my questions; but no matter, you have provided amusement for the few visitors with open, scientific minds.

    I also enjoyed the link above from the ever-credulous Pam.

    Someone may also enjoy these few quotes I gathered – several from bleary-eyed creationist idiots, I’m sure – and one from your King Charlie:

    “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” -Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

    “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” -Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

    “So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time.” -Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    “At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles.” -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman (It’s a Young World After All, 1986)

    “It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning, God.’” -Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics)

    “Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’” -Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in his 1981 Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History

    “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” – Charles Darwin

    Another book you might want to read, this one on ’social’ evolution, is by another ardent Darwin admirer. The book is called ‘Mein Kampf’.

    “I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” – Adolf Hitler

    And are you sure Ed, that none of your beloved Texas textbooks include any use of Ernst Haeckel’s embryo hogwash? You wouldn’t want to be seen as any sort of supporter of that, would you?

  19. Pam Says:

    re: cats which are partial microbes (above) What do creationist, idists say about co-evolution and the unintended negative impacts of natural selection?

    from Science in the News (Sigma Xi)

    Bacteria Disappearing from Our Bodies May Harm Human Health

    from the Boston Globe (Registration Required)

    CAMBRIDGE – Not feeling quite yourself? No wonder. In a sense, you aren’t
    really you.

    Scientists estimate that 90 percent of the cells contained in the human
    body belong to nonhuman organisms – mostly bacteria, but also a smattering of fungi and other eensy entities. Some 100 trillion microbes nestle in niches from our teeth to our toes.

    But what’s setting science on its heels these days is not the boggling
    numbers of bugs so much as the budding recognition that they are much more than casual hitchhikers capable of causing disease. They may be so
    essential to well-being that humans couldn’t live without them.

    To read more:
    http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/02/25/of_microbes_and_men/

    Or: http://tinyurl.com/2obewk

  20. Ed Darrell Says:

    this one not true because you cannot truthfully coutn the years of a tree by the rings it has on the trunk

    In repeated tests, since the beginning of history, trees have been found incapable of lying. Therefore, the counts they give are accurate, in almost every case.

  21. Matt Says:

    then why has it been a geuss for thousands of years apr 7k

    Science as commonly understood in the modern day has only really been available since the 19th century. Before that, humanity had little choice but to make up religious stories to explain the world around them – for example, believing that the sun was Ras firey chariot racing across the sky or that the Earth was flat.
    Of course, since the rise of science … these stories have been shown to be false. However, several thousand years of cultural ingraining has left certain such superstitious stories hard to expunge from society, even though the evidence is clearly against them.

    do you not get the picture here evolution is varied and still cannot put down the fact of creation

    Explained above. Religion is no more than the product of early human ignorance, trying to find explanations for the world they saw around them.

    And I do wish you would properly format your comments, your current style leaves it very hard to separate what you are merely copy/pasting and what you are actually typing under your own power.

    this is true so this one shoots itself down

    You have one unreliable witness who says Darwin recanted and a reliable one who says he did not. Which one will you believe, hm? Of course, even if Darwin did recant then it changes nothing about the theory at all – since, as stated, it relies on observable evidence and not the word of any one man.

    this one not true because you cannot truthfully coutn the years of a tree by the rings it has on the trunk

    Actually, you can.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

    this one is a laugh because you cannot find trully the dates of languages both on creationist/evolutionist point of view

    Due to grammatical and spelling errors, your sentence is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.

    carbond dating proven inadequite and not a even of the slitest truthfull in its dates
    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
    http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
    http://digg.com/general_sciences/Carbon_Dating_is_false,_the_Earth_is_not_millions_of_years_old
    http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=707
    http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/snowpack/snow%20layer%20densification.htm
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4H6GPRG-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a015a6228be4ba0f728e64e9d8820a4

    Carbon dating is actually very accurate within a certain range. You get beyond that range and it starts to not be as accurate. However, there are many other isotopes and other substances used to date things extremely accurately.

    I find it humorous that you claim not to know what AiG is and then copy/paste a link to it. And an angelfire site, for some reason. Not much credibility there, sorry.
    Same with godsaidmansaid.com, which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.

    You really do need to try much harder.

  22. evolution is false Says:

    i would like to ajourn seeing that the time is late i will continue in the morning

    yours truly

    Evolution is False

    till the morning

  23. evolution is false Says:

    Creationism is what is known as a hypothesis (and it is a poor one at that, really). A hypothesis could otherwise be called a ‘wild guess’ or ‘a stab in the dark’. It is an idea that has no evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design also falls under this term.

    then why has it been a geuss for thousands of years apr 7k

    evolution Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What’s New page for the latest changes.
    Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson’s Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
    This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information. These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.

    do you not get the picture here evolution is varied and still cannot put down the fact of creation

    The story of Darwin’s recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin’s death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin’s illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
    The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

    this is true so this one shoots itself down

    The age of the oldest living thing does not indicate dates of events happening before it. It merely shows that no global cataclysm happened less than 4900 years ago.
    Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.
    The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old

    this one not true because you cannot truthfully coutn the years of a tree by the rings it has on the trunk

    The fact that something can happen in less than 3,000 years is not evidence that the earth is young.

    Religions can indeed develop quickly. Witness Scientology, which arose in much less than one generation. Languages also can develop quickly, in just a few generations. American Sign Language is an example.

    However, the evidence indicates that languages and religions (not to mention the earth itself) are substantially older. For example, all the language families from North and South America except Eskimo-Aleut are distinct from Old World languages, and North America was not settled until 12,000 years ago at least. The earliest candidate for written language is about 8,000 years old (Li et al. 2003).
    Coincidences between archaeological and linguistic evidence lead to the conclusion that Austronesians living in Taiwan 6,000 years ago had pigs (Diamond 1997, 342-345).

    this one is a laugh because you cannot find trully the dates of languages both on creationist/evolutionist point of view

    The Pyramids are by no means the oldest human structures. Older structures show much less refinement. Earlier structures are not as common because they were often made of wood and bone, which do not preserve as well as stone. Still, there are remains of some such structures. The earliest evidence of a man-made habitation is the Terra Amata site in France, which has remains of huts from about 380,000 years ago. “The dwellings consisted of small poles supported by rocks for walls and larger poles in the center to support the roof” (Streich n.d.). (A 2-million-year-old circle of stones from Olduvai Gorge is not generally accepted as a legitimate artifact; Tattersall 1993.)
    The Pyramids themselves show progressive development in their architecture (Edwards 1991).
    The evolution of architecture is cultural evolution, which has little or nothing to do with biological evolution. Complex structures were probably driven by the development of agriculture, which ties a community to one location. Evolution into anatomically modern humans predated that by quite a bit.
    carbond dating proven inadequite and not a even of the slitest truthfull in its dates
    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
    http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
    http://digg.com/general_sciences/Carbon_Dating_is_false,_the_Earth_is_not_millions_of_years_old
    http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=707
    http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/snowpack/snow%20layer%20densification.htm
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4H6GPRG-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a015a6228be4ba0f728e64e9d8820a4

    Prehistoric humans built megalithic monuments, created sophisticated art, and showed evidence of other skills demonstrating that they were as intelligent as modern humans. Yet they lived for about 190,000 years before beginning written records 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Why the wait?
    Source:
    Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Evidence for a young world. Impact 384 (June): vi.
    Response:
    Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, significant personal property, and trade. All the earliest known writings are recordkeeping for property in agricultural societies. There was no need for such records before the development of agriculture and its consequences. Thus, the origin of agriculture also determined the origin of writing.

    Recent human evolution (also discussed with the origin of agriculture) may have applied to writing, too.

    so they had i personal issue and thats why they didnt wrigth manuscriptts about the things they did

  24. Matt Says:

    Here, once again thanks to talkorigins.org, is a long list of creationist claims that have long since been debunked.
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

    i have heard is that evolution still a theory

    It is a theory and it is also observed fact. Just like gravity is a theory and that germs cause disease is a theory. Science uses the term ‘theory’ in a way that most people are unfamiliar with and it can lead to confusion. A lot of people think of ‘theory’ as a guess, where science uses it much more alike to ’supported by evidence, rigorously tested and found to be correct after countless experiments’.

    and creation (a beleif) and not exactly a theory so to speak

    Creationism is what is known as a hypothesis (and it is a poor one at that, really). A hypothesis could otherwise be called a ‘wild guess’ or ‘a stab in the dark’. It is an idea that has no evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design also falls under this term.

    The sites I linked to and mentioned previously are run by experts in their fields – well, the first lot are. AiG, DI and that selection are not run by experts by any stretch of the imagination.

    PZ Myers, for example, is a well regarded biology professor at the University of Minnesota. His site is likewise well regarded as being honest, informative and up to date with the latest findings in the field. Try it here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

  25. evolution is false Says:

    note all you sites are mostly blogs with sitable people but it could and probablly is in the opinnion of the beholder you choose

  26. evolution is false Says:

    It also is a great collection of long debunked creationist claims which, for reasons which defy rational thought, still get brought up from time to time

    please site me a prevouis creation.vs.evolution problem that has won and which ever side i dont care but all i have heard is that evolution still a theory(and always will be looking for and trying to look for credit to prove true) and creation (a beleif) and not exactly a theory so to speak

    their are tons of info waiting for you to belief (and that is true) but they twist their own theory to get it to fit the missing puzzle peice so it may hopefully look good in the finish for people to believe

  27. Matt Says:

    Yet again you display your ignorance on this particular matter. Anyone with even a casual interest in the topic would know of the following web resources.

    I recommend talkorigins.org simply because it has a huge resource of knowledge, all of which are peer reviewed and properly referenced scientific findings. It also is a great collection of long debunked creationist claims which, for reasons which defy rational thought, still get brought up from time to time

    Panda’s Thumb is another well regarded website, well worth a look.

    The blog of PZ Myers is also an excellent resource.

    AiG is Answers In Genesis, an example of people who actually don’t know what they’re doing trying to appear like they have a clue. That is otherwise known as pseudo-science. The Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent also like to do the same and are generally regarded as being sad jokes.

    If you did not know about such resources, I suggest you take a step back and do some research before continuing. As it stands you are doing little but making yourself come across as ignorant and immature and wasting everyone else’s time.

  28. evolution is false Says:

    i look up the sites is their no further combac for you and all these sites say what i already have put down

  29. evolution is false Says:

    so please re quote your question kindly in a fashion readable for all.

  30. evolution is false Says:

    AiG never heard of it but you seem to like the cite “letstalkorigins.org” allot

    so it doesnt really matter does it furthermore i dont bother to look up and know about AiG so you bring up another blank point

  31. Matt Says:

    VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!

    It is an aspect of evolution, it is part of the mechanism of it. No matter have many times you repeat exclamation points or how many times you unnecessarily use upper case letters, that is not going to change.

    You have failed to read the links provided properly and failed to provide any evidence for your claims. Kindly do so or change the topic.

  32. evolution is false Says:

    “According to the traditional peppered moth story, cryptic coloration confers protection to the moths from predators, and as the habitat changed due to industrial pollution, natural selection caused the frequencies of different color varieties of the moth to change. As the trees became darker, the lighter moths stood out more, so the darker ones became more plentiful, and vice versa as the pollution cleared. That story is no longer supportable because of flaws found in the experiments, such as where the moths rested, and the occurrence of contrary data, such as unaccountable frequencies of uncamouflaged moths in areas. ”

    this proves nothing attal is it me or is this not making sence they change evolution to their liking

    Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).

    “Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).
    The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. For example, bird predation maintains the colorations of Heliconius cydno, which has different coloration in different regions, in both regions mimicking a noxious Heliconius species (Kapan 2001). Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence to support it.
    The peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles. Familiarity with the literature and with the moths in the field is needed to evaluate all the articles. But the research and the debates over its implications have all been done in the open. Charges of fraud and misconduct stem from neglect and misrepresentation of the research by the people making the charges (Grant 2000). Of those familiar with the literature, none doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths (Majerus 1999).
    In teaching any subject to beginners, simplifying complex topics is proper. The peppered moth story is a valuable tool for helping students understand how nature really works. Teachers would be right to omit the complexities from the story if they judged that their students were not yet ready for that higher level of learning (Rudge 2000). ”

    #1 THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION, BUT SIMPLY A COLOR CHANGE BACK AND FORTH WITHIN A STABLE SPECIES.
    #2 VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
    They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight.

    so is the full story actually truer i would go back on your belief about evolution and question your thought procces and what you believe in weather it be true or false.

  33. evolution is false Says:

    This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”—On CalI, July 2, 1973,p.9
    In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.
    Two leading British evolutionary scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:

    “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.
    “The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as KettlewelI has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?”—Marjorie Grene, “The Faith of Darwinism, “Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.

    There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary “research photos” were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees so is this a true or are you going to shoot it down as false like all the rest

  34. Matt Says:

    Your cutting and pasting skills still seem functional. That is nice.
    But what is the point you are actually attempting to make?

    If you are somehow attempting to show that the existence and changes within the Peppered moth population somehow disproves evolution then you are far from keeping up to date with current research. Indeed, you are also forgetting that all experiments must be carried out under strict guidelines more commonly known as the scientific method. Not using his method renders experiments worthless.

    The entire Peppered Moth story is covered here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2.html
    and continues here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

    I suggest you do actual research before copying and pasting from places. I assume you took that text from AiG or some other pseudo-science site.

  35. evolution is false Says:

    Let us consider this matter a little more deeply:
    Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years, while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary “proof!”
    For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.

    This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.
    THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION, BUT SIMPLY A COLOR CHANGE BACK AND FORTH WITHIN A STABLE SPECIES.

  36. evolution is false Says:

    By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.
    By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.
    Evolutionists point to this as a “proof of evolution,” but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.
    There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.
    There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularla. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.
    When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:
    “The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.”—*Harrison Matthews, “Introduction,” to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.

  37. evolution is false Says:

    “One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.

    Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light-colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.

  38. Matt Says:

    And what, specifically, aspect of the Peppered Moth would you like to discuss?

  39. evolution is false Says:

    “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.
    Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:
    “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth.”—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
    In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.

  40. evolution is false Says:

    THE PEPPERED MOTH

    – PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary “proof” of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.

  41. evolution is false Says:

    You stated that variation within a species is not evolution. Yet it is an aspect of such and you have yet to produce any sort of evidence which supports your claim, instead you linked to a page on talkorigins.org which actually disproved what you were claiming.

    IF YOU WONT TO TALK ABOUT IT LETS START WITH THE FAMOUS PEPPERED MOTH IS THIS OK TO YOU?

  42. Matt Says:

    Yes, your understanding of Evolution is mistaken. You then started talking about flags for some reason you still have not made clear. Perhaps you would like to set out your argument in logical point form?

    You stated that variation within a species is not evolution. Yet it is an aspect of such and you have yet to produce any sort of evidence which supports your claim, instead you linked to a page on talkorigins.org which actually disproved what you were claiming.

  43. evolution is false Says:

    because you wanted to know what evolution is saying that my understanding of evolution is a misconseption

    And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong

    WHAT IS YOUR POINT ANYWAY DO YOU EVEN HAVE A QUESTION OR ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME

  44. Matt Says:

    wow you may be dumber than i thought
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

    And you linked to that in relation to what, exactly? To prove what, exactly? It certainly does not act as evidence against anything I said. Indeed, it supports it.

    EXACTLY SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT FROM BEFORE

    You were the one, as I recall, who first started talking about flags. I am unsure why you started to do such. You may care to explain.

    NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU TRY AND PULL THIS OF ASK A MORE POINTED QUESTION AIR AND MAUYBE I WILL ANSWER IN A MORE CIVIL WAY

    That sentence makes no grammatical sense. I suggest you reread what you type to ensure that what you enter uses punctuation and makes sense.

  45. evolution is false Says:

    wow you may be dumber than i thought
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

    I do not know why you are suddenly talking about flags. While one can claim that the changes in the various flags of various countries are their ‘evolved’ forms, it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.
    EXACTLY SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT FROM BEFORE
    And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.

    NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU TRY AND PULL THIS OF ASK A MORE POINTED QUESTION AIR AND MAUYBE I WILL ANSWER IN A MORE CIVIL WAY

  46. Matt Says:

    I do not know why you are suddenly talking about flags. While one can claim that the changes in the various flags of various countries are their ‘evolved’ forms, it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.

    And you copy and paste from wikipedia. One, your source does not say variation amongst species is not a part of the Theory. Two, wikipedia is not a valid scientific source. Try using wikipedia as a reference or source in any sort of school paper and you would get a failing mark for sure, let alone use it as any sort of scientific reference in a research paper.

    You need to try much harder than that.

  47. evolution is false Says:

    e.g NATURAL SELECTION

    P.S SORRY FOR ALL THE NUMEROUS POSTS I WILL TRY AND KEEP IT DOWN TO MAINLY ONE

  48. evolution is false Says:

    TO MAKE IT ESIER I AM TALKING AT A CERTAIN PART OF EVOLUTION FOR THE FEABLE MINDED

  49. evolution is false Says:

    VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!

    And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.
    summing this up you have no claim and if your reading abilities(which i serouisly doubt you have any) you should know what evolution is and on what type of evolution we are talking about E.G (the united states of america had a few flags that is evolution germany had many different empires under different names) but for the dumb as people like you we (ANTIevolutioners) have to explain everything dont we

    In biology, evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes cause populations of organisms to alter over time. Inherited traits come from the genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
    COPIED FROM
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

  50. evolution is false Says:

    http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/malleefowl.html

    http://chroniclesofanevangelist.blogspot.com/2007/07/evolution-could-not-do-this-mallee-bird.html

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Mallee_bird

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MU9880210.htm

  51. Matt Says:

    VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!

    And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.

  52. Matt Says:

    we are not talking about nature and erosion we are talking about science truly your reading skills cant be that bad if you want to talk about evolution of the american flag then lets do so but we are talking about living things not a dead mountain thats going to change obvouisly like a road but it has factors living animals so please answer my question in a better more pointed way matt

    I did answer your question, it is not my fault if you are unable to grasp the concept of geological time scales; which both mountain range formation and evolution work under (again, though evolution is sometimes faster, sometimes slower depending which species you’re referring to).

    You objected to the point made about being unable to see evolution at work in the current day. I used the mountain range analogy why you could not see species take on large changes in the lifespan on a contemporary human.

    There is little else that can be said to explain it simpler. Except, possibly, if you wish me to start using hand puppets and large picture books. Sadly, the format provided us prohibits such.

    I still find it humorous, leaving Ed to answer his own tangent, that you now demand sources and such for presented information and yet provide no credible sources yourself.

  53. evolution is false Says:

    You’re asking the same question Darwin asked, really. When he discovered the bones of an extinct, giant, 9-banded armadillo, he thought that it was likely the modern, smaller, 9-banded armadillo evolved from the ancient giant. Armadillo changes size. Is that difficult to grasp

    ARE YOU ACTUALLY ASKING SUCH A QUESTION
    VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!

  54. evolution is false Says:

    “hink of a mountain range. During the time of your grand parents, it would have have been the same size and shape (barring avalanches and other such things). During the time of your grandchildren, it will be more or less the same shape and size. Yet that mountain range was not always there and give it a few hundred thousand years and there’s a fair chance that mountain range won’t be there at all.
    Evolution works on a similar kind of time scale (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending on particular species). The mountain range is changing, it forms and it erodes away but through a contemporary perspective those changes are extremely hard to judge. It is only through other means of measurement and other perspectives that the past and future of that mountain range can be measured and predicted.”

    we are not talking about nature and erosion we are talking about science truly your reading skills cant be that bad if you want to talk about evolution of the american flag then lets do so but we are talking about living things not a dead mountain thats going to change obvouisly like a road but it has factors living animals so please answer my question in a better more pointed way matt

    Does it matter if the woodpecker’s “special sticky substance” is saliva or not? Yes. Because if it’s saliva, then Dr. Gish’s claim that the bird would die waiting to evolve the “special sticky substance” is pure hooey, total fiction, a lie — all birds have saliva.

    well saliva still has to come about in the evolution chain of changes so lets rephrase this in a more suitable fashion MR. WOODPECKER WOULD DIE WAITING FOR HIS SALIVA GLANDS TO WORK AND BY THE TIME HIS SALIVA GLANDS WORKED HE WOULD BE IN THE GRAVE WITH ALL OTHER MR/MRS WOODPECKERS

    “if, I’ve read three papers on the mallee that indicate that temperature swings of as much as 15 degrees happen with some regularity. Do you have a source for the claim that a 1 degree swing will kill the birds? ”

    YOU DO NOT SITE ANY SOURCE OF YOUR FIND SO II CAN NOT ANSWER THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE DEBATEABLE INFO

  55. Ed Darrell Says:

    Does it matter if the woodpecker’s “special sticky substance” is saliva or not? Yes. Because if it’s saliva, then Dr. Gish’s claim that the bird would die waiting to evolve the “special sticky substance” is pure hooey, total fiction, a lie — all birds have saliva.

    Temperature control of an egg clutch is rather important throughout bird-dom. I think you’re misstating the range of temperatures the creatures can take, and I worry that much of your other claims are similarly breathlessly rephrased common, ordinary things.

    From what would the mallee, a mound-nesting megapode, evolve from? How about one of the other ten or twelve extinct mound-nesting megapodes known from Australia?

    You’re asking the same question Darwin asked, really. When he discovered the bones of an extinct, giant, 9-banded armadillo, he thought that it was likely the modern, smaller, 9-banded armadillo evolved from the ancient giant. Armadillo changes size. Is that difficult to grasp?

  56. Ed Darrell Says:

    Eif, I’ve read three papers on the mallee that indicate that temperature swings of as much as 15 degrees happen with some regularity. Do you have a source for the claim that a 1 degree swing will kill the birds?

    Certainly you are aware that crocodiles and alligators — cousins of the birds — use a similar method for incubating their eggs. The temperature pushes gender selection in the eggs, but otherwise may swing over quite a wide range. Other Australian megapodes that use mound egg nests also show gender skewing according to temperature — but not death within a fairly wide range.

    What is your source on this bird? Your sources don’t square with anything else I’m finding on the bird.

  57. Matt Says:

    That, obviously, is not what I am saying what-so-ever. As I commented earlier, it seems your reading comprehension skills are rather substandard at this point in time. Your educational institution are obviously not doing as well as they might otherwise hope, I must assume.

    Think of a mountain range. During the time of your grand parents, it would have have been the same size and shape (barring avalanches and other such things). During the time of your grandchildren, it will be more or less the same shape and size. Yet that mountain range was not always there and give it a few hundred thousand years and there’s a fair chance that mountain range won’t be there at all.

    Evolution works on a similar kind of time scale (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending on particular species). The mountain range is changing, it forms and it erodes away but through a contemporary perspective those changes are extremely hard to judge. It is only through other means of measurement and other perspectives that the past and future of that mountain range can be measured and predicted.

  58. evolution is false Says:

    ERRORS IN ABOVE TEXT

  59. evolution is false Says:

    MATT”The links provided plenty of instances for transitional fossils, whether you could comprehend or not … well, that is your problem and not mine. And the Theory of Evolution predicts that there would be no clear transitional species that could be identified as such in the present day, simply because all species are constantly in the process of specification – evolution is still take place, it just takes places over such a long scale of time that it is very hard to see with a contemporary perspective.”

    SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS ALL AROUND US BUT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE IT THATS A REAL LAUGH ITS LIKE A BLIND CURTAIN WE ALL SAY IS THEIR TO JUST BE THEIR INCOGNITO ITS INVISIBLE THATS STRANGE BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER MEANS OF THINGS TO FIND

  60. evolution is false Says:

    You forgot to mention that there’s nothing particularly special about the mallee’s bill, and you failed to note the nesting habit was rather common. What else have you left out? Why not just describe things as they are?

    THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND VERY MUCH SO PEOPLE HAVE TO DUMD DOWN THE “STUFF” FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND

    The leipoa, or Australian moundbird; it incubates eggs naturally in sandy mounds
    Baby chicks of the Australian mallee fowl hatch only because their parents know how to take temperature. If the mallee chick’s parents couldn’t tell when the temperature in the egg-chamber was exactly 33 degrees Celsius (91-92 degrees Fahrenheit), their eggs wouldn’t hatch. This would mean no more mallee fowl! In fact, if the parents are wrong by more than just one degree either way, it’s bye-bye birdie!

    Mallee fowl don’t sit on their eggs like most birds do to let their body-heat incubate the eggs. They build a large mound and monitor its temperature with their bill and tongue. The first white settlers in Australia to come across these huge mounds in the late 1700s thought they were Aboriginal burial mounds. Only later did they discover the grayish-brown, spotted birds that built them.

    The mallee fowl starts building its incredible mound as the breeding season approaches in spring. The parents dig a pit almost a meter (three feet) deep. They scratch up leaves, twigs, bark and other plant material, and scrape them into the pit. When rain soaks the debris the birds build it into a heap, covering the litter with thick sand or soil. When the vegetation rots, the heat increases in the mound, like a compost heap that gardeners use.

    Then an amazing thing happens …

    Birds take temperature of mound
    The birds take the temperature of the mound. The male probes it with his bill, and when both parents are satisfied the temperature in the mound is “hatching heat” (33°C), the hen lays her first egg. She then lays a single egg each week or two, for five or six months. She lays 15-20 eggs over this time. As each egg is laid, the male opens the mound and carefully moves the egg into the right position. He then prepares the mound for the next egg.

    Mother mallee hen usually starts laying in late September (southern hemisphere spring). From then until April, father fowl uses his beak and tongue to ensure the temperature of the mound stays at hatching heat.

    Father fowl keeps up the heat
    In a dazzling display of temperature sensing, the bird constantly alters the structure of the mound to maintain the exact temperature. If the heat in the mound increases because of rapidly decaying plant material, he uncovers the eggs to let air circulate around them. When the hot summer sun beats down, he adds sand or soil to the mound. This acts as a shield to protect the eggs.

    In autumn, as the cooler weather causes temperatures to drop, father mallee fowl uncovers the mound early in the day so the heat can reach the eggs. He covers it in the evening to retain the heat. Each egg needs seven weeks’ incubation. This means that some eggs will hatch while the mother is laying others.

    The newly hatched chick now has up to 15 hours of gruelling work ahead of it. It has to tunnel its way through nearly a meter of soil and debris to reach the open air. Amazingly, the chicks look after themselves from the moment they hatch, and can fly within 24 hours.

    Mallee fowl is called the “thermometer bird”
    The mallee fowl is sometimes called the “thermometer bird,” because its ability to monitor the mound’s temperature is so accurate.

    To Bible-believing Christians, the mallee fowl’s ability shows remarkable design and planning by God the Creator of all life:

    Both mother and father birds work together to prepare their egg-chamber, yet they also specialize in different tasks.
    The male is able to constantly monitor, and alter if necessary, the precise temperature needed to hatch the eggs laid by the female.
    The newborn chicks have to find their way through a meter of soil unaided, and can fend for themselves from the moment they hatch.
    Everything must work perfectly through a long cycle.

    Impossible to evolve
    Now try to think how the mallee fowl’s breeding cycle could have evolved. All you get is unanswered questions:

    How would the male and female determine their duties?
    How could the chicks know they must keep tunneling for up to 15 hours?
    What if the newly hatched chicks gave up after an eight-hour day?
    And how would the male know, from his first try at parenting, that he must maintain the temperature through various seasons and weather conditions at exactly 33°C or he will not produce any chicks?
    What could the first mallee fowl evolve from? Would it evolve from a bird that can’t take temperature? Not likely, because its whole existence depends on knowing the exact temperature for its eggs. And if it evolved from a bird that already knew how to take temperature, how did the first temperature-taking bird evolve? Evolution has nothing but guesses for this incredible ability.

    If the first mallee fowl parents didn’t get everything exactly right the first time, there would be no more mallee fowl. We believe that instinct and perfect design implanted by God the Creator is by far the most reasonable explanation for the existence and survival of the mallee fowl.

    COPIED FROM
    http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/malleefowl.html

    Noun 1. leipoa – Australian mound bird; incubates eggs naturally in sandy mounds
    Leipoa ocellata, lowan, mallee fowl
    megapode, mound bird, mound-bird, scrub fowl, mound builder – large-footed short-winged birds of Australasia; build mounds of decaying vegetation to incubate eggs
    genus Leipoa – mallee fowl
    mallee hen – adult female mallee fowl
    COPIED FROM
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Leipoa

  61. evolution is false Says:

    “You remind me of the grand creationist Duane Gish claiming that woodpeckers have a “special sticky substance on their tongues” to use to get insects to eat. He argued that “Mr. Woodpecker” would die waiting for the evolution of the sticky substance, and so, Gish claimed, “Mr. Woodpecker” had to have been made wholecloth by God”

    DOES IT MATTER IF IT IS SALIVA OR NOT NO! IT STILL IS STICKY SUBTSTANCE

  62. evolution is false Says:

    At least three other birds in Australia also build heat-controlling mounds. There are other birds around the world, and many more that nest on the ground and use microclimate controls. The “thermometer” in the mallee’s bill is nothing more than a heat sensitive area, and no more accurate than sprinkling warmed baby formula on the back of your hand to make sure it’s done right. There is no waiting for heat sensitivity to evolve. Most animals are already heat sensitive

    EXCAUSE ME BUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE OTHER BIRDS BECAUSE IF THE TEMP VARIES LESS THAN ONE DEGREE UP OR DOWN THE LITTLE BIRD ARE DEAD

  63. Ed Darrell Says:
    EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee?

    lets look at this the mallee has a thermometer in its bill that it sticks down in the nest thing and gets the temperature if this was evolving wilst the little mellees are being produced they die of because the temp is to warm/cold and then they die from it
    thats one reason

    At least three other birds in Australia also build heat-controlling mounds. There are other birds around the world, and many more that nest on the ground and use microclimate controls. The “thermometer” in the mallee’s bill is nothing more than a heat sensitive area, and no more accurate than sprinkling warmed baby formula on the back of your hand to make sure it’s done right. There is no waiting for heat sensitivity to evolve. Most animals are already heat sensitive.

    So, it’s an interesting adaptation, but not particularly unique. It requires no great mutation to get there from other mound-building birds in the area, no great mutation to get there from other ground-nesting birds in the area.

    You remind me of the grand creationist Duane Gish claiming that woodpeckers have a “special sticky substance on their tongues” to use to get insects to eat. He argued that “Mr. Woodpecker” would die waiting for the evolution of the sticky substance, and so, Gish claimed, “Mr. Woodpecker” had to have been made wholecloth by God.

    Gish forgot to mention that the “special sticky substance” is saliva, which all birds have.

    You forgot to mention that there’s nothing particularly special about the mallee’s bill, and you failed to note the nesting habit was rather common. What else have you left out? Why not just describe things as they are?

    Mallees are megapodes, many of which nest on the ground.

  64. evolution is false Says:

    “In all animals that reproduce sexually, each individual is “descended with modifications” from its parents. This is evolution in action. I gather we’ve run into the limits of your understanding of evolution, and you didn’t realize that. Now you know: Every species is a “transitional” species.”

    so why dont some people have tails still and some dont but no we all are alike people of course the average person has no such a thing but still why not

    “We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.”

    why would we get rid of them in the first place

    and why would it be going throu all the trouble to tailor (stupid reasoning) we dont really have clothes that you wear all the time to cover your face or whatever it would be nicer E.G (when im driving down the road [both hand on the steering wheel] i reach over with my tail drink some coffee [fyi i didnt get in a accident because i used my tail])i flush the toilet with my tail)i am more balanced with my tail)and many more)

    so please be kind enouf to re explain im not smart enough to understand stupidity
    and i only understand what makes sense so that is why evolution i dont understand

    Paul said it’s all laid out in front of you. You can see it all if you want to. Many refuse to see the facts. AND YOU STILL BELEIVE IN SUCH A LUDICRUS THING AS EVOLUTION YOU A LAUGH

    1:19:Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them
    1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

    1:22 PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THE BECAME FOOLS,

    yours truly evolution is FALSE

  65. evolution is false Says:

    about the melle bird first of it could not have mutations from whatever it started of from because mutations are bad

    mutations are random wild events that are totally uncontrollable totally enexpected and haphazard the only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. scientist have litteraly done hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and they havent produced another species out of themselfs

    evolution requires improvement mutations do not help or improve they only weaken and injure

  66. evolution is false Says:

    “EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee?”

    lets look at this the mallee has a thermometer in its bill that it sticks down in the nest thing and gets the temperature if this was evolving wilst the little mellees are being produced they die of because the temp is to warm/cold and then they die from it
    thats one reason

  67. evolution is false Says:

    “We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.”

    so why did evolution get rid of them we should have not gotten rid of them in the first place

    “EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee? Are there no related birds that do anything like that? (Ostriches also abandon their clutches, essentially, though they raise the chicks in a kibbutz.) Are there no other creatures that use that method of incubation? (Turtles, crocodiles and alligators use the same or similar methods of incubation; lots of animals lay eggs and leave them alone.)
    Who says such behaviors cannot evolve? On what basis?”

    the mellee if it has one degree of difference it will die even less than a degree but that is how it proves evolution a reject theory (and not fail to reject) because you cant be evolving it has to be evolved and everything has to be in order right from the start to be able to live as a species

    “Because that niche is already occupied by a fierce competitor. Living things compete where they have advantages, not where they are the underdogs”

    well thats why their is evolution right because those little guys being made out of nothing lol are combating the other “things” in the pond lake etc to make more life out of no life

    so you didnt exactly show me what i had for the questions i asked pleased be more detailed about your answer

  68. anoymoustoo Says:

    Exactly.

  69. Ed Darrell Says:

    Paul said it’s all laid out in front of you. You can see it all if you want to. Many refuse to see the facts.

  70. anonymoustoo Says:

    Use an oven mitt if you have to when you flip the pages……

  71. anonymoustoo Says:

    You went off on multiple tangents and imagined a lot into the questions I asked you. But failed to give a clear answer to any of them.

    And you are teaching high school? Sad, but typical.

    Also, please quote Romans 1:20 for me. I’m not familiar with Paul’s warnings about the creationists.

  72. anonymoustoo Says:

    Wow. I think you cleared up my question about you, Ed.

  73. Ed Darrell Says:

    EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee? Are there no related birds that do anything like that? (Ostriches also abandon their clutches, essentially, though they raise the chicks in a kibbutz.) Are there no other creatures that use that method of incubation? (Turtles, crocodiles and alligators use the same or similar methods of incubation; lots of animals lay eggs and leave them alone.)

    Who says such behaviors cannot evolve? On what basis?

  74. Ed Darrell Says:

    Question to think about why dont we have more humanoid beings being brought up out of ponds lakes…etc if evolution is still in progress we should have organs fish animals comeing out of other things?

    Because that niche is already occupied by a fierce competitor. Living things compete where they have advantages, not where they are the underdogs.

  75. Ed Darrell Says:

    EIF posted:

    #2″Can you name a species that is not a transitional species, EiF?”
    can i not i cant name you A animalia… etc of any kind that is evolving

    #3 u know if we evolved from apes then why dont we still have tails ou know that tails would be allot more helpfull if we had them if we are evolving into better greater beings then why not also have tails

    In all animals that reproduce sexually, each individual is “descended with modifications” from its parents. This is evolution in action. I gather we’ve run into the limits of your understanding of evolution, and you didn’t realize that. Now you know: Every species is a “transitional” species.

    We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.

  76. Ed Darrell Says:

    The second question, I admit, was a bit rude, but not out of left field. Some people find a curious comfort in denying the existence of God and their soul because they are loathe to contemplate their sinful nature and the judgement that may be awaiting them in the future. That’s probably the root of most atheism.

    And the root of evolutionary theory, in large part, is a refutation of God.

    Once again you choose a premise which is completely in error. No part of evolution theory denies God.

    Some people choose to believe God must be shackled in a box that is labeled “not science,” and then they choose to claim, falsely, that anything done in the name of science is contrary to God. It is not scientists who claim God is shackled so, and they cannot be held responsible for the apostasies of others.

    Evolution theory was discovered and advanced by Christians. At each step of its development, in much of the research undergirding the theory, Christians play a crucial role. Romans 1:20 warns us that there will be creationists who claim that such studies deny God, and it warns us to ignore them. That’s good advice. The evidence nature presents is evidence presented by God, in the views of Christians who accept on faith that God is the creator. Creation is a second testament of God, directly from God’s own hand (and therefore, more reliable on many issues than any testament in words). Evolution is manifested by God’s creation.

    In claiming that evolution denies God, one is claiming that all of creation denies God. And that is bad theology at best, apostasy and heresy in the middle of the spectrum, and blasphemy at its extreme.

    Where in the world could you ever get such an idea? Certainly you cannot get the idea by studying science. There is no set of scientific papers that conclude “God isn’t here.” Why not stick to the facts?

    You, however, are an interesting case. You say you are a Christian AND an evolutionist, which usually results in one of the anemic little brothers – intelligent design or theistic evolution – but you deny those as well, while referencing scripture to make your points!

    So you think knowledge is “an anemic little brother?” We see why you might urge ignorance for school children instead of knowledge, then. Your premise is offensive as well as wrong.

    Truth doesn’t need the arm of the law to prop it up. As Jefferson noted, a true theology stands on its own, and withstands discussion of scientific issues.

    It’s not science that’s anemic in your model; it’s your theology.

    Whew!

    You are either woefully ignorant for your level of education (public school all the way, I’m guessing) or you are dishonest (you’re a lawyer, duh) and/or perhaps you are just an over-educated nutcase (distinct possibility).

    So why don’t you clear this up. Explain how your belief in God (and your refutation of the Bible) and evolution (and your acceptance of the existence of the soul) coexist in your fevered mind. Is a straight answer too much to hope for?

    You told the world about your prostate trouble. Now show us your balls.

    I noted the human condition of the prostate, and you interpret it way beyond any evidence presented, to a wrong conclusion. That seems to be your modus operandus.

    Why should my belief in God have anything to do with this discussion? Is it your experience that belief makes it difficult for people to treat scientific evidence as representing reality? Are you claiming that we need to screen juries to get Christians out, because they cannot deal with reality and the evidence of it? What is the relevance to a discussion of evolution theory?

    In science, either there are data, or there are not. Either a theory explains and illuminates the data, or it does not, and is rejected.

    The role of Christianity in that discussion should fairly and properly be restricted to making certain there is honesty in the presentation of data (which means Christians have a lot of remedial work to do on creationism and ID advocates, frankly), and noting when conclusions run out of data to back them.

    So I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of being ignorant of. You don’t discuss evidence from science. You present some interesting premises which are neither part of Christianity nor part of this discussion. You take general statements known to be true, and distort them to specific applications where they are inappropriate.

    And then you accuse me of ignorance and worse.

    What is your own beef with God that you refuse to accept the evidence He gives us? What is your beef with most of Christianity that you have some odd view on ensoulment? What is your own lack of understanding of evolution that you think it makes any theological statement at all? Or is that a lack of understanding of Christianity, that leads you to the erroneous conclusion that, since your beliefs are denied by reality, reality must be in error?

  77. Ed Darrell Says:

    I asked how the soul evolved.

    A silly question, yes, but a fair question to put to an evolutionist that professes a belief in God. And a belief in God generally presupposes a belief in a soul.

    Both of those connected beliefs are unscientific and unfalsifiable. Yes?

    Either you 1) deny the existence of a soul (as your reference to that passage of Ecclesiastes seemed to imply); or 2) you have to assert some kind of theory for its evolution; or 3) you have to admit that at least some things just exist because God made them that way. Numbers 2 and 3 require you to admit that there is something about humans that transcends evolution and can’t be explained by science.

    Where in the world do you get the idea that understanding that a child is born of sexual union (the key thing in evolution, by the way), one doesn’t believe in a soul, or that there is some problem about ensoulment? The question is absurd from the outset, chiefly in its irrelevance to theology, let alone science.

    Why do you believe reproduction requires physical reproduction of the soul? On what scripture is that idea based? Is there any scripture anywhere that supports such a claim? Okay, if not in the Torah, not in the NT, where?

    Once we realize that the premise of your question is so far out of theological bounds, I think we are obligated to ask why you think this is an issue? Are you also curious about whether angels have souls, and how many of them can fit on the head of a pin?

    Are you one of those people who thinks cloning clones the soul, too? Oy.

    Christians start from the faith statement that the universe exists because God made it. Since scripture neither describes how such a creation was done, or can be done, nor warns against asking how it works, Christians traditionally regard scientific inquiry into those processes as near-sacred work.

    The question you’re asking is bizarre, like asking what happens to the souls of all those ova left inside a woman. The premise is not grounded in Christian theology. No answer makes a whit of difference as to how God created the universe.

  78. evolution is false Says:

    Does God Exist – Things to Consider
    Once you’re ready to ask the question, “does God exist?” here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

    Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
    Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
    Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren’t even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
    The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
    Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
    People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

    YOU DECIDE. THINK ON IT A LITTLE

  79. evolution is false Says:

    the big bang theory a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium. this gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space(”frictionless,”so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons. it all sounds so simple just as if you would find in a science fiction novel. and that is all it is.

    please combat both yours trully EiF.

  80. evolution is false Says:

    http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/education/encyclopedia/wildlife/birds/images/Mallee_Fowl.JPG

  81. evolution is false Says:

    Evolution could not do this

    the mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. in May or june, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size:about 3feet deep and 6 feet ling. then he fill is with vegetation. As it rots, it heat up. The bird waits patiently until it rains, which increase the heat to over 100F [38C]. at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92F. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate;she lays one egg a day for 30 days; and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thetmometer bill for 7weeeks. he cannot let the temperature go up or down even on degree. If it cools at night he piles on more sand if it overheats in the day he pulls off sand at hatching time the chicks break their shells-and crawl up through as much as 2feet of sand! arriving at the top each one if fully able to fly and is on its own neither father or mother mallee bird give it any further attention or training when it grows up it does just as its parents did

    very amazing huh “evolution could not do this”

  82. evolution is false Says:

    by the way matt those web sites offered no! help on the question i asked erlier

  83. evolution is false Says:

    Question to think about why dont we have more humanoid beings being brought up out of ponds lakes…etc if evolution is still in progress we should have organs fish animals comeing out of other things?

  84. evolution is false Says:

    Evolution is simply an empty THEORY.

    Evolution lacks any scientific proof

    Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

    There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

  85. evolution is false Says:

    sorry about the delay of time but #1″I know it was probably a rhetorical question but sources I’ve found indicate he’s in the slammer until 2015 or so.”
    sadly thats true for tax evasion
    #2″Can you name a species that is not a transitional species, EiF?”
    can i not i cant name you A animalia… etc of any kind that is evolving

    #3 u know if we evolved from apes then why dont we still have tails ou know that tails would be allot more helpfull if we had them if we are evolving into better greater beings then why not also have tails

  86. anonymoustoo Says:

    Are you a real Pharisee, or do you just play one on other people’s blogs?

    Ed, what sort of Pharisee do you suppose would quote from the New Testament? I think you misremember religious history. Funny quip, though; I bet it gets chuckles from the high school kids.

    I was, indeed, conniving (but not evilly) to trap you into a dilemma (let’s call it a ‘trilemma’).

    I asked how the soul evolved.

    A silly question, yes, but a fair question to put to an evolutionist that professes a belief in God. And a belief in God generally presupposes a belief in a soul.

    Both of those connected beliefs are unscientific and unfalsifiable. Yes?

    Either you 1) deny the existence of a soul (as your reference to that passage of Ecclesiastes seemed to imply); or 2) you have to assert some kind of theory for its evolution; or 3) you have to admit that at least some things just exist because God made them that way. Numbers 2 and 3 require you to admit that there is something about humans that transcends evolution and can’t be explained by science.

    The second question, I admit, was a bit rude, but not out of left field. Some people find a curious comfort in denying the existence of God and their soul because they are loathe to contemplate their sinful nature and the judgement that may be awaiting them in the future. That’s probably the root of most atheism.

    And the root of evolutionary theory, in large part, is a refutation of God.

    You, however, are an interesting case. You say you are a Christian AND an evolutionist, which usually results in one of the anemic little brothers – intelligent design or theistic evolution – but you deny those as well, while referencing scripture to make your points!

    Whew!

    You are either woefully ignorant for your level of education (public school all the way, I’m guessing) or you are dishonest (you’re a lawyer, duh) and/or perhaps you are just an over-educated nutcase (distinct possibility).

    So why don’t you clear this up. Explain how your belief in God (and your refutation of the Bible) and evolution (and your acceptance of the existence of the soul) coexist in your fevered mind. Is a straight answer too much to hope for?

    You told the world about your prostate trouble. Now show us your balls.

  87. Ed Darrell Says:

    Your use — or abuse — of Matthew 4 is an appropriate point of discussion here. Creationism sets up God for disproof, especially when it insists that it is science, which can be tested and disproven. If your claim is that God’s reputation must rest on a literal interpretation of an easily disproven text (when taken literally), you are testing God in exactly the way the Tempter was testing Jesus.

    You throw yourself off the Temple top first. I’ll follow, if the results seem to merit following.

  88. Ed Darrell Says:

    I’m neither ignorant nor evil, nor conniving evilly to try to trap others into such a false dilemma. Who said anything about souls evolving? Do you really think any part of Christianity would support such a claim? Where do souls come from? You can answer your own question, well within the bounds of Christianity, if you consider how humans get souls. Does every unfertilized egg in a woman have a soul? Does every sperm from a man have a soul?

    What is your serious question? Are you a real Pharisee, or do you just play one on other people’s blogs?

  89. anoymoustoo Says:

    A very clever comeback, ed!

    However, your answer betrays either your ignorance or your dishonsty.

    Earlier in this thread, you alluded to considering yourself a Christian. If this is truly so, then you are probably one of those postmodern, “liberal” or “emeging” Christians.

    At any rate, you appear to be ignorant of the vast differences between the Old and New Covenants – a veritable paradigm shift, if you will – and the truly world-changing significance of Jesus Christ.

    On the other hand, maybe you DO understand that, but are making a devious rhetorical argument.

    I have dealt with another fellow who quotes scripture for dishonest purposes:

    Matthew 4:1-11

    So which are you Ed? Ignorant or evil?

    Or just hoping that you don’t have a soul, as I asked before?

  90. Ed Darrell Says:

    Who claimed souls evolved?

    Read Ecclesiastes 3, especially verses 17-21.

  91. anonymoustoo Says:

    How did the soul evolve?

    Or do you not believe in a soul (hoping you don’t have one)?

  92. Matt Says:

    I know it was probably a rhetorical question but sources I’ve found indicate he’s in the slammer until 2015 or so.

  93. Ed Darrell Says:

    ever here of Dr.ken hovind evolutionist tremble at the thought of him he is the creationist (my) best friend

    Hovind weaseled out of a debate with me a couple of years ago. He’s a charlatan, through and through.

    Is he out of jail yet, by the way?

  94. Ed Darrell Says:

    notice that he never answered that their are any transition species that you might be able and go to the zoo to look at

    Every species is a “transitional” species, between its ancestors and its descendants.

    What is it you really want to see?

    If you want species in the transition stages whales went through, take a look at polar bears, some of whom spend 75% of their time in the water, with several key adaptations specific to marine animals, like nostrils that close, and webbed feet; then take a look at sea otters, which need to come out of the water only to breed, basically; then look at sea lions, seals and walruses, which have lost most of their hind legs, and are adapted primarily to swimming and diving, but which still must come out of the water to breed.

    Can you name a species that is not a transitional species, EiF?

  95. Matt Says:

    Obviously your reading comprehension skills are poor indeed. I worry for whatever educational institution you attend.

    The links provided plenty of instances for transitional fossils, whether you could comprehend or not … well, that is your problem and not mine. And the Theory of Evolution predicts that there would be no clear transitional species that could be identified as such in the present day, simply because all species are constantly in the process of specification – evolution is still take place, it just takes places over such a long scale of time that it is very hard to see with a contemporary perspective.

    As for Hovind, he has long since been discredited. His understanding of science has been demonstrated to be poor at best, while his research methods are truly laughable. No one trembles at his words, only the ignorant listen to his arguments and those who understand science merely sadly shake their heads at him. Even numerous large creationist groups have distanced themselves well away from the man, because they know he’s pretty much a complete loony.

    I suggest you try considerably harder than that if you wish to bring forth any sort of credible evidence.

  96. evolution is false Says:

    i think it is funny that in about the first post that matt did not show and avoided the question entirly about

    “But seriously, since you apparently have a strong faith in evolution, maybe you can point me toward some evidence for evolution. There ought to be billions of transitional species, both living and dead (in the fossil record). May I see one?”

    One things that annoys me more than repetition of long destroyed arguments and so-called evidence is the habit of creationists not to do even the most basic of research for themselves.

    From talkorigins.org (a site which is well regarded for being properly referenced and based solely in science).
    Examples of speciation which have been observed:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    Some reports on transitional fossils:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    So, in summary, the evidence for Evolution happening is massive indeed. Whereas the evidence for creationism is … well, non-existent.

    notice that he never answered that their are any transition species that you might be able and go to the zoo to look at

    and just gave some false web cites that joe blow wrote up

  97. evolution is false Says:

    ever here of Dr.ken hovind evolutionist tremble at the thought of him he is the creationist (my) best friend

    i am willing to fight and cast down any opisition that you have against creation and i will win!

    Yours truly

    evolution is FALSE

    your not so friendly combatint

  98. Ed Darrell Says:

    Can you please quote the part of the Constitution that makes creationism illegal? We all know the part about ‘establishment of a religion’, but I’d like to see the part that makes teaching something religion-related illegal. Even better, please link to the pertinent legal codes. We have all seen the court cases, but the fight ain’t over… Show us the basis of your claim that it’s illegal.

    Let me make this simple: Can you show us any part of the Constitution which authorizes the government saying, “This religious dogma is the dogma you should believe?” Or even, “This religious dogma should be considered as good as science, even though it can’t possibly withstand scientific testing?”

  99. Ediacaran Says:

    Anonymous asks: “Teaching creationism, evolution, or intelligent design ideas side-by-side isn’t even an ‘establishment of religion’ is it?”

    Yes, teaching creationism (whether intelligent design or another variant) as though it were a viable scientific concept is an “establishment of religion”. Did you bother to read the court case material Ed was kind enough to provide? Judge Jones did an excellent job in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Don’t remain deliberately ignorant by ignoring the answers knowledgeable people provide.

    Personally, I could see a pedagogical benefit in showing students how creationism is a religiously motivated pseudoscience that has no scientific merit, and expose the lies that creationists use to try to cast doubt on genuine science, but I figure with the limited time avialable in science class, it’s probably best to just give them a good foundation in the real science, so they’ll recognize the bogus claims of creationists as nonsense. When one is very familiar with the real thing, the counterfeits are easier to spot.

    Let’s suppose you manage to trash the U.S. Constitution and get the law changed so you can push religion in science classes. Do the Jewish/Christian/Islam/Mormon variants of the Abrahmic creation myths get taught along with the Hindu creation myth? Do the Greco-Roman religious creation myths get equal billing? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth get equal time? The Korean shaman creation myth? Which religion(s) do you intend to establish when thumbing your nose at the U.S. Constitution?

    I have a revolutionary idea – let’s allow a consensus of scientists and scientifically literate science educators determine what gets taught in science class. I’d bet they insist that science class be used to teach science, and not religious mythology. That’s completely over the top, I know, but maybe it could work. Of course, that means that each religious group has to teach their creation myth in privately-supported religious centers voluntarily supported by adherents of the religion, instead of involving the government in a squabble over whose religious mythology gets taught in public schools.

    Maybe Thomas Jefferson was onto a good idea with that “Wall of Separation” between church and state, when he composed a rough outline of the Bill of Rights, mailed it from his Ambassador post in France, and helped persuade his colleague and confidant James Madison into doing the heavy lifting of fleshing it out and getting it passed.

    You’ve gotta love those Founders and their Enlightenment ideals!

  100. Ediacaran Says:

    The discussion of eye color in great apes reminded me of Snowflake at the Barcelona Zoo, who died a few years before I visited Barcelona. Snowflake had blue/grey eyes, as a consequence of his particular albinism. Here’s a picture from when he was young that shows his eyes a little better than most pics, followed by one late in his life:

    http://bp0.blogger.com/_PGvSoaafXiI/RmgEx9vPZbI/AAAAAAAAAQw/XlqGWLURxkU/s400/snowflake-gorilla.JPG

    http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1069522538175_2003/11/24/240gorilla,0.jpg

  101. Ediacaran Says:

    Anonymous fails to cite her/his original source.

    Anon, just cite your source, and clarify your vague claims (eyes, blood proteins, etc.) so I can track down the data to test your claims. If you already have accession numbers for GenBank, great, but if not, I at least need to know to what blood proteins you were referring. If you haven’t a clue, just say so, and just provide the link to your original source. If your source doesn’t have a clue, I’ll say so. I gather you’ve never heard of GenBank accession numbers before posting on this thread. No problem, it can be a learning experience for you, too, if you’re willing to learn.

    Are you just parroting a creationist website that does the old “lift-and-spin”? Does it selectively lift research done by scientists who accept evolution, add a dismissive context, then conclude that evolution didn’t happen? That’s usually why creationists are afraid to provide their sources – if one can find enough information to get back to peer-reviewed scientific work that the creationists are misrepresenting, one learns that the scientists actually doing the work accept evolution and that evolution is substantiated by the data.

    The link that anon DID provide regarding language didn’t substantiate her/his claim that “we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all)”. Anonymous, for starters, you’re a primate, so if “we” have a language center in the brain, obviously at least SOME primates have it. And if you do some digging through the scientific literature, you’ll find that our closest non-human great ape cousins (chimps and gorillas) have the parts of the brain corresponding to the “language center”, as you put it: Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. Here are some abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature as examples:

    Cantalupo C, Hopkins WD. “Asymmetric Broca’s area in great apes”. Nature. 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):505.
    “Brodmann’s area 44 delineates part of Broca’s area within the inferior frontal gyrus of the human brain and is a critical region for speech production, being larger in the left hemisphere than in the right – an asymmetry that has been correlated with language dominance. Here we show that there is a similar asymmetry in this area, also with left-hemisphere dominance, in three great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus and Gorilla gorilla). Our findings suggest that the neuroanatomical substrates for left-hemisphere dominance in speech production were evident at least five million years ago and are not unique to hominid evolution.”

    Gannon PJ, Holloway RL, Broadfield DC, Braun AR.
    “Asymmetry of chimpanzee planum temporale: humanlike pattern of Wernicke’s brain language area homolog”. Science. 1998 Jan 9;279(5348):220-2.
    “The anatomic pattern and left hemisphere size predominance of the planum temporale, a language area of the human brain, are also present in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). The left planum temporale was significantly larger in 94 percent (17 of 18) of chimpanzee brains examined. It is widely accepted that the planum temporale is a key component of Wernicke’s receptive language area, which is also implicated in human communication-related disorders such as schizophrenia and in normal variations such as musical talent. However, anatomic hemispheric asymmetry of this cerebrocortical site is clearly not unique to humans, as is currently thought. The evolutionary origin of human language may have been founded on this basal anatomic substrate, which was already lateralized to the left hemisphere in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans 8 million years ago.”

    I’m not denying the differences. It’s just that the differences need to be explained. Most of your claims are so vague they don’t provide enough detail to test.

    As for the rib differences, not all humans have the same number of ribs, so those particular changes aren’t any kind of barrier for evolution, if that is what you mean to imply.

    As for number of vertebrae, normal chimps and humans generally have the same total of thoracic, lumbar and sacral vertebrae. (And it’s interesting to see where the vertebrae changes occurred in the transitional fossils in the human lineage). I think humans typically have one less caudal (”tail) vertebra than our chimp and gorilla cousins – no big deal. Now the number of cervical (”neck”) vertebrae seems to be much more crucial for mammals. I am aware of only 2 species of mammal that don’t normally have 7 cervical vertebrae, so it seems to be a feature much more highly conserved by Natural Selection among our mammal cousins. Even our mammalian cousins the whales and dolphins, which evolved from land-dwelling ancestors, have 7.

    To what eye differences were you referring? Eye color? That the whites of the eyes are more exposed in the human face? If you know what you’re talking about, use your communications skills to convey it to us.

    So far, for the differences and the similarities, all the data substantiate evolution.

  102. anonymous Says:

    Ediacaran,

    I’m not going to search for information for you on all the differences between chimpanzees and humans. If you really didn’t know we were that different, then doing your own research would be a good exercise for you and might be quite a learning adventure.

    On the language question, however, here’s a link to get you started:

    http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/minds-animals3

    On the constututional question, let’s look at the pertinent phrases:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

    And they don’t, do they, one way or the other? I guess we leave that up to lawyers and the courts….

    Teaching creationism, evolution, or intelligent design ideas side-by-side isn’t even an ‘establishment of religion’ is it? But perhaps kids under 18 should not be exposed to controversy.

    or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Unless the lawyers or judges disagree, right?

    or abridging the freedom of speech

    Unless somebody is saying something the lawyers don’t like.

    Who runs the country these days anyway, ‘the people’ or the lawyers and politicians?

    You want to change something, start there.

  103. Ediacaran Says:

    Ed, thanks for already answering the Constitution question.

    For a timely reminder for those of us in the United States of America:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  104. Ediacaran Says:

    anonymous writes: “Yes, humans and chimps ’share’ about 98% of their DNA, but of course that 2% covers a bit more than what you say above. Our eyes are quite different, we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all), our feet are very different, with a totally different ankle hinge, a differently shaped pelvis, different number of vertabrae , two more ribs in a chimp, restructured inner ear bones, quite different blood proteins, an more as you know, but beyond these little details we are almost brothers …”

    Please elaborate on your claims. What characteristics are “quite different” in chimp v. human eyes? Most of what I’ve studied are quite similar, so I’m curious as to the specific differences you can cite. I know of a few characteristics that are different, but have little effect on function. While the morphological differences are of interest to me, I’m more familiar with the genetic & protein sequence data, so please cite the particular blood proteins that you characterize as “quite different”. If you will post the GenBank accession numbers for the proteins, so much the better. If you don’t have those, at least provide enough information so I can track down the sequences at GenBank.

    Please cite your sources for all the claims you made (preferably scientific sources from peer-reviewed journals). I am genuinely curious.

    Too, I’d really be interested to hear how the chimp Washoe and the gorilla Koko communicated with humans in sign language – especially without “a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all)”, according to your post.

  105. Ed Darrell Says:

    Standards are different for colleges, partly because kids over the age of 18 are considered adults under the law, and not liable to have their religion swayed by errant teaching.

  106. Ed Darrell Says:

    The part of the constitution which makes it illegal to teach religion as religion in schools?

    First, check Articles I, II, and III. In none of those articles is any branch of the federal government delegated the power to select religion for citizens. Then check Article IV. States don’t have that power, either. (If you check your state constitution, you’ll find it also outlaws teaching religion.)

    Then take a look at Amendment I. It enumerates rights of citizens which are left unenumerated previously. In addition to the lack of delegation of power to any branch of government with anything to do with religion, Amendment I closes the back door by saying that Congress may not even entertain a law to get around the structure.

    Teaching ABOUT religion is not illegal. But the request here is to teach religion as science. To do it legally, you’d need to do what the AP biology books do: “Here’s why creationism is not science, is inaccurate, and will not be tested . . .”

    Creationism is religious dogma. To teach it as science, as an “alternative” idea to evolution, is an establishment of that religion.

    And so, courts for more than 40 years have ruled it a violation of the Constitution.

    Check above; I cited the cases, and linked to them, for anony-Ma.

    Ed

  107. anonymous Says:

    Our local college offers a course in spirit channeling and contacting your personal angels. Legal? Also a course in zen buddhism meditation. Not religion?

  108. anonymous Says:

    Ed writes: “What’s the great gap between chimps and humans? A gene here gives humans greater swelling in the frontal lobes where a couple of new thinking processes can occur; another gene gives humans a workable voice box; another fluke mutation causes a lack of hair (is that an advantage? perhaps, in a world where diseases are carried by lice that hide in fur).

    Yes, humans and chimps ’share’ about 98% of their DNA, but of course that 2% covers a bit more than what you say above. Our eyes are quite different, we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all), our feet are very different, with a totally different ankle hinge, a differently shaped pelvis, different number of vertabrae , two more ribs in a chimp, restructured inner ear bones, quite different blood proteins, an more as you know, but beyond these little details we are almost brothers …

    Ediacaran – Can you please quote the part of the Constitution that makes creationism illegal? We all know the part about ‘establishment of a religion’, but I’d like to see the part that makes teaching something religion-related illegal. Even better, please link to the pertinent legal codes. We have all seen the court cases, but the fight ain’t over… Show us the basis of your claim that it’s illegal.

  109. Ediacaran Says:

    In response to Anony-Ma’s posts regarding a charter school in Arizona teaching creationism (”Intelligent Design” creationism and variants) alongside evolution, it sounds like such activity is illegal, if the following report is correct: Charter schools spark controversy in Arizona, D.C.

    Anony-Ma, if you’re still around, to what charter school were you referring?

    You need to recommend to your school board to stick to evolution in science class. And the same goes for the charter school, unless they want to face an expensive lawsuit for violating the U.S. Constitution, if they are publicly funded as the article states. They will have a tough time competing after they pay a hefty fine. Have both schools review the Dover, Pennsylvania, case Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    Stick to science in science class. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science.

  110. Ediacaran Says:

    Egads, the irony!

    Unless he/she is joking, “anonymous” refers to alleged “classic evolutionary hoaxes” and posts creationist links to websites that tout: “mantracks” alongside dino tracks near the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas; regurgitations of variants of creationist John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells’ distortions; the claim that Neanderthals were just humans suffering from rickets and arthritis, and many other hilarious classic creationist hoaxes.

    Clearly “anonymous” fell for the creationist stinky bait – hook, line and sinker. Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) would be pleased. Do creationists. anonymous or otherwise, have any remorse about their rampant bearing of false witness?

    I don’t intend to devote too much time to these long-refuted creationist claims, so if anyone’s interested, here a few rebuttals from TalkOrigins’ Index to Creationist Claims:

    CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

    CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html

    CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

    CC051. Neanderthal was based on a disfigured human.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051.html

    CC051.1. Neanderthals were humans with rickets.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

  111. Ediacaran Says:

    These are the links promised in my previous post in this thread.

    Vitamin C pseudogene info:
    The ENSI (Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes) lesson plan website is at:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evol.fs.html

    The main page for the Vitamin C pseudogene lesson plan is at:
    http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.ball.html

    CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase deletion mutation info:
    Original paper on the 92 base pair deletion mutation, “A mutation in human CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase occurred after the Homo-Pan divergence” by Hsun-Hua Chou, Hiromu Takematsu, Sandra Diaz, Jane Iber, Elizabeth Nickerson, Kerry L. Wright, Elaine A. Muchmore, David L. Nelson, Stephen T. Warren, and Ajit Varki:
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11751

    A 2007 review by Varki, A. and Nelson, D.: Genomic Differences between Humans and Chimpanzees (Invited Review). Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 36:191-209, 2007.
    http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/B109.pdf

    A 2002 review in Nature co-authored by Varki that covers some differences between chimps and humans:
    http://www.biology.duke.edu/wraylab/resources/Olson&Varki_2003.pdf

    An old (1998) overview by Ann Gibbons accessible to laypersons regarding differences between humans and the other great apes:
    http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Gibbons_98.html

  112. Pam Says:

    a Moonie who got an advanced degree at Harvard just so he could dupe church ladies and other unsuspecting types.

    Hold on, Ed. I suspect your commenters would lean towards duped church MEN than women. Harvard also produced Barry Fell who insisted that North American native peoples were actually Hittites and Egyptians. [You can always tell a Harvard man...]

    One thing about Piltdown– it was not a good hoax. It was easily disproven by careful science (by a New Zealander, based on tooth shape but it was difficult to get the word around then) and later also by good science. For one example, the hypothesis that the pieces of bone all came from the same individual and therefore would all be the same age was disproven. Intelligent Design would have no way to test whether Piltdown was legitimate or not.

  113. Ed Darrell Says:

    Ediacaran: I think you’re right. My error.

    Who you callin’ “science teacher,” Mr. or Ms. anonymous?

    Texas science books don’t have hoaxes in ‘em, haven’t for years. We have scientists look them over. The biggest hoaxes in recent years have all come from one set of sources, creationists — and there’s a book out that is almost nothing but hoax, called Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a Moonie who got an advanced degree at Harvard just so he could dupe church ladies and other unsuspecting types.

    None of his stuff is in any Texas textbook.

    Without looking at the sites you cite, I’ll wager you’ve not bothered to check the books in your state. Generally the hoax-obsessed rail on about the Piltdown hoax, completely oblivious to the fact that it didn’t make textbooks just because it didn’t fit the facts, which is what caused the scientists to go back and look at the stuff, uncovering the hoax.

    In fact, I’ll wager that there is not a single hoax you can name that has made any textbook in more than 60 years.

  114. Ediacaran Says:

    Ed writes: “What’s the great gap between chimps and humans? A gene here gives humans greater swelling in the frontal lobes where a couple of new thinking processes can occur; another gene gives humans a workable voice box; another fluke mutation causes a lack of hair (is that an advantage? perhaps, in a world where diseases are carried by lice that hide in fur). Another change steals from humans the ability to manufacture vitamin C. …”

    Ed, from what I’ve read, our relatively close evolutionary cousins among the primates share the same crucial mutation that disabled our ability to synthesize vitamin c. If I recall correctly (from reading material at the ENSI evolution education site), primate protein sequences for chimps, orangutans and macaques all have the same deletion compared to more distantly related mammals, which are still capable of vitamin c synthesis. I’ll try to find a link and post it here. I just didn’t want anyone to get the impression that the vitamin c-disabling mutation was unique to the human lineage, but occurred in an ancestor that was much earlier than the chimp-human split. I’d have to check more data to see if the mutation was inherited by all primates. The outgroup used in the phylogenetic analysis in the ENSI class materials was the rat, which can synthesize vitamin c.

    Another fascinating mutation that IS unique to the human lineage was a 92 base pair deletion that has been written about by Ajit Varki, that likely had effects on brain function. I’ll see if I can find a link or two on it.

  115. anonymous Says:

    Well, the prostate gland may be the least of the design problems, but it’s on Ed’s mind a lot I bet!

    What I think is unfair is how the trilobites got to have better eyes than us. That is just not cool. You’re right too, about the inferior materials. They ought to last a lifetime. Same with knee joints and colons. I’m going to sue the manufacturer!

    We didn’t get a very good warranty either.

    BTW – Mr. Science teacher: Do the textbooks you use happen to still include any of the classic evolutionary hoaxes? If so, what do you tell your students about them? You sound like a stickler for ‘truth’ so I’m certain you either don’t use those books, or you explain them to your students, right?

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation

    http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/02/hoax_of_dodos_pt_1_flock_of_do.html

    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm

  116. Onkel Bob Says:

    The prostate gland is the least of Incompetent Design. A journeyman plumber would be ashamed of creating something akin to the sinus cavity. A first year engineering student knows better than place 60% of our weight on the spine. The eye is the result of deliberate design? Why build it using inferior materials subject to deformation and deterioration?
    Of course evolution describes and explains all those situations, but I prefer to think that we’re the prototypes of an omnipotent designer. Somewhere out in the stars are the production models ;^)

  117. Ed Darrell Says:

    You have to ask?

  118. anony-Ma Says:

    Um, Ed? Do believe in the ‘amazingly-powerful’ evolution God or the ‘arbitrary,angry, and devious ‘ God who gave you wee wee troubles?

    I think I’m going to leave now.

  119. Ed Darrell Says:

    How God did it is open to interpretation, I suppose. Even if we just look at the underlying ‘natural laws’ and the order built into mathematics, etc it is hard (for me at least) to not say there must have been some kind of plan or design. How such order in the universe – mathematical laws, gravity, other physical laws, the particles and waves that make up the universe an all that – could be here just by chance is more mind boggling to me than the idea of God.

    That the God of evolution is greater than the god of creationism should be clear to you, once you understand that evolution is in no way a theory of chance. Chance implies accident. Evolution, as defined ably by Darwin, is evolution by natural and sexual selection. “Selection” is the opposite of “chance.”

    As God created a universe that creates conditions for life in many places, and which has life in almost bizarrely-robust forms, in great variety, and life with evolves according to a very few principles which appear for all theological purposes to be divine, then that God is amazingly powerful, everlasting and patient — not at all like the arbitrary, angry and devious god of creationists, who puts the male urethra through the prostate gland apparently out of great misunderstanding of how the human body works.

  120. Ed Darrell Says:

    I believe you are talking about microevolution. creationists (most of them anyway, as i understand) don’t have a problem with microeveolution. Their focus is on the origin of life (which evolutionists don’t have a theory about), and a refutation of macroevolution (which evolutionists don’t have any real evidence for). So how would that hurt education? And intelligent design doesn’t even really try to refute evolution at all.

    Again, what is the fight about? Your arguments are getting weaker.

    There is no difference between “micro” evolution and “macro” evolution. That’s a faux issue seized upon by creationists to make creationism more sciency. It’s not good science, the way they abuse it.

    In the one peer-reviewed paper I ever found where a scientist used the phrases, “microevolution” was defined as evolution that didn’t create speciation. This covers a vast range of mutations, but is basically an increase in variations between individuals in a species (evolution works on entire populations, not on individuals). “Macroevolution” was defined as evolution that can be identified as speciation — the creation of a new species.

    In the paper, the author made clear the distinction is purely arbitrary, since the processes are exactly the same on both sides of the “speciation line.” So if a creationist admits microevolution, they’ve admitted evolution.

    They won’t let you off that hook so easily, however — and here is where you encounter the inherent dishonesty in creationism argument. It’s not based on science. So science refutations of creationism arguments are often denied by creationists.

    As I’ve noted before, perhaps in other threads here, evolution has plenty of evidence for macro evolution, for speciation. There is no doubt that modern bovines are not the aurochs from which it is descended with modifications (Darwin’s definition). There is no doubt that broccoli and radishes are not mustard plants, though still in the mustard family of plants. Hold up a radish and a mustard leaf, and ask a creationist if they are really the same species. Radish and broccoli? Get serious. Who told you “macro” evolution hasn’t been demonstrated? That’s false.

    anony-Ma, do you understand evolution yourself? Have you read Mayr’s reduction of Darwin to four or five key points?

  121. Ed Darrell Says:

    In scientific speak, I suppose the hypothesis for God creating and maybe evolving life on Earth can be falsified by other evidence, but that other evidence in itself is more or less other ways of interpreting the same evidence. Therefore, I don’t see a belief in God as being inherently ‘unscientific’ in itself.

    Belief in God isnt’ falsifiable, no. But creationism offers specific predictions, and in almost every case, those predictions have been falsified. Intelligent design is more weaselly, with ID advocates openly saying they don’t have any hypothesis yet (which means there’s nothing to teach in school, and the Discovery Institute is clear in saying they thing schools are foolish to teach it — they refused to back the Dover, Pennsylvania, schools in teaching ID, even pulling out of the trial at the last minute).

    I suspect your school board isn’t much up on the science. What state are you in? Surely there is a nearby university with a professor of biology who can offer suggestions on how to improve biology teaching, and spend a few hours with the school board educating them on why evolution is science and creationism is not — no?

  122. Ed Darrell Says:

    Where did Ed go, anyway?

    To Springfield, Illinois. Liberty Fund and Bill of Rights Institute seminar, “Presidents and the Constitution: Abraham Lincoln.”

  123. Ed Darrell Says:

    Yes, we have problems, but the big fight is over this topic we are discussing here. I want to understand why it’s so contentious and wonder why we ‘can’t all just get along’. It’s not strictly a quality of education issue, since admittedly the charter school is doing a great job. The school district would like to allow a yearly creation presentation, and perhaps try to include some intelligent design information in science classes, but the stumbling block has been a few staunch evolutionists who raise heck whenever the idea is brought up.

    Your problem seems to be a marketing problem in a limited market — if parents are picking the charter school because it teaches creationism, there’s probably no legal way to compete. If another charter school opened and students went there because they served beer during 5th period, I doubt the school board would ask to serve beer during 5th period just once or twice a year, in order to compete. You have a similar problem here, if, as I said, the point of competition is the charter school’s teaching religion instead of the state standards in science. Don’t dumb down to their level.

    Beef up the science stuff instead. I think science is a real attractor to kids and their parents, when it’s done well. These creationism eruptions don’t help. Have you considered expanding AP biology? Have you considered the International Baccalaureate curriculum, even just to beef up some sections?

    [Would you mind e-mailing me your district? I'm curious now to know who the charter school is, and just what they offer.]

  124. Ed Darrell Says:

    e.i.f.: Have you yet read The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time? It’s written by Jonathan Weiner, a heck of a good science writer, and the book won the Pulitzer for general nonfiction in 1994. (Also, see here, the PBS “Evolution” website discussion of the Grants’ research.)

    Or, alternatively, have you explored any of the material Berkeley University’s site on evolution?

    There were several large chunks of evolution evidence listed for you in the previous thread. You failed to respond. I don’t mind debate, but please, discuss civilly.

  125. evolution is false Says:

    Embarrassing lure of evolution ‹‹ Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub››

    now this is what i think this blog’s title should be

  126. evolution is false Says:

    iin a real debate you would go noware until you actually gave evidence not exactly hard evidence but actuall evidence of it being false/true

  127. evolution is false Says:

    lol you are the one who got schooled but i dont know if you wont to have another debate seeing that you could get tought a leason in history or are you the person who only said without citeing evidence of where and how you got your evidence but only said that it is false by your word only lol

    P.S you will have to do better than just saying it is false before you open your mouth and say its false actually have cites to check out that will disprove it from all aspects

  128. Matt Says:

    Hm. Think this is the same ignorant EiF character from before? You know, the silly 15 or 16 year old who soundly had his butt kicked by facts and research?

  129. evolution is false Says:

    iam willing to combat evolution in any way and i wil!!!! prove you false evolutioners

  130. evolution is false Says:

    evolution is false!!!

  131. Ed Darrell Says:

    1) Why is it ‘legal’ for a charter school to cover creationism and intelligent design (along with a godless evolution), but not for other public schools (charter schools ARE public schools).

    Depends on the state, actually. Generally, charter schools are considered private schools under the law, and don’t have to live up to the higher standards that public schools do. If a charter school were required to get kids past the state exit exam, they should consider teaching evolution to boost their chances.

    Public schools may not teach creationism because it’s a violation of the establishment clause. Governmental entities cannot teach religious material as fact, nor show favoritism toward any religious view. Creationism is purely a religious view, and hence illegal. That’s what the court cases are all about.

    2) If evolutionary scientists have been unable to prove that macroevolution has taken place, what is ‘intellectually dishonest’ about considering alternatives?

    In lay language, scientists have “proven” that macroevolution has occurred. Teaching falsehoods is bad form for teachers.

    There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about considering alternative theories in science. Neither creationism nor its sibling, intelligent design, is a hypothesis in science. Creationism is religion, not science.

    3) How in heck does a belief in creationism, intelligent design, OR evolution impact research into the diseases you mentioned?

    Two pernicious ways: First, it leaves kids who could be good researchers uninformed about the science. Graduates of creationism courses rarely pursue science, and about 80% of those who do, drop out.

    Second, ill-informed public officials cut funding for government research efforts, generally based on misconceptions about what the research does. Stem cell research has been crippled in the U.S., for example. Research into HIV/AIDS was delayed for months while Surgeon General Everett Koop educated policy makers on how evolution was involved, and why that was not a political issue.

    4) And if you think mediocrity in education is evil (I believe there IS much mediocrity sometimes), why aren’t hotshot lawyers like you doing something about that; perhaps fighting the wastage of tax dollars on the various other boondoggles?

    I am doing something about it. I teach high school. I agitate. I blog.

    5) Exactly what sort of lawyer are you anyhow? Your specialty?

    A very good environmental and land development lawyer, with a lot of legislative experience.

  132. anony-Ma Says:

    Pam, you are making clear to me what a part of this problem is all about.

    Some people seem to have severe tunnel vision and can’t seem to even hear what other people are saying. I’ve watched this happen at school board meetings. And I’m watching it here. You keep on misunderstanding what I’m saying, no matter how many different ways I try to present it. You miss some of the basic facts of the situation I’ve tried to outline for you. You have a preconcieved idea of what I’m saying, and can’t hear me when I ‘deviate’ from the program you think I or the school board is on. In my experience it’s not just the evolutionists that have this problem, but they do seem to carry the most of it; but as I say, it seems to be a problem for all the folks bent on fighting about it.

    Maybe you should scroll up and re-read what I’ve been saying. It’s a rather interesting story, in my humble opinion. And there’s much more to it than just whether one believes in God or whether one believes in evolution, or for that nmatter whether one believes in nothing at all. The bigger issue is an educational situation, a public schooling situation, that many good, sincere people are grappling with.

    I’m sure you are just as good and sincere too, but you have tunnel vision. It’s understandable, since this blog is about things like evolution and you came here for an argument, but the conversation has digressed into a related area. I suspect ed hasn’t responded in a while because he does understand the situation I’ve described, but hasn’t come up with a suggested solution yet.

  133. Pam Says:

    “I want to understand why it’s so contentious and wonder why we ‘can’t all just get along’. It’s not strictly a quality of education issue, since admittedly the charter school is doing a great job.”

    The idea of presenting a specific religion as if it were a science is 1) it isn’t science or math 2) why is one person’s religion chosen over another’s?

    Teaching science in science class isn’t contentious. Teaching one person’s religious beliefs instead of science is contentious.

    If a school district or charter school substitutes religion teachings for math class, then it does affect the quality of education. As long as no government money or resources are used for teaching religion, then it is legal.

    I was hoping you would get the school board to follow through on their thinking– whose religion do they want to impose? how do they justify one set of beliefs about God over another? how can they justify teaching religion in a science class? Would they also be willing to stop teaching geometry or algebra so that students could instead learn the latest hiphop?

    Evolution is no more contentious than gravity. The burden is on the schoolboard as to explain why they want their own religion taught in a science class instead of at their own house of worship?

    “The school board isn’t rying to tell anyone to believe or not believe in God or any other god.” That is precisely what they are considering as you have outlined. Creationism or Intelligent Design is an article of faith. Even if all religions believed in it, still doesn’t make it science.

    No matter how many scientists try, the supernatural can never be evaluated as is it were a process of evolution or gravity or the circumference of a circle. As you emphasize, the heart of the question is– Why is the school board trying to force me to rely on science for a belief in God?

  134. anony-Ma Says:

    Pam, you misunderstand me. And that’s probably my fault.

    The school board isn’t rying to tell anyone to believe or not believe in God or any other god. There are two different, but related, issues I’m dealing with here. I found this blog in trying to do some research on the argument that is going on about creation vs evolution vs intelligent design. The over-arching problem of the school district I work for however is losing our students to this new charter school.

    And you’re not understanding the charter school concept. Charter schools are a fairly new concept, somewhere between private and public you might say, but in actaulity they operate with public funds, tuition-free, but they get less money than we do. One difference is they are not given money for transportation. They fund transporation themselves, or the parents have to transport their kids themselves. That’s the biggest differnce in funding.

    I also probably have confused things a bit by specifically talking about the evolution topic (but that is afterall what this blog thread is about). That’s just one issue, but the most contentious. As a regualr school district, our hands are tied more on what our curruculum must be, while the charter schools are much freer.

    In some sense, you are correct that they are pandering in a way to what the parents want taught, but as i said they are not just teaching creation, but covering the topics involved from the three main viewpoints. And it’s not just in science that they differ from us. They use various materials in history, geology, language, social studies, etc that we don’t use.

    In short, our problem is one of competition. They started a few years ago with 33 kids spread over K-12, and this year they have over 500 kids and are expanding…. while we have lost a similar number. And there’s only about 3000 school age kids in the area. We also compete with a private Christian school, another small charter school (that’s not doing well), homeschoolers, and another public high school that some families have opted to go to.

    Yes, we have problems, but the big fight is over this topic we are discussing here. I want to understand why it’s so contentious and wonder why we ‘can’t all just get along’. It’s not strictly a quality of education issue, since admittedly the charter school is doing a great job. The school district would like to allow a yearly creation presentation, and perhaps try to include some intelligent design information in science classes, but the stumbling block has been a few staunch evolutionists who raise heck whenever the idea is brought up.

  135. Pam Says:

    Evolution and gravity were demonstrated ages ago so no one would need “validation” from a governmental agency. There are far more important things to do than go backwards in science. On the other hand, the continued efforts by the government (school boards) to tell people how they should believe in God is a continuing threat to religious freedom.

    As far as school boards selling their curriculum to the highest bidders, this might explain why they confuse science/math and religion– they simply had no chance to learn the difference.

    You say some argue that children should be prohibited from learning these things unless they also believe in a certain God or church. The argument is also leaning towards not setting any standards for citizenship but rather teaching whatever people with money want taught.

    Learning science or learning how to multiply has nothing to do with whether one believes in Krishna or not. Dangling God like a Rio Grande maribou fly over a stream is a way to get parents to pay for school but isn’t a way to get educated children who know how long division works.

  136. anony-Ma Says:

    One more thing: That charter school is doing all of that on about 30% less money per student. Suggestions? Where did Ed go, anyway?

  137. anony-Ma Says:

    Frankly, Pam, I don’t think anybody is trying to get the government or the school board to ‘validate’ their beliefs (well, let me take that back in part: i think perhaps the evolutionists are looking for validation). I think the school board’s conundrum is in trying to satisfy the greatest number of parents. Many parents apparently feel that the charter school is offering a richer educational experience than we are, and I tend to agree. My grandchildren are now attending there. Some of our teachers have begun sending there own kids there. In fact, 3 of our best teachers have left for positions there! We are being out-competed. They are graduating some of their students early and sending them on to college – as young as 14!. Their test scores are about 25% higher on average. their graduation rate approaches 100%, while ours is at 82%.

    The district feels its hands are tied, but are desperately trying to find a way to untie them. I’m just trying (not quite officially) to understand the nature of this argument. Does it just boil down to a belief or unbelief in God? If that’s the case, that is sad.

  138. Pam Says:

    anony-Ma Says:
    February 22, 2008 at 7:21 am

    I think you answered your own question. There is no hypothesis for God, because it is a “belief”. Thus, God can’t be proved or disproved and therefore science is irrelevant– belief can’t be “scientific” or “unscientific”.

    Evolution is a fact, hypotheses can be falsified. Whether one has faith in God is irrelevant to facts, although a religious belief it might enlarge one’s appreciation of facts.

    The problem is when people confuse belief and science, as you and the school board are doing. Many people argue that if one’s religious beliefs require “proof” or “disproof” then one’s faith isn’t. That is then a matter for religious study or soul searching with or without a minister or priest or rabbi or guru; not a scientist.

    You might turn the question around– why do you require scientific proof for belief in the supernatural (which by definition can never occur because science deals with the natural, not the supernatural)? Why do the school board members want a government agency to validate their religious beliefs? If the government agency is allowed to validate their beliefs, why can’t the government also invalidate your school board’s religion? I’m confused– if the school board members want their religion’s tenets validated by the government, then the faith can’t be valid in the first place, can it?

  139. anony-Ma Says:

    In scientific speak, I suppose the hypothesis for God creating and maybe evolving life on Earth can be falsified by other evidence, but that other evidence in itself is more or less other ways of interpreting the same evidence. Therefore, I don’t see a belief in God as being inherently ‘unscientific’ in itself.

  140. anony-Ma Says:

    Matt, many folks (myself included, I guess) look at the Earth and the universe and see such a beautiful, well put together creation that it’s easy for us to imagine it must be designed, plus we believe our Bible when it tells us that it was indeed created by God.

    How God did it is open to interpretation, I suppose. Even if we just look at the underlying ‘natural laws’ and the order built into mathematics, etc it is hard (for me at least) to not say there must have been some kind of plan or design. How such order in the universe – mathematical laws, gravity, other physical laws, the particles and waves that make up the universe an all that – could be here just by chance is more mind boggling to me than the idea of God.

  141. Matt Says:

    … what designer?
    There is absolutely no evidence at all supporting the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. A completely unnecessary mechanism.

  142. anony-Ma Says:

    Whew! That’s quite a read, but very interesting even for this non-scientist. I only have gotten thru a few pages so far, but I’ll read it through eventually, i promise.

    A couple questions or obseravtions come to mind: I wonder if all this mathematical probability just points toward the same designer, and I also wonder if there were other organisms that used different chemicals in their make-up, if they would be able to eat and digest each other. If not, that they aren’t might also point back toward a ‘common designer’ not just a ‘common ancestor’ …. just pondering. Thanks for the link!

  143. Matt Says:

    What? No evidence for macroevolution? How about this?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    There is so much evidence, that it is not funny.

  144. anony-Ma Says:

    I believe you are talking about microevolution. creationists (most of them anyway, as i understand) don’t have a problem with microeveolution. Their focus is on the origin of life (which evolutionists don’t have a theory about), and a refutation of macroevolution (which evolutionists don’t have any real evidence for). So how would that hurt education? And intelligent design doesn’t even really try to refute evolution at all.

    Again, what is the fight about? Your arguments are getting weaker.

  145. Matt Says:

    2) They have proven it as much as any scientific theory can be proven. The evidence is there for anyone to see, papers published, research released.

    3) Research into medical areas relies on a solid understanding of biology and evolutionary theory. Various drugs, when made, are made with understandings taken from Evolutionary theory in mind – how the body adapts to new substances/conditions and so on. You start teaching kids that evolution is wrong and instead go with ‘god did it’ … well, I don’t think I have to join the dots.

  146. anony-Ma Says:

    I enjoyed the rising, dramatic background music during your last few paragraphs, but i still don’t understand a few things -

    1) Why is it ‘legal’ for a charter school to cover creationism and intelligent design (along with a godless evolution), but not for other public schools (charter schools ARE public schools).

    2) If evolutionary scientists have been unable to prove that macroevolution has taken place, what is ‘intellectually dishonest’ about considering alternatives?

    3) How in heck does a belief in creationism, intelligent design, OR evolution impact research into the diseases you mentioned?

    4) And if you think mediocrity in education is evil (I believe there IS much mediocrity sometimes), why aren’t hotshot lawyers like you doing something about that; perhaps fighting the wastage of tax dollars on the various other boondoggles?

    5) Exactly what sort of lawyer are you anyhow? Your specialty?

  147. Ed Darrell Says:

    No, the charter school isn’t breaking laws — for a charter school.

    But neither is it delivering quality education. I’ll wager that, if they offer AP biology, that class doesn’t fool around with creationism. If it does fool around with creationism, the AP label is being applied counter to contract, and I’ll wager their kids don’t do well on the exam.

    I don’t understand why your board doesn’t just buck up and teach the best stuff to the kids? Do your board members give the kids garbage in other topics, too?

    As a nation, we have gotten a lot of mileage out of our scientific and technical prowess. It’s painful to watch backwater fools give away our leadership in these fields to China, India, France, Singapore and other places.

    Rising tide of mediocrity? No, you’ve got a school board that has marmots, marmots tunneling through the dikes that hold back the waters of ignorance. If they were communists, we’d try them for treason.

    Maybe we should anyway.

    Do this survey for the board and report the results: Call the biology departments at all the major Christian universities in the U.S., and ask them what they teach in their creationism course. Call Chapman, Notre Dame, Marquette, SMU, TCU, Baylor, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Brigham Young, Drake, the Loyolas, Saint Johns, Holy Cross, Georgetown, Catholic — anyone I’ve left out?

    They will tell you that they don’t teach creationism. If you get a professor on a good day, she’ll tell you they don’t have time to teach garbage to students. The graduate programs are too competitive.

    Evolution is taught because it works. If people believe as Christians do that God created the universe, whether we understand why God did it or not, we have to understand that evolution is the binding idea in biology. Evolution cures cancer, treats diabetes, produced the Green Revolution, and offers hope for new crops, new cures, and new preventions.

    Anyone who suggests creationism be taught is fighting against progress in each of those fields. They’re trying to hobble our students, so we don’t find a new cure for leukemia, or melanoma, so we can’t turn the corner on a cure for cystic fibrosis, so we can’t get a new drug to make better the lives of the victims of multiple sclerosis.

    Those diseases are nasty enough without help from misquided religionists. Their work to push creationism not only contributes to the rising tide of mediocrity in education. It is also evil.

  148. Matt Says:

    While Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, there are scientific theories which do – namely the Theory of Abiogenesis.
    These two theories tend to get shoved together by creationists for some reason, despite the difference being explained to them countless times.

    The stakes, as such, could be called Intellectual Honesty, Truth and making sure that future generations are taught facts rather than superstitions which have no evidence.

  149. anony-MA Says:

    According to #15 on that list of misconceptions about evolution you posted a link to, evolution is not really concerned with the origin of life, but primarily concerned with how life changed after creation.

    Then what’s the problem? Creationists/intelligent design/evolutionists ought not to have that much to argue about.

    you’re right, I guess I’m not too familiar with this issue. Why the big fight? What are the stakes here that are worth fighting over?

    If science doesn’t know how life got started, what’s wrong with considering God? The intelligent design folks have considered God, as well as evoltuion, and are apparently ok with both sides, and the evolutionists don’t care about God, nor can they prove how the ‘kinds’ or ’species’ came into existence …… so I ask again, what am I missing here? what are the stakes you children are fighting over???

    BTW – I am not in TX. I am in AZ and our district is rapidly losing students to a charter school that doesn’t shy away from religion or science and is considering all three viewpoints in it’s classes. Without even a nasty lawyer on the scene, we are in real danger of bankruptcy ….. Just thought I’d clue you in on that. And guess what the lawyers DO say – that charter school isn’t breaking any laws.

  150. Ed Darrell Says:

    Jesus also had things to say about people who lie to children, and he had a lot to say about people who sow strife.

    I think that, if you check the temperature of the McDonalds coffee these days, it will be less than the near-200 degrees that gave third degree burns to 80-year-old Stella Lieback in Albuquerque — but even if not so, there is a warning, and McDonalds would be liable for injuries to you from the product at that temp. Fluids at such temperatures are inherently dangerous, and the seller assumes the liability, in McDonalds’ case, with foreknowledge.

    As I recall, the expert testimony at trial said that a lap spill of coffee at that temperature, you have seven seconds to get your clothes off to prevent a third-degree burn (you’ll still get second-degree burns). Can you unbuckle your seatbelt, open the car door, get out and get your pants off in seven seconds? If you sell people an inherently dangerous product like that, in a paper cup, and you know that it will cause crippling burns because you’ve already paid for several hundred such cases, don’t you think it only fair to take the liability?

    What would Jesus say in such a case? Should we denigrate the woman as “old and slow” at trial?

    It’s pretty clear that you are not so familiar with creationism in policy as I had thought. Were I representing a school district, I would have briefed them on the Kitzmiller trial and decision months ago. In fact that’s a part of teacher training here in Texas for most teachers. The only ones who appear blind to the law are the creationists on the state school board, who seem hell-bent to waste a couple million dollars of taxpayer money in litigation, and hell-bent to make our children stupid. Our youngest graduates this year. We scraped by.

    Good luck — and pay careful attention to what Judge Jones said!

  151. anony-Ma Says:

    I’ll check out your links later whne I have time. thanks for the info.

    And on my way to work i think I’ll stop at McDonald’s and get a cup of coffee. I wonder if they know they are selling an illegal substance. Sounds exciting.

    Remember too Ed what I said about dealing gently with others, as a Christian. I’m sure the majority of creationists are Christians, and if you truly are a Christian yourself you might be wise to deeply ponder your place in the world as both a lawyer and a man who walks with Christ. I think Jesus had a few things to say about lawsuits.

  152. Ed Darrell Says:

    anony-Ma, I assumed you were familiar with Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula, but perhaps I shouldn’t assume such things.

    P.Z. Myers had some posts today that go to the heart of what you’re considering; you may want to see them:

    Two Tales of Whale Evolution
    15 Misconceptions about Evolution

    Oh, I almost forgot Panda’s Thumb.

  153. Ed Darrell Says:

    And, Pam, if I’m in that town, I’ll sue to get equal time for Christianity. Creationists shouldn’t get a chance to proselytize if Christians don’t.

    You think the creationists howl when evolution is taught? Wait till they hear Christianity will be taught, showing creationism isn’t Christian.

    Religion shouldn’t be introduced into science courses.

  154. Pam Says:

    anony-Ma Says:
    February 20, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Perhaps it would help to think of this–
    1) it is not a good idea to substitute something which isn’t science for a science course or topic. The same is true of mathematics. Neither creationism or intelligent design could substitute for mathematics or science. Chanting mosaic law would not substitute for physical education. Understanding the theory of gravity would not substitute for the Nicene Creed in Sunday School.

    2) creationism itself is a type of religious belief. Would the school be able to justify teaching one specific belief and not others? How would the school choose between all the world’s religions? How would you evaluate whether teachers have the qualifications to teach Islam or Zoroastrianism?

  155. Ed Darrell Says:

    So if those things are ‘like’ teaching creation or intelligent design, as you say above, then I’d have to say it’s not illegal.

    Would it leave us open to a lawsuit? Maybe. But that’s not my reason for being here in this blog and that’s not my area of concern at this point. In todays world EVERYTHING can leave you open to a lawsuit. People get sued for serving hot coffee.

    Well, I don’t play a lawyer on TV, I am one. There’s a difference between the “non-religious” pledge and the motto on the coin (’isn’t religious, it’s secular’ Justice O’Connor, as I recall, wrote; if it were religious, it would be illegal) and advocacy of religion in a science class. And so far, every school district that has been dumb enough to do it has lost it’s shirt in the courts.

    Here’s the deal: In 1981 Judge Overton told the creationists they could get into the textbooks and the curriculum at any time, if they’d just do some science, do some research that supports creationism, and write it up. In that case the creationists had alleged the science journals were biased against them, and they couldn’t get their science published, so Overton invited them to put into evidence the science articles they’d had rejected from the science journals . . . and they couldn’t find any. Not one. There simply was no research. There was no science there. Under oath, the creationists admitted it.

    Here we are 27 years later, and still no research. And they want a seat at the table of science?

    Have we no standards at all? Do we now accept “ain’t” as good grammar? Do we accept 2+2=3? Do we allow kids to say there are three continents?

    There’s an ethical issue for the kids, too, I think: If we agree to teach them stuff we know to be false, where does it stop?

    But don’t take my word for it. Go read the cases.

    Epperson vs. Arkansas

    McLean vs. Arkansas

    Edwards vs. Aguillard

    Kitzmiller vs. Dover

    One follows these things for 30 years or so, and one does get weary of the bizarre and false claims of creationists. There is honor among thieves, some say, but little honor among creationists over time.

    There’s also a lesson in the McDonalds hot coffee case in Albuquerque. The old woman asked for a reasonable less-than $25,000 to pay for her medical bills. McDonalds blew her off. When in court it was revealed to the jury that McDonalds had paid in several hundred other cases, and it was revealed that the coffee was so hot that it could not be safe, by design, and McDonalds impugned the little old lady, they got a jury decision they didn’t want. People who ignore the law and the facts get burned in court.

    Creationists have lost every case they’ve been in. They generally lose it on the evidence, but often there is outright fraud, such as in the Pennsylvania case, and that helps the judges a lot in their decision making. A school board who votes to teach creationism in science class probably has several brothers in law who practice law in the local courts and need the money. It’s marginally more legal than simply embezzling the money and sending it to one’s brother in law, but only marginally so. Some day a motion to get the board members personally for being so stupid will go against the board member. Elected officials get immunity from lots of stuff, but sheer stupidity generally isn’t covered. Does your board want to be the one that makes new law in that regard?

  156. anony-Ma Says:

    Our kids do say ‘one nation under God’ in the pledge every day; our sports teams say a prayer before games; Heck, our nation’s motto is ‘In God We Trust’.

    I do know enough Ed, to know your separation of church and state argument is a red herring (and red in the sense of the separation phrase comes, not from the US constitution, but from the old Soviet constitution).

    We teach a lot of stuff in school that comes with no requirement that a kid ‘believe’ it. We even teach some stuff about the founding fathers (I’m almost, but not quite embarrassed to admit) that isn’t historical, but mythical.

    So if those things are ‘like’ teaching creation or intelligent design, as you say above, then I’d have to say it’s not illegal.

    Would it leave us open to a lawsuit? Maybe. But that’s not my reason for being here in this blog and that’s not my area of concern at this point. In todays world EVERYTHING can leave you open to a lawsuit. People get sued for serving hot coffee.

    My task is to try to find some common ground for extremists to sit down and discuss the issue, without name calling or threatening lawsuits. Since you appear to be an amateur expert on this, I was interested to hear what you had to say and especially how you would say it.

    My personal view is that nobody from either side should feel threatened by the others, if they truly feel they have the truth on their side, but sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case. The creationist/intelligent design camps in town would simply like to be allowed to give a yearly presentation, similar to what we do for our unit on climate change by showing Al Gore’s movie once a year to the 7th graders. Nobody requires that the students believe it, especially since some of the science in the movie contradicts what they learn in their regular science class, but we show the movie in the interest of presenting various sides of the topic. So far, the global warming non-believers have not threatened to sue anybody.

    This particular issue though seems to really get people riled up. they just talk at and past each other. Like you do. Its really too bad.

  157. Ed Darrell Says:

    It’s illegal for the government to advocate religious positions, especially as preferred over other religions or no religion. Creationism, since it has no science to support it (since about 1809), is a religious position. So is its cousin, intelligent design.

    When a government endorses creationism, it does so against most Christian sects and many other religions, and against science. Governments can’t do that under all 50 state constitutions, and under the U.S. Constitution.

    See McLean v. Arkansas from 1982, and the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, from 1987, and the decision in the Kitzmiller case from late 2005 in Pennsylvania.

    Hence, it’s illegal for a schoolboard to endorse it. It would be like requiring kids to say “God is Great!” at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance.

    [Did someone just open a can of fishing bait?]

  158. anony-Ma Says:

    I’ll admit that legal matters are not my area of expertise, but I’m surprised to learn that teaching creationism and/or intelligent design is illegal. Could you please provide more information on this? A link to the law or laws online would be very helpful. thanks.

  159. Ed Darrell Says:

    I’m not trying to get your board to pass anything illegal. What’s to indemnify? Doing the right thing doesn’t require indemnification.

  160. anony-Ma Says:

    I see what you’re saying, but it’s really a matter of a middle ground to try to bring people together and reduce the divisiveness of the issue. None of the people asking for creationism or intelligent design are asking that evolution NOT be taught. The problem is the arguments that ensue when everybody wants to be ‘right’ and have the last word. If I may say so, it’s very much like your extreme statements above ‘middle ground on murder’, etc…..

    I’m sure we could never get any churches to indemnify us against any possible lawsuits brought against us by evolutionists, because as you say they mainly have faith on their side. however, would YOU be willing to indemnify us against lawsuits by the creationists or intelligent design people?

  161. Ed Darrell Says:

    Until science is able to prove this question one way or another, in a way we are all going on ‘faith’. Nontheistic evolution, theistic evolution, young Earth, old Earth, etc…….. We don’t know, and you are correct the Bible is not explicit on this point.

    Generally, if I had a client school board that was so fuzzy on the issue, I’d put it to them like this: The science is solid, whether the board understands it or not. When put under oath, now in three trials over a quarter century, creationists of the most informed sort confess that they have no science to back creationism.

    Legally, there is no “middle ground” without savaging science. Since school boards don’t make the rules about what is science and what is not, just as they don’t make the rules on what is agriculture or animal husbandry and what is not, it is not the place of a school board to issue such rules (no school board would think of telling its animal husbandry unit that they could no longer teach swine breeding, since swine are “unclean,” for example).

    And if they do issue a rule that guts science, they should expect to end up in court, and they should expect to pay through the nose for their stupidity.

    The school board in Darby, Montana, listened to their lawyer, left evolution in the curriculum, and avoided law suit. The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, refused their legal counsel’s wise counsel on the topic, and it was only through the grace of the ACLU that the school board did not end up bankrupt.

    Most schoolboards understand bankruptcy. One of these days some parent is going to sue to pierce the veil of immunity that school board members have as public officials, arguing that after losing 100% of the cases, creationism is a sure loser, and any school board member with three working gray cells should know that — and since the board decided instead to “compromise,” against the counsel of the lawyers, then the school board members were acting ultra vires and deserve to be personally liable.

    You should ask your board’s liability insurer what their view is of boards that decide to take on the science establishment and God for no good reason.

    But I digress.

    Science has already “proved” the question one way. Someone on your board is asking you to figure out whether there isn’t someplace on Earth that water doesn’t flow uphill contrary to the laws of gravity, so that example could be cited to claim that gravity doesn’t work.

    Science has the data. Denial of reality is a bad legal strategy.

    Maybe you should try another tactic. Write every home office of every Christian denomination you can find. Ask them their position on teaching evolution. You’ll discover that all mainstream Christian sects but one support teaching the facts, which is evolution in this case. Then ask the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God if they’ll indemnify your board if the board approves their religious views as science. If those few churches who argue for creationism won’t express their faith by indemnifying your board, and each member personally, then it should be clear that not even creationists are stupid enough to insist on creationism when it costs them money.

    I’d suggest you look at some science, but the call for “middle ground” position tells me science has already been rejected. Your board is asking you for a middle ground on pregnancy, somewhere between conception and no conception; they’re asking you for a middle ground on murder, for a middle ground on genocide, for a middle ground on stealing, for a middle ground on dead or alive that allows moving from one to the other with impunity.

    No such thing.

  162. Ed Darrell Says:

    Joe, thanks for coming back. Nice to see your post here.

    Where does new stuff come from evolution? Isn’t that question that you’re puzzling over?

    Darwin may no longer be the best place to go for the explanation, but he’s certainly got this issue covered.

    In the first place, Darwin wondered how much variation would be required to actually make a new species. The puzzle over where to draw the line between an old species and a new one wasn’t such an issue then, since the science paradigm of the time — creationism — posed species as very much fixed, with a little variation possible. Darwin finally hit on the idea of seeing how much variation could be produced by artificial selection in animal husbandry. He investigated pig and cattle breeding, other domestic stock breeding, and he deeply delved into pigeon breeding, becoming an accomplished breeder himself. Reading the first couple of chapters of Origin of Species one realizes that Darwin found there is enough variation within most species already, with no need for “new” genes, to produce a new species. This is one of the wonders of nature and evolution that dedicated creationists are most loathe to comprehend, that nature has built into species the ability to make a new species without dramatic new genetic material. Assuming God has the director’s role in this process, God has made all living things fully capable and ready to evolve, in other words. Evolution is, consequently, inevitable.

    There clearly are spectacular differences, say between a sea cucumber and a human, the creationist is wont to point out. Darwin suggested the most difficult problem, for him, was the evolution of an eye. It seemed “absurd” Darwin said, to think an eye could evolve. But, Darwin started looking backwards from well developed eyes, to lesser developed eyes, and then to lesser developed eyes, and so on, until he had a chain of evolutionary development in which each step was a minor one, but still a step leading from light sensitive patches on a creature (which are very common, really), to complex eyes such as those in falcons, or squids, or humans. When each step is so clearly possible, and in many cases probable, the fact that evolution is possible becomes clear, too. The process in toto remains awe-inspiring, however — perhaps moreso to the scientist who has an inkling of the astounding number of events required to get from one development to another.

    Creationists often ask for great leaps in a generation or two. Evolution proceeds much faster than Darwin probably thought possible (the Grants found evolution running at a rate of 25,000 darwins, when 1 darwin would have previously been expected) — sometimes. Other times evolution appears not to occur at all, and a species remains relatively static for a long time, showing perhaps genetic drift as the greatest change. This slow, “careful” development over a thousand generations is what creationists just don’t accept. A thousand human generations would run from 20,000 to 40,000 years, perhaps a half of the time humans have been in our current form, and 3 to 13 times the life of the Earth according to many young Earth creationists.

    If one’s god thinks only in 6,000 year increments, and one has difficulty grasping that, trying to get one’s mental arms around 600,000 years, or 6 million, or 60 million years, is nearly impossible (mammals have blossomed in the past 65 million years, a period that must cause the prehistory equivalent of future shock to the tenth power, to a dedicated creationist).

    So, what you have to do to try to understand how these things can happen, is look backwards. What’s the great gap between chimps and humans? A gene here gives humans greater swelling in the frontal lobes where a couple of new thinking processes can occur; another gene gives humans a workable voice box; another fluke mutation causes a lack of hair (is that an advantage? perhaps, in a world where diseases are carried by lice that hide in fur). Another change steals from humans the ability to manufacture vitamin C. None of those changes is a major new organ; none of those changes, by itself, would cause anyone to say speciation had occurred. Those small changes, bundled together in one creature, make that creature markedly different from a chimp.

    Now, we do not know that our proto-ape, common ancestor with chimps was more chimp-like than human. We may be looking at a slightly different path. But as you can see, there are no great changes required. (Here I’ve not considered the more than 20 steps we know occurred between the proto-ape and modern humans; some of these small steps were themselves broken down into even smaller steps, each one even less of a novelty than the whole step itself.)

    From proto-ape back to proto-lemur-like creature, back to proto-mammal-like creature, back to not-quite-mammal-still-reptile creature, back to . . . well, you get the idea, I hope. Each step is small, making no great break from the previous generation or three. Only over time, in cumulative view, in retrpspect, can we see the changes in their completeness.

    Once we get four-legged land dwellers, each step toward humans, or chimps, or dolphins, is a small one. Our just-beyond-reptile ancestor had symmetry, a heart-lung system, all the major organs we regard as necessary, four limbs, two eyes . . . in reality it’s a small leap from lizard to human, and when that small leap is broken down into smaller leaps that take place in millions of generations over 65 million years — well, what’s to doubt?

    Evolution theory doesn’t pose “molecules to man.” But there’s no significant barrier from one-celled critter to man. And we can’t find any barrier from molecules to one-celled critter. The problems are not that evolution assumes that chain to be true, because it doesn’t. The problem is that creationists don’t want to admit the evidence to consideration. We used to think there must be a barrier, somewhere. We can’t find it. We can’t find any evidence that there is any barrier, anywhere.

    I’m not asking Ron to prove evolution impossible. I’m asking him for a shred of evidence that there is any hurdle that hasn’t been demonstrated to be leapable. I don’t know of any such hurdles any more. I used to think speciation was the big one, then the fly guys told me speciation was common. I wondered whether cellular formation wasn’t the barrier, then I really read Sidney Fox’s paper, and realized that cells, too, are inevitable.

    What I’m asking Ron to do is show that any part of evolution isn’t inevitable. I’m convinced he can’t find anything approaching a barrier to anything — so it’s inevitability I’m interested in now.

  163. anony-Ma Says:

    Hi all, as a bystander, can I offer a couple of observations? I found this blog after being tasked by the school board I work with to ‘find some middle ground’ we could work with on this question of evolution versus creation. It has become a divisive issue in our community.

    First, a bit of an aside. It looked to me in reading the above exchange that Ron had ignored the links to Talkorigins that were provided, but I have a feeling he may not have noticed them. It may sound silly, but I suspect he might be colorblind. The same thing often happens to my husband when links are not underlined.

    Ron was trying to make a point about ‘kinds’ of animals. I think I know what he was trying to say. Example: We know dogs and wolves are different species, in fact they are classified in different genus as well (lupus and canus), but we also know of course that those classifications may not be ‘accurate’ in the sense that we know for certain that wolves and dogs easily interbreed, in fact it might be true to say that dogs are really a sub-species of wolf. In that sense, one could say that wolves and dogs are the same ‘kind’ of animal.

    Interestingly, one of those talkorigins links said fairly closely what I think Ron was trying to assert:

    “Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth.” Claim CB910.1

    I think that’s all he was getting at. He wanted to know how you would explain one ‘kind’ of animal becoming another ‘kind’, which is what has to happen in evolution. Does this sound right? I have heard this argument at a school board meeting, and it seems that the adversaries are not speaking the same language sometimes.

    Also, Ed you sound like you consider yourself a Christian (as do I). Please let me remind you that we are admonished to deal gently with the beliefs of others, especially our brothers and sisters. Using ‘creationist’ as an epithet is unbecoming.

    Until science is able to prove this question one way or another, in a way we are all going on ‘faith’. Nontheistic evolution, theistic evolution, young Earth, old Earth, etc…….. We don’t know, and you are correct the Bible is not explicit on this point.

    I found your interpretation of Genesis 1:24 to be interesting, though, in a way you may have not intended – A strict reading means that the Earth brought forth the animals (which might support a theistic evolution stance), but then we would have to conclude that Man DID NOT evolve, but was created as it says. Interesting thought.

  164. lowerleavell Says:

    Ron,

    As a fellow Creationist myself, one thing you’ll have to know about Ed and these guys which is definitely to their credit. They know their stuff. They are usually pretty accurate to the data, which is really nice. I’ve been on the student end of the converstations I’ve had with Ed. Yet, it is very easy to be able to maintain a Creationist position, because it is not the evidence that is against Creationism, it is the inferences from the data. It is the assumptions made by Evolutionists that bother me, not the data. The only time table testing I have a problem with myself is the radio dating because it wouldn’t work on a young earth model anyway, so in my mind (which it may be limited there I understand) it doesn’t disprove an young earth, but merely shows that if it the earth were young, this wouldn’t be the way to find out.

    One thing I read in this thread that you were mistaken on, but I am still amused by Ed’s response, is that there is no place on earth where the geologic columns exist. Ed correctly tells us that he knows of at least a couple; one in North Dakota if I remember right. I find that hilarious because by no means does that sound like a “norm” to me. Yet the science books I read in school made it sound like this was the way it was all over the earth.

    Anyway, if you’re going to undertake this discussion (which you have), please be gracious, be patient, be willing to learn, and understand that unkind rhetoric merely undermines your points.

    Ed,

    I think, if I can get a grasp on what Ron is trying to ask, is this: Is there any place where there is a detailed, scientific “how” on how species evolve from a fish into a man? How, with offspring DNA being limited to that of the parents, does new DNA or changed DNA occur to the point that new information eventually produces a species that bears no resemblance to its ancestor (i.e. reptile to mammal)? It’s just not genetically possible to introduce brand new, never before seen DNA (which we don’t how DNA could have evolved so complexly without a genious mastermind) without some outside force manipulating the system. If it’s possible, I’d sure like to not be bald anymore because my head gets cold. Yet, as we talked about with the Giraffe, I am limited to working with what my ancestors have given me; no new data available.

    I know the evolutionary answer is mutation and reproduction. Yet how does this process occur? (The reproduction I understand. I do have two kids). Reproduction doesn’t explain it because again, as we talked about with the Giraffe, the offspring is limited to its parents DNA. You can blend them between each other, but you still don’t get any new DNA that wasn’t present in either of the two parents. Regarding mutatiion, I have not found (and I have put some effort into it) many articles that explain how mutations explains man to molecules and the ones I did find all have fallen far short. Even the example of new species are very few and far between. Especially with the abundance and vast variety of life forms that we have today, you’d think that evplution would be occuring at a much more rapid pace than it would have even a million years ago. Yet I find that the list of endangered species is on the increase and the list of new species is limited to some fruit flies, some yeast, some plants, and a few other pretty unimpressive things. I just haven’t come even close to being convinced that mutation

    You all seem to be asking Ron to demonstrate why molecule to man evolution is impossible. Let me use the atheist’s argument against God’s existence and say that it is impossible to prove a negative. You can’t say that evolution is impossible in the same way you can’t say God does not exist. So, you have to look at the probability. From the data that we have discussed and looked at, the mathmatical probability of evolution from molecule to man occuring is astronimically unreal! And yet from what I’ve read, evolutionists have said (and this is me paraphrasing) “we know it occured because here we are. It had to happen because we exist and so the math doesn’t matter.”

    So, the problems aren’t with the data. The problems are with what evolution assumes to be true (like molecules to man) in order for the world view to be accurate.

  165. Bob Says:

    Ed,

    “It’s obvious the wood was inserted into a hole in the rock…”

    God put it there to test our faith!

  166. Ed Darrell Says:

    All sounds good, Ed – until one realizes where you misstepped and obviously lied above.

    You give a somewhat plausible reason animal tissues might survive millions of years, and then tell me that such a claim for plant materials is ‘bizarre and false’.

    Problems of writing fast and on the fly. I’m not saying you won’t find wood in limestone. I don’t see any problem with that — we have all sorts of fossils in limestone. Fossilized wood — why not.

    A wooden stick? That’s a later intrusion, most likely. The formation of the limestone would create stone out of the wood. You offer no details, Ron. I’m aware of two such claims in Texas, both of them hoaxes. It’s obvious the wood was inserted into a hole in the rock, millions of years after the rock was formed, maybe millions of years after the hole formed in the rock.

    Got another example? Let’s see the details. None of these examples pose any problem for evolution theory, but they tax the honesty of creationists no end.

    But generally, you waive any checking of facts on these stories. None of them check out to pose any problem for evolution. The boots in the coal in Texas are embarrassing hoaxes. The human footprints next to dino prints are embarrassing frauds, and desecration of God-made fossils. They’re beneath Barnum, hucksterish cartoons of the truth. They are efforts to sucker nice little old ladies in church. I hate it when people defraud nice little old ladies.

    My game? Accuracy. Creationists generally don’t like to play that game.

  167. Bob Says:

    Ron,

    That’s all you’ve got to say? Pathetic.

    Don’t substantiate any of your claims, and just ignore everything else that’s been pointed out to you. Be my guest. At this point I’m more than happy to let you persist in your ignorance.

    Good riddance.

  168. Ed Darrell Says:

    Great. Upright trees in coal mines. Why should that falsify the coal?

  169. Ron Says:

    I’m tired of you now, and just plain tired – it’s geting late. But I’ll point out one more thing then go away and leave you to it, whatever your game is, whether it’s intentional or not.

    There really are upright tree trunks in coal deposits, fairly commonly – ask a coal miner sometime – and many other oddities, as well, things that ’shouldn’t be there’. Coal mines are interesting places. Go visit one. Talk to the miners.

    See ya.

  170. Ron Says:

    All sounds good, Ed – until one realizes where you misstepped and obviously lied above.

    You give a somewhat plausible reason animal tissues might survive millions of years, and then tell me that such a claim for plant materials is ‘bizarre and false’.

    Good luck in the future, Ed. You’ll need it.

  171. Ed Darrell Says:

    Already been pondered, and found wanting.

    You guys are a hoot.

    ‘Kinds’ of animals have offspring ‘after their kind’ – which is obvious – but you guys still want proof of that?

    “After their kind?” That’s not what Genesis says, really. It says the Earth will bring forth the animals, each after their kind (see Genesis 1:11 and 1:24, for example). From the get-go, then, we’ve got Genesis supporting a biogenesis theory, with life arising from the Earth. In the one or two verses in which it is suggested life might reproduce after its kind, it would do you good, perhaps, to revisit the text in the original Hebrew, and note how much it sounds like Darwin’s “descent with modification.” The Bible doesn’t say “cloned.” The Bible doesn’t argue that species don’t express great variation, the stuff that makes evolution. The Bible in no way denies Darwin. Nor, for that matter, does the Bible support creationism.

    Have you read the various creation stories in the Bible, Ron? I worry when creationists start off saying the Bible says creatures reproduce after their own kind, since the Bible doesn’t say that, and since such reproduction would be favorable to natural selection and not preservation of creationism. But, so it goes.

    And the burden of proof falls on me to show some evidence that evolution is impossible, even though you are unable or unwilling to show any positive proof for it?

    I’ve offered a half dozen examples of evolution, brand spankin’ new species, within one plant family, and several other examples, including beef. You’ve offered nothing to suggest anyone disagrees that speciation occurred there, nor anything to challenge the speciation. It’s one thing to note a lack of evidence when there is such a lack, but your ignoring the evidence presented does not nullify it in any way.

    Let me remind you that for humans, we have a score of species between modern humans and the last common ancestor with the other great apes. In every possible way, evolution is demonstrated in those fossils. As Ken Miller says, we have the bones. Moreover, that evolution is clearly demonstrated in DNA, down to the fusing of chromosome 2, which accounts for humans having 23 sets while our great ape close cousins have 24. As Ken Miller also says, we have the DNA, too.

    You have a vacant claim that DNA offers some barrier, but you cannot cite anyone to suggest such a barrier, and such a barrier is contrary to everything known about DNA.

    You may want to rethink your position, with benefit of some serious reading of what science actually says, rather than what some lyin’ creationist fantasizes in his alliterative rap claims science says. Stick to the data, not the rhymes. The data dance to the rhyme to a greater poet, and the reading is all the more satisfying for it.

    On the one hand, you dispute the existence of the so-called DNA or genetic barrier – you claim nobody has even heard of such a thing – and then on the other hand claim that the idea has been soundly refuted by much observation and experiment!

    Yes, you’ve accurately summarized it. You snatched a claim right out from between your gluteal pads, and the claim is falsified by almost everything we know about DNA, mutation, variation and natural selection.

    And now you dance around claiming you don’t have to provide even a glimmer of a hint of an iota of a paper from anyone in science supporting your gluteal-born argument.

    That exclamation point: Is it your concession? It should be.

    A lack of evidence is evidence, my friends! Organisms don’t evolve into new and different organisms. There is no evidence of that. There have certainly been many experiments that have sought to prove that, but none have. Doesn’t that count as evidence to you?

    Not only is there a lot of evidence of evolution, in real time, in our time — Peter and Rosemary Grant have irrefutable evidence of it in morphology, blood types, songs, and DNA from their intensive observation of birds in the Galapagos (and Jonathan Weiner’s book won the Pulitzer in 1994, but we don’t expect you to have actually read the evidence after your sterling performance on evidence here) — but pesticide manufacturers sweat trying to prevent evolution of captive insect populations used to test pesticides. If the captive population evolves, the tests may not be valid, the pesticide may not work, and billions of dollars are at stake.

    That’s another point. Evolution is tested and found true in the market place: Several dozen companies trading well on the stock exchanges rely on the validity of evolution theory for their profits, companies like Genentech, Pfizer, Con-Agra, Monsanto, and others. There is not a single company on Earth based on a creationist paradigm, traded on a stock market. Creationism is a loser of an idea, financially. Plus, it would be a violation of the securities laws to make the claims for creationism that you make here. Honesty is required when selling stocks.

    Do you need evidence then, that the Bible’s account is true?

    Thank you, but no, I don’t need evidence from someone who doesn’t know scripture and distorts it in trying to twist scripture into a science text. If you will dishonor holy scripture in such a way after avoiding the facts in science, why should I believe you’re accurate in any endeavor?

    The Bible’s account is true, we take on faith. Nothing in the Bible contradicts evolution, when fairly read. The Bible is not a science text. You torture scripture, and claim its forced confession is valid. Even George Bush knows better than that now.

    Would evidence that a worldwide cataclysmic flood happened help? That’s what convinced me.

    You’ve obviously misread the evidence. No, I don’t think you have anything that would convince me you’re honest with the evidence, or even that you understand what the evidence is.

    Are you familiar at all with the idea of the ‘geologic column’? That’s the idea that sedimentary layers were layed down slowly over millions upon millions of years. Along the way, animals and plants were covered and fossilized, giving a nice picture of the evolution of life. Correct?

    It starts, basically with the pre-Cambrian, where there was almost no life (just some algaes and some pollens [!?]) then goes into the Cambrian, where life apparently suddenly exploded into complexity, then continues on up through a dozen or so (depending on the particular organizational system) with ever-increasing complexity and change until the present day. Each layer representing a period of millions of years. You learned this in high school, right?

    The layers are field-dated by the kind of fossils found there, and the fossils are field-dated by the layers they are found in. Circular reasoning, but that’s the way it’s been done since the early 19th century.

    See what I mean? The layers are dated comparatively by physics, the operation of gravity and time. The oldest layers are the deepest. That’s not circular reasoning, it’s the laws of the universe in action. We Christians think God is behind the laws of the universe — heaven only knows what creationists think about it, but it’s obvious you don’t respect the laws of the universe.

    Layers compared worldwide have similar fossils — those layers are deduced to be about the same age, unless there is dramatic reason not to deduce that. Your bizarre argument about circularity, completely ignoring the real basis for the comparisons, gravity and time, suggests that you are not seeking the facts, or understanding, but instead just spoiling for a fight. Jesus warned us there would be vexers like that.

    Problems with this theory of dating arise when radio-carbon (and other) methods give wild results, or fossils are found in the ‘wrong’ strata (such as human footprints in Cambrian deposits), or strata are found in the ‘wrong order’

    Except that radio-carbon dating is not appropriate for fossils older than about 50,000 years, and appropriate radioisotope methods give spectacularly UNwild results, very consistent, using uranium, or argon-argon, or any of a variety of other isotopes. You’re making wild and false claims here yourself: There are no wild results from radioisotope dating done by non-creationists; creationists appear not to understand at all how God constructed the universe, and this is one more example of the disrespect for the Creator that gets my goat about creationism.

    [Did you know that nowhere on Earth are the layers all present and in the ‘correct order?]

    I know that you can find a complete column of all layers present and in the correct order in South Dakota, and at another place in Russia. I now know that you are plug ignorant of geology and radioisotope dating. Care to take a step back and try for accuracy on the next round?

    or dinosaur bones (supposedly 150+ million years old) are found to contain unfossilized tissues, or a researcher cracks open a fossil-bearing chunk of limestone, smells fish, and goes ‘hmmm…’,

    So, then, you don’t understand how or why rock capsules might survive a million years? You really are ignorant of geology. Why cannot a rock vault preserve unfossilized tissues? Without air contact or other chemical reaction, what do you think should have happened? Do you even know where this event occurred, or why scientists consider it accurate, or how difficult it is to do anything with the preserved tissues?

    Have you ever taken a chemistry course? You appear completely unfamiliar with chemical reactions such as those involved here.

    or upright tree trunks are found in coal deposits (can a tree stand in a swamp for millions of years while being slowly covered by peat? It’s apparently a quite common occurence, though counter-intuitive),

    Actually, it’s upright trees in volcanic ash. I’ll top that for you: In Yellowstone Park, there is an entire forest of such upright trees. Then, after it was covered completely with ash, another forest grew on top of it, and it, too, was covered with ash and petrified. Neither forest shows any hint of ever having been flooded. Both forests took millions of years to grow, one on top of the other.

    Do you understand that this is complete refutation of any claim of a young Earth, and complete refutation of worldwide flood?

    or a student stops to wonder what pollen grains were doing there at the dawn of evolution, or a fully-modern human skeleton is unearthed in strata way too old for that to be possible, or human-made tools are found in coal deposits (also not that unusual),

    Hoaxes, mis-studied intrusions. And even with all the creationist hoaxers on Earth, still extremely rare. Three cases? That’s pretty uncommon.

    fossilized wood or other plants materials are found in ‘ancient’ limestone ….. shall we go on? I’m not writing a book here.

    Good thing. No fact checker would allow such bizarre and false claims to be published. Certainly such stuff shouldn’t be allowed near children, innocent children.

    The paleogeographic evidence, right there before our eyes, points to a worldwide, cataclysmic flood, not many thousands of years ago!

    No, it doesn’t. Fish fossils on mountains are not on the mountains as they would be from a flood. They are found instead, in the mountains, where no flood could ever deposit them. They are deposits from shallow oceans, laid down slowly over millions and billions of years, undisturbed by floods as they petrified — and then raised to the mountain tops by tectonic forces greater than any creationist will give God credit for. In the Himalayas is such a layer, 3,000 feet thick, thicker than any flood could generate — and riven by erosion between the peaks, erosion that could only occur over tens of millions of years after the ocean was raised to the mountain tops. The ancient Tethys sea was closed, and then raised to dramatic heights by India’s ramming into Asia. But you can’t be troubled by such facts, no matter how well confirmed by God’s creation.

    It’s not evidence of Noah’s flood. It’s evidence of pakicetus’s origins. But then, you don’t know anything about whale fossils, and you’ll probably claim they don’t exist.

    Or just realizing that virtually every culture on Earth has a ‘great flood’ story, many of which are quite similar in some details to the Biblical account.

    Oh, there are many flood stories, sure — but God doesn’t tell a flood story to Job. Instead God relates a story bereft of Eden, absent Adam and Eve, and completely contrary to your claims. But you elevate creationism’s odd inventions and Bible distortions above even the words of God. You couldn’t be bothered to listen to what that old man had to say, I’m sure. He doesn’t talk about young Earth and foolish miracles. Why would you be interested at all?

    And then there’s the Navajo story, which has four floods, not one — each pushing up to a higher existence. There’s the Chinese story, which clearly refers to the two great rivers. And then there is the absence of such a story in Egypt, and the absence of such a story in Africa, and the absence of such a story in the advanced cultures of MesoAmerica. And then there’s the solid evidence of Noah’s flood, a regional flood, caused when the ice dam at the Bosporus broke and the rising Mediterranean rushed in to flood Abraham’s land along the little river and lake that would, in a few weeks, be the Black Sea. No, it’s not geology and science you want, but Dungeon and Dragon-style fantasy.

    Please keep it out of our church, will you? Our kids want real information, real gospel. I don’t recognize your stories as geology or any other science, and it sure ain’t Christianity’s story.

    You won’t find this stuff in your textbooks, but this is the stuff that turns agnostic scientists into Christians.

    You would do well to ponder this, boys.

    Not in the textbooks only because it won’t pass the smell test. The coliform count may be too high, too.

  172. Bob Says:

    Just spotted a typo. That last sentence should read, “And you have yet to provide us with a definition of “kind” that isn’t circular.

    Oh, Ron. I found another one for you. See claim CH350. Maybe I already referenced it. Better safe than sorry. Good luck with that definition.

  173. Bob Says:

    Ron,

    “I said you would do well to ponder this, but I’m not surprised you won’t.”

    How else would I have gone through each of your claims if not by “pondering” them?

    “I know, of course, you’ll say that it is I who am blind, but I’m not refusing to look at your evidence. You are refusing (read: unable) to show any! If you had some, you should be proud to show it off.

    Each claim referenced above cites its own sources. Get to work. And while you’re at it, look these up as well.

    “Problems with this theory of dating arise when radio-carbon (and other) methods give wild results…”

    See claims CD010 and CD011

    “…fossils are found in the ‘wrong’ strata…”

    See claim CC340

    “…(such as human footprints in Cambrian deposits)…”

    The prints at Paluxy or the Meister print? See claims CC102 and CC102

    “…or strata are found in the ‘wrong order’…”

    What, the Lewis Overthrust? See claim CD102.1

    “…dinosaur bones (supposedly 150+ million years old) are found to contain unfossilized tissues…”

    Tyrannosaurus Rex? See claim CC371.1

    “…student stops to wonder what pollen grains were doing there at the dawn of evolution…”

    See claim CC341

    “…fully-modern human skeleton is unearthed in strata way too old for that to be possible…”

    Do you mean Moab man or Malachite man? See claims CC110 and CC111

    “…human-made tools are found in coal deposits…

    Maybe an iron pot? See claim CC131

    That should be enough to keep you busy for a little while longer.

    “You are simply saying ‘it is so because the textbook says it so’.”

    I see you’ve been reduced to putting your own words in the mouths of others. And you still won’t shut up!

    “…this points to a LOSS of DNA information…”

    See claim CB102

    “…astounding complexity of DNA…”

    See claim CI101

    “…what really blew my mind was the flood evidence!”

    Please read “Problems with a Global Flood.”

    And you have yet to provided us with a definition of “kind” that isn’t circular.

  174. Ron Says:

    You gave some links to interesting hybridization experiments, none of which created anything close to a new organism; simply gave some clue to the possibility of evolution (in the interpretation of the scientists involved). But if you’d read your own links (I did, by the way), you would also find that the vast majority of the hybrids were sterile. this points to a LOSS of DNA information – not evolution, which requires INCREASING information in the DNA, not to mention the ability to reproduce!

    That’s all pretty simple stuff if you understand the astounding complexity of DNA and have a grasp of big numbers and probabilities, but what really blew my mind was the flood evidence!

    I was happy for a long time to go along with the intelligent design idea, along with the idea of a vast age for the Earth, but an old paleontologist took the time to show me the things that didn’t fit the prevailing theory and really shook me up. The idea of a flood actually makes the pieces fit, and ignoring such ‘contrary’ evidence isn’t scientific thinking anyway. Good science finds new questions along the way and attempts to answer them, not sweep them under a rug.

  175. Matt Says:

    No evidence?
    What do you think half a dozen people have been linking to?

    What is your acceptable definition of evidence? Would you like us to travel to your house with some sort of travelling fossil exhibit? Maybe you’d like us to delve into temporal mechanics and somehow make a time machine so you can go back and see for yourself?

    We have supplied evidence in spades, whereas you have made claims and presented false mechanisms which have been refuted time and again.

  176. Ron Says:

    I said you would do well to ponder this, but I’m not surprised you won’t.

    No man is so blind as the one who refuses to see.

    I know, of course, you’ll say that it is I who am blind, but I’m not refusing to look at your evidence. You are refusing (read: unable) to show any! If you had some, you should be proud to show it off.

    Did I say ‘it is so because the Bible says so’? No, not really. I gave you evidence. You are simply saying ‘it is so because the textbook says it so’.

    Which of us is relying the most heavily on our faith?

  177. Bob Says:

    Ron,

    ‘Kinds’ of animals have offspring ‘after their kind’

    Still circular. Try again.

    “On the one hand, you dispute the existence of the so-called DNA or genetic barrier – you claim nobody has even heard of such a thing – and then on the other hand claim that the idea has been soundly refuted by much observation and experiment!”

    That’s the closest thing we could find, and with no help from you, of course. I for one still think you’re making %$#@ up.

    “A lack of evidence is evidence, my friends!”

    No, it’s not. It’s the beginning of an appeal to ignorance and your own personal incredulity.

    “Are you familiar at all with the idea of the ‘geologic column’?”

    I’m also familiar with claims CD101, CD102, CD103, CH550, CH560…

    “The layers are field-dated by the kind of fossils found there, and the fossils are field-dated by the layers they are found in. Circular reasoning, but that’s the way it’s been done since the early 19th century.”

    and claim CC310.

    “The paleogeographic evidence, right there before our eyes, points to a worldwide, cataclysmic flood, not many thousands of years ago!”

    How many thousands of years? I’ll take a wild guess. You mean claims CH200-CH799. That should cover it.

    “You won’t find this stuff in your textbooks…”

    Because it’s all patent nonsense.

  178. Ron Says:

    You guys are a hoot.

    ‘Kinds’ of animals have offspring ‘after their kind’ – which is obvious – but you guys still want proof of that?

    And the burden of proof falls on me to show some evidence that evolution is impossible, even though you are unable or unwilling to show any positive proof for it?

    On the one hand, you dispute the existence of the so-called DNA or genetic barrier – you claim nobody has even heard of such a thing – and then on the other hand claim that the idea has been soundly refuted by much observation and experiment!

    A lack of evidence is evidence, my friends! Organisms don’t evolve into new and different organisms. There is no evidence of that. There have certainly been many experiments that have sought to prove that, but none have. Doesn’t that count as evidence to you?

    Do you need evidence then, that the Bible’s account is true? Would evidence that a worldwide cataclysmic flood happened help? That’s what convinced me.

    Are you familiar at all with the idea of the ‘geologic column’? That’s the idea that sedimentary layers were layed down slowly over millions upon millions of years. Along the way, animals and plants were covered and fossilized, giving a nice picture of the evolution of life. Correct?

    It starts, basically with the pre-Cambrian, where there was almost no life (just some algaes and some pollens [!?]) then goes into the Cambrian, where life apparently suddenly exploded into complexity, then continues on up through a dozen or so (depending on the particular organizational system) with ever-increasing complexity and change until the present day. Each layer representing a period of millions of years. You learned this in high school, right?

    The layers are field-dated by the kind of fossils found there, and the fossils are field-dated by the layers they are found in. Circular reasoning, but that’s the way it’s been done since the early 19th century.

    Problems with this theory of dating arise when radio-carbon (and other) methods give wild results, or fossils are found in the ‘wrong’ strata (such as human footprints in Cambrian deposits), or strata are found in the ‘wrong order’ [Did you know that nowhere on Earth are the layers all present and in the 'correct order?] or dinosaur bones (supposedly 150+ million years old) are found to contain unfossilized tissues, or a researcher cracks open a fossil-bearing chunk of limestone, smells fish, and goes ‘hmmm…’, or upright tree trunks are found in coal deposits (can a tree stand in a swamp for millions of years while being slowly covered by peat? It’s apparently a quite common occurence, though counter-intuitive), or a student stops to wonder what pollen grains were doing there at the dawn of evolution, or a fully-modern human skeleton is unearthed in strata way too old for that to be possible, or human-made tools are found in coal deposits (also not that unusual), or unfossilized wood or other plants materials are found in ‘ancient’ limestone ….. shall we go on? I’m not writing a book here.

    The paleogeographic evidence, right there before our eyes, points to a worldwide, cataclysmic flood, not many thousands of years ago!

    Or just realizing that virtually every culture on Earth has a ‘great flood’ story, many of which are quite similar in some details to the Biblical account.

    You won’t find this stuff in your textbooks, but this is the stuff that turns agnostic scientists into Christians.

    You would do well to ponder this, boys.

  179. Bob Says:

    Ron,

    “A ‘kind’ as defined in Genesis, are animals that have offspring ‘after their kind’. Not really a very tough idea, is it?”

    That’s a circular definition. Try again. And does “kind” refer to a breed, a species, or a genus? Pick one, Humpty Dumpty.

  180. eyeingtenure Says:

    For a given claim, the burden of proof falls upon he who made said claim.

  181. Matt Says:

    Oh, I’m sorry.
    I must have left my “I’m your research finding slave with unlimited time” badge on.

    Seriously, you’ve been pointed where to find this information out. How about you actually make some actual effort and do it yourself?

  182. Ed Darrell Says:

    Evolutionary faith teaches that inorganic compounds formed into DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes and other complex molecules, somehow became ‘alive’, got together as a bacterium or algae or something, and then continued re-creating itself for several billion years into all the variety of organisms we see today.

    Evolution theory doesn’t say that.

    You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, do you? Can you tell us? You can’t define “kinds,” you clearly aren’t talking about evolution theory here (maybe biogenesis theory, but that’s not evolution), you can’t tell us who proposed the barrier you claim everyone should know about or where anyone can learn about it.

    Show you? I suspect the Missouri border patrol would toss you back. You’re the one making the claims. Put up time: Got data?

  183. Ron Says:

    Matt,

    Your link does, indeed, say the idea has been soundly refuted, and the refutation has been “backed up by genetic and biological observations and experiments” but doesn’t cite any examples.

    Maybe YOU can provide the examples?

  184. Ron Says:

    Bronze Dog,

    You sound like the DNA expert here. Of course, I am not. I’m just a troll.

    Perhaps you can explain the ability of DNA to change it’s coding into new life forms – and cite examples. Not just new breeds of cattle, primroses, dogs, brassicas, or such.

    Evolutionary faith teaches that inorganic compounds formed into DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes and other complex molecules, somehow became ‘alive’, got together as a bacterium or algae or something, and then continued re-creating itself for several billion years into all the variety of organisms we see today.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t have enough faith to swallow that.

    Show me.

  185. Matt Says:

    DNA Barrier? That hasn’t appeared anywhere in any scientific papers I’ve encountered or heard about. Is someone making up biological mechanisms again?

    Perhaps he’s referring to the ‘Genetic Barrier’ which was a hypothesis proposed a century or so ago but was soundly refuted.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul01.html

    For more information on macroevolution, try here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

    And please remember, talkorigins.org (unlike AiG or DI) is a fully referenced, science based website which is pretty highly regarded as being an excellent collection of peer reviewed work.

    But I doubt actual research and scientific findings have much bearing to creationists and intelligent design proponents. They certainly haven’t for some time now, at least.

  186. Ron Says:

    Re: Chimpanzees and Humans being ‘practically brothers’.

    That just betrays your lack of understanding of DNA and large numbers.

    Chimps and Humans ’share’ about 97% of their DNA, but that 3% is a huge amount of information!

  187. Ron Says:

    You guys aren’t truly this dense, are you?

    A ‘kind’ as defined in Genesis, are animals that have offspring ‘after their kind’. Not really a very tough idea, is it? The bible doesn’t use the terms species or genus, but then we know those terms are often rather vague and mistakenly applied anyway. To cite the bison/cattle example again: they are called two different species by scientists, but will readily cross-breed. They are the same ‘kind’ of animal. This sort of cross-breeding results in various ’species’, within the same kind. This sort of differentiation is what you evolutionists point to, to ‘prove’ evolution, but actually does not prove it at all. St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are both dogs, in case you hadn’t realized that.

    The DNA barrier, even if you hadn’t heard the term before, refers to the fact that organisms don’t change into other organisms. It just doesn’t happen. The coding of DNA is quite precise within certain parameters. In some animals and plants the coding allows for fairly wide variation (dogs), in others it doesn’t allow for much variation at all (cheetahs), but I’ll say again: one ‘kind’ does not become another ‘kind’. It cannot happen, and you cannot give a single example of it ever happening – now or in the past.

    But it ‘must’ happen if evolution is correct. In fact, it must happen often, literally countless billions of times. If the theory has any plausibility at all, you ought to at least be able to point to ONE example. And the ‘fossil record’ ought to be chock full of all sorts of transitional forms of countless animals and plants.

    So come on, guys: put your thinking caps on and find one decent example for me, or (keep those caps on) ask yourself why you can’t.

  188. Bob Says:

    celtictexan

    “Why fear it?”

    That’s a rather presumptuous question, not to mention vague. What makes you think I’m afraid, and of what? Certainly not this:

    “…the faint possibility that evolution might have been set into motion by some higher power. That it might, even today, be manipulated in some way beyond our understanding.”

    Such notions have no business in a science classroom. Why teach scientific facts alongside highly speculative religious propositions in public school science classes, as if the two were of equal weight? You did say that one was “fact” and the other a mere “possibility,” did you not? And if this possibility is “beyond our understanding,” then why even try?

  189. Matt Says:

    So you’d like to have fact taught alongside faint possibility?

    From an educational perspective, just to choose one, it would create a nightmare for the formation of curriculum.
    There’s the faintest of possibilities that god exists and has made the world as it is, placing fossils so everything looks old. There’s also the faintest of possibilities that the universe we know is contained within a single raindrop in a bigger universe. There’s also the faint possibility but nothing actually exists and it’s all just a figment of your own imagination.

    So which possibilities get taught and looked at in the classroom? Which, of that infinite range, gets included in the curriculum? Which supported and evidenced facts have to be shoved aside to make room for the teaching of such nonsense?

  190. Ed Darrell Says:

    Find me an example of one ‘kind’ of organism giving rise to another kind. It doesn’t happen. It cannot happen. It is the DNA barrier.

    “DNA barrier?” Are you just making stuff up whole cloth? Nobody has ever posed a “DNA barrier.” There is no research to back up such a claim.

    Other readers are right — you leave open the definition of “kind.” Is it your claim that radishes are the “mustard kind?” At what point do we say it has become a different kind? What is the DNA definition — where is the “DNA barrier?”

    Is it your claim that dogs are of the canine kind, and cats of the feline kind? Or are they both of the carnivora kind?

    And what about humans? If you pose a definition that allows all felines to be of one kind, then you’re saying that humans and chimpanzees, which are even more closely related, are practically brothers. Is that your claim?

    Why not just stick with the facts?

  191. mpb Says:

    Here’s a link to follow up (but not to the older cat DNA bit)

    Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog » One Species’ Genome Discovered Inside Another’s
    http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net/2007/08/30/one-species-genome-discovered-inside-anothers/

  192. celtictexan Says:

    celtictexan, So you’d like to have fact taught alongside faint possibility? That’s ridiculous. Keep your promiscuous teleology out of the science classroom.

    You didn’t answer the question Why fear it?

  193. mpb Says:

    The DNA barrier is unfamiliar to me, also. However, it is known that various bits of DNA in domestic cats (and I believe in humans) do not originate with cats but with bacteria or phages which became integrated into what we know today as “cats”. They are an integral part of the molecule now.

  194. Bronze Dog Says:

    Ron, kindly define “kind”. And stick to that definition.

    If you define “kind” as “species”, you’ve already been proven wrong.

    If you don’t, how can you possibly expect us to provide an example? Pick a hard and fast location for your goalposts. Without a definition, you can just brush off any example by making your already nebulous definition to be ever broader.

    Also, how exactly does this “DNA barrier” work? Name specific genetic mechanisms. Otherwise, you’re just making crud up.

  195. Bob Says:

    “It is the DNA barrier.”

    Well, now you’re just making %$#@ up.

  196. Ron Says:

    Ed,

    The barrier is the DNA coding itself.

    Find me an example of one ‘kind’ of organism giving rise to another kind. It doesn’t happen. It cannot happen. It is the DNA barrier.

    Oh, look! I answered Bronze Dog’s question too: They have offspring after their kind.

    Would an alien be able to tell that a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua were of the same kind? If they observed succesful breeding or understood and analysed their DNA, then yes. But if they just relied on observations of morphology, then maybe not. In that case, they might make the same childish mistake of assuming bison and cattle are different kinds ….

    Are you claiming that St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are evidence of evolution?

  197. Bronze Dog Says:

    I once thought about bringing up the modern cattle-auroch thing as an example of genetic engineering and evolution. Was wondering if there were any left in some tiny corner of the world. Guess not.

    Something I’d be curious about: If an alien visited Earth, would they be able to tell if a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are the same “kind”.

    Of course, Creationists can’t even come up with a consistent definition of “kind”, so I guess that’s kind of moot. Reminds me of an even stupider version of Michael Egnor: He demands that biologists prove that new information can come from evolution. When they proved it with Shannon information theory, he specified some non-Shannon “biological information”. When asked to define his deliberately nebulous term, he said it was their job.

    I wonder if our little troll friend is going to let us define “kind” and then object when we use a definition that’s been proven.

  198. Bob Says:

    Ron,

    “Newsflash: They are the same kind of animal.”

    Claim CB901.1 (again)

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall…

  199. Onkel Bob Says:

    I dunno about their not being any examples. I can see one right now: from daze of the usenet, trolls evolved from intelligent witty posters who used sly tactics to distract and amuse the audience to the current model of parasites of bandwidth. I compare that change to the evolution of primitive nematodes to modern tapeworms.
    But what would I know, I’m a geographer and art historian.

  200. Ed Darrell Says:

    So, Ron, you say evolution can’t work? What’s the barrier?

    Why can’t a single celled animal form a colony that becomes a multicelled animal? What’s the barrier?

    Why can’t a multicelled animal develop bilateral symmetry? What’s the barrier?

    And after symmetry develops, what barrier is there to any subsequent development?

    None of the steps we know occurred between the proto-ape common ancestors of the other great apes and humans, and modern humans, requires a significant leap of anything. After a couple dozen species, modern humans have slightly bigger brains with a larger set of frontal lobes, better color vision, worse olfactory senses, smaller canines, an inability to make vitamin C, a slightly different larynx, and less hair. Where is there any barrier to any of the great apes still alive following a similar path of development — other than a lack of conditions to force the natural selection?

    We have the most solid evidence ever developed that one-celled critters were ancestors to frogs: DNA. DNA is so powerful that we regularly use it to overturn jury convictions of murderers, and let the falsely-convicted off of death row. That same evidence provides the links you claim don’t exist.

    How is it you are suddenly better able to discern these things than DNA? Why didn’t you warn the world of the 9/11 attacks?

  201. Ron Says:

    Ed,

    Morphology. Big scientific sounding word. Let’s talk about the morphological differences between bison and cattle for instance. they are certainly structured differently, but they will cross-breed. Correct?

    Newsflash: They are the same kind of animal.

    Same story for every other example you evolutionists might weakly point to.

    Still no evidence that a bacteria could become an algae could become a fish could become a frog, etc etc, (or in whatever ways you might imagine).

    The evidence is neither ‘massive’ nor ‘abundant’. Try again. Or just open your eyes.

    Bob,

    You had nuthin, huh?

  202. Rain….and more entertaining stupidity… « blueollie Says:

    [...] the creationists will provide even more entertainment, as Richard Fillmore’s Bathtub shows: Example 2: McLeroy’s Islamist partner, Adnan Oktar ( [...]

  203. Bob Says:

    celtictexan,

    So you’d like to have fact taught alongside faint possibility? That’s ridiculous. Keep your promiscuous teleology out of the science classroom.

    Ron,

    An Index to Creationist Claims

    “There ought to be billions of transitional species…”

    Claim CC200.1

    “With fruit flies we get various forms, habits etc, but they are still fruitflies…”

    Claim CB910.1

    “My point is there is zero evidence of change across what we creationists like to call the Genesis ‘kinds’. Kinds can interbreed. Different kinds cannot.”

    Claim CB901.1

    “…given the billions of years of natural trial and error you believe in, we would see a real muddle of species – which we don’t.”

    Claim CB805

    “Evolution is a faith.”

    Claim CA612

    “…reality of the Deluge…”

    And that’s when I stopped taking you seriously.

  204. Bob Says:

    celtictexan,

    So you’d like to have fact taught alongside faint possibility? That’s ridiculous. Keep your promiscuous teleology out of the science classroom.

    Ron,

    “There ought to be billions of transitional species…”

    Claim CC200.1

    “With fruit flies we get various forms, habits etc, but they are still fruitflies…”

    Claim CB910.1

    “My point is there is zero evidence of change across what we creationists like to call the Genesis ‘kinds’. Kinds can interbreed. Different kinds cannot.”

    Claim CB901.1

    “…given the billions of years of natural trial and error you believe in, we would see a real muddle of species – which we don’t.”

    Claim CB805

    “Evolution is a faith.”

    Claim CA612

    “…reality of the Deluge…”

    And that’s when I stopped taking you seriously.

  205. Ed Darrell Says:

    First, hybridization in plants is no evidence of evolution. Maize becomes another strain of maize.

    I’m not sure what links you looked at, but teosinte looks a lot more like wheat than it does modern corn. Anyone who argues that there is no evolution there isn’t paying attention to morphology.

    But of course, we also have DNA.

    Hybridization most certainly can lead to speciation, which is evolution, by any rational definition. Much of creationism is spent trying to avoid rationality, however, so denying the evidence is not only expected, but sadly de rigeur.

    Change across Genesis kinds? First, that’s silly. Such change could be clear only retrospectively. But second, within kinds change is blessedly impressive. Only an idiot would claim that radishes and mustard are the same thing, or that Brussels sprouts are the same as radishes. And yet, since Jesus preached about the mustard seed, both radishes and Brussels sprouts have evolved from that family — as have rape seed (Canola in the later incarnation), broccoli and cauliflower. I expect Ron to try to find some way to deny this history.

    Any stroll down the produce aisle in any U.S. supermarket produces almost exclusively products of recent evolution. But get over to the meat aisle, and again you’ll find it. Beef? Modern beef didn’t exist in Jesus’s time. The last aurochs, the species from which modern bovines are descended, died nearly a millennium ago (poached, ironically, in what is now Poland).

    It’s impossible to eat at McDonalds without eating the fruits of evolution theory, applied by natural selection or artificial selection.

    What sort of evidence are you really looking for, Ron, if the real world’s abundant manifestations of evolution are not enough?

  206. Ron Says:

    Matt,

    Wow, there sure was a bunch of info in those links you provided, but let me point out a few things: First, hybridization in plants is no evidence of evolution. Maize becomes another strain of maize. Primrose becomes another strain of primrose, etc. And many of the hybrids noted were sterile. How would sterility push evolution along? With fruit flies we get various forms, habits etc, but they are still fruitflies and will interbreed with each other (if they are not sterile).

    Also, all such hybrids tend to revert back to their parent strains if left to their own devices. Again, no evidence for evolution.

    As to animals and fossils: evidence of extinct animals is not evidence for evolution, either.

    One of the pages cited ‘Java Man’, a known hoax (or at least a serious mistake). I was quite surprised to see that one still touted. There are no doubt others in there as well.

    My point is there is zero evidence of change across what we creationists like to call the Genesis ‘kinds’. Kinds can interbreed. Different kinds cannot. Drift across the DNA barrier simply doesn’t happen (even with help from lab techs). And if it did, given the billions of years of natural trial and error you believe in, we would see a real muddle of species – which we don’t.

    Evolution is a faith. But don’t feel too bad about that. Just open your eyes and look at the evidence. I was once much like you guys. I went from believing in evolution, as taught in school, to being a theistic evolutionist, then began studying paleogeology and realized the reality of the Deluge – that’s a whole ‘nother topic!

    But if anybody wants to take another stab at finding a new species, I’m listening. The evidence, though, is anything but ‘massive’.

  207. celtictexan Says:

    By the way Ron I don’t mean to just pick on you. Evolution is fact and very obvious to all but the blind def and dumb.

    But the author of these somewhat obsessive posts, should likewise not be so afraid to explore at least the faint possibility that evolution might have been set into motion by some higher power. That it might, even today, be manipulated in some way beyond our understanding.

    I mean seriously, what can it hurt as long as the fact of evolution is also taught.

  208. celtictexan Says:

    I have nothing to fear as far as creationism being taught in school. I also want and have no fear of evolution being taght but seriously Ron,you need to either evolve or have someone create a brain for you.

    There ought to be billions of transitional species

    Have you ever been to a Natural history museum, a good one like in DC or New York or Chicago, and seen skeletons of primates from the lowest up to man? How can you see that and not see transition.

    May I see one?

    I wish I could turn a T-Rex loose in your home, I suspect your brain would do a whole big bunch of evolving.

    Ever heard of AIDS? Has it always been around? Did the “fruity” types of people 50 years ago worry about it? Think maybe, a virus evolved into new species?

  209. Matt Says:

    One things that annoys me more than repetition of long destroyed arguments and so-called evidence is the habit of creationists not to do even the most basic of research for themselves.

    From talkorigins.org (a site which is well regarded for being properly referenced and based solely in science).
    Examples of speciation which have been observed:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

    Some reports on transitional fossils:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    So, in summary, the evidence for Evolution happening is massive indeed. Whereas the evidence for creationism is … well, non-existent.

  210. Ron Says:

    That truly is embarrassing! Gives real creationists a bad name.

    But seriously, since you apparently have a strong faith in evolution, maybe you can point me toward some evidence for evolution. There ought to be billions of transitional species, both living and dead (in the fossil record). May I see one?

    Have there been any experiments that might support it? For instance, research with fruit flies. Have any researchers been able to breed fruit flies into a new species?

    Have any bacteria or viruses been able to evolve into new species? They are rather simple creatures in the grand scheme of things. Do they evolve into new species? Even one example?

  211. eyeingtenure Says:

    Glossed over on glossy pages.

  212. Bob Says:

    Hook, line, and sinker!

Leave a Reply