False Teaching of Evolution, we need to Watch the Environment we live in!
dlharm1
In article <19961126160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
lonny...@aol.com writes:
>So many now are letting the teaching of evloution creep into the home
>school environment. We need to keep before our youth the truths about
>creation and the wonderful truths of their one and only God of the
>universe.
Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
attitude.
I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
religion.
>It is sad to see so many embrace with open arms the Theo-Evolution Theory.
> If we are just animals, what would be the need to salvation or
>redemption. We must be oh, so very, very careful what are children learn.
That is your opinion, but why should anyone else care? Do you wish to be
the Grand Inquisitor?
>Lonny...@aol.com
DLH
Michele Lewis
> Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
> without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
> parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
> you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
> attitude.
>
> I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
> would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
> religion.
>
> the Grand Inquisitor?
>
> >Lonny...@aol.com
>
> DLH
Dear Lonny,
Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
this is what they base their beliefs on."
Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
lewis...@geocities.com
Homeschooling Preschoolers
http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
Tony Schountz
Normally, I disregard spelling errors. But since "home schooling" is
the subject I feel like I should mention it. If this is just a typo,
please forgive me.
Michele Lewis wrote:
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
("cannot" is *always* one word)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Schountz, Ph.D. mailto:to...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu
Mammalian Genetics Section mailto:schou...@bioax1.bio.ornl.gov
Biology Division http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~tonys/
Oak Ridge National Laboratory MS 8080, Y-12 Bear Creek Rd.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Voice: (423) 574-0701 FAX: (423) 574-1274
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Brassfield
In article <329B36...@geocities.com>, Michele Lewis
<lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
> is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
creationism is religion. Specifically Christian religion. Evolution--which
is both a fact *and* a theory--is science. When religion is taught with
the force of law and government it is tyranny. That's why we have
constitutional protections prohibiting it.
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
Hardly. The creationist grasp of science is usually pretty minimal.
Susan
--
Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth.
The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
dlharm1
How nice of Michele to leave out the silly message I was replying to.
I'm sure Lonny is glad you edited out his dogmatism. Of course such
morals are typical of those who claim that creationism is scientific.
Why with just a little practice you will be quoting famous scientists
out of context. Bless you Michele.
In article <329B36...@geocities.com>
Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> writes:
>> Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
>> without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
>> parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
>> you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
>> attitude.
>> I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
>> would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
>> religion.
>>That is your opinion, but why should anyone else care? Do you wish to be
>> the Grand Inquisitor?
>>
>> >Lonny...@aol.com
>>
>> DLH
>
>Dear Lonny,
>
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
tell us about it. To my knowledge creationism is not even a theory.
>Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
paleontology, etc.) are not equally divided on this issue, they are
overwhelmingly supporters of evolution. Public schools are not obliged
to give half of their time to cranks. Otherwise, Hare Krishnas, Native
American Creation myths, Mormons, and Scientologists would be calling for
"equal time."
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
scientific illiterates with vast political power.
>Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
>lewis...@geocities.com
>Homeschooling Preschoolers
>http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
DLH
Tony Schountz
Michele Lewis wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
No, evolution is a fact. The *Modern Theory of Evolution* is the best
explanation for the fact of evolution.
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
Science does not "prove" anything, however, it is very useful for
*disproving* things, such as "creation science."
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
You do not seem to have an understanding of a scientific theory. In the
vernacular, "theory" is used to describe conjecture or speculation.
However, in science it has a much more substantive meaning, namely that
it has been scrutinized by the scientific method (i.e. hypothesis
testing).
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
> is what they base their belief on..."
...lots and lots of expermental data that clearly show evolution in
action.
>"Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
...despite the fact there is *no* evidence nor any *experiment ever
conducted* to support their beliefs.
>
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
No, evolution belongs in science classes because it *is* science, while
creationism does not because it *is not* science.
>
> Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
> lewis...@geocities.com
>
> Homeschooling Preschoolers
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
I hope your children do not grow up to be "scientifically challenged."
Tony
Daniel Earl Bacon
Michele Lewis wrote:
> Dear Lonny,
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation?
And which creation STORY should we tell. Aztecs, Mayan, Hindu, etc. I
have always thought it funny that these groups wish to have organized
prayer in schools , but do not stop and think that you would have to
accommodate all beliefs. I would love to see your face when you child
is force to say a Moslem prayer or a prayer to Satin.
By favor-wrght story is the Aztecs.
> Then children, both secular and
> Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
> is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
This is your problem belief! Science dose not use belief; it uses
physical evidence. Religion dose not use(or should not) physical
evidence but belief! Example the physical evidence point to the age of
the earth to be about 4.5 Billion years old. If the physical evidence
change (or new evidence) to 6.6 Billion then no problem.
>
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
It's not about viewpoints it's about physical evidence.
Just like the flat-earthers (no physical evidence )
>
> Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
> lewis...@geocities.com
>
> Homeschooling Preschoolers
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
--
The test to know if you are intelligent .
An intelligent person alters his view or even his beliefs to fit the
facts; while an unintelligent person alters the facts to fit his views
or beliefs
Daniel Bacon
http://www.mindspring.com/~dbacon
henry l. barwood
Michele Lewis wrote:
snip
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> Christian would be exposed to both sides.
To the best of my knowledge, not one scientist has ever opposed teaching
evolution and creation side-by-side in a comparative religion class. I,
however, strongly object to teaching pseudoscience-as-fact in a science
class!
snip
>
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
Not really! What scientists are afraid of is still further erosion of
science education and its continued replacement by technology
masquerading as "science" and by pseudoscience.
Henry Barwood
Richard G. Henne, Jr.
Michele Lewis wrote:
>
> Dear Lonny,
>
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
>
taught as such. As of now, no theory of creation has been presented
that passes the tests that would make it scientifically valid. Would
you consent to having creation theory explained as an example of what
science isn't? Keep it out of the science class and you can teach it,
along with the creation myths of other religions, in a comparative
religions class.
Do you know what a theory is? Scientific theories are explanations that
best fit the available data. Gravity, light, electricity, and magnetism
all have theories that explain them, evolution is no different. The
common ground each of theory has, is that the evidence they rely upon,
is observed, can be duplicated by others doing the same experiments, and
predictions are made that offer further evidence of the validity of the
theory. All of science requires this. It is the willingness to test
the theory against further observations that keeps or discards it over
time. IOW, as more data comes in, the theory changes to accommodate it.
Evolution is an observed fact! The theory of evolution has been changed
several times since Darwin first proposed it, but it is still the best
fit for the evidence at hand.
>
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
> Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
> lewis...@geocities.com
>
> Homeschooling Preschoolers
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
Where are the papers that creationist's have written describing their
experiments? Why is it, creationist's generally respond with scorn and
refuse to consider experimentation to validate their own "theory"? Why
do so many creationist's refuse to correct the mistakes they have made
in their postings here on talk.origins? Why do creationist web pages
rarely (as in I haven't found one yet) have pointers to the evolutionist
pages (most science pages point to their competitor's sites)? Now, can
you please correct your last sentence so that it agrees with reality!
--
Rich
A scientist must learn to question everything!
David Jensen
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:25:25 -0500, Michele Lewis
<lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
No. Creation is exclusively a religious belief. Creation is a part of
numerous religious myths, which creation story would you like told in
public school? It is not a scientific theory. It has no scientific
basis.
>Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
Science does not prove things, it explains them.
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
Theory: From the American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition:
1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide
variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted
principles and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or
otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
phenomema. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from
experiment or practice. [meanings 2. and 3. ignored as irrelevent]
There is observed evolution--the change in allele frequency over time,
and a theory of evolution that explains it.
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
People do not _believe_ in the theory of evolution. They have a model
that explains the information currently available. This model includes,
but is not limited to, common descent, natural selection, mutation and
population isolation.
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
Since you are proposing that this be taught in a public school science
class, you know that no appeal to the Bible or any other religious work
can be made. What would you provide as the Theory (see definition above)
of Creation and the supporting evidence for it.
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
Please provide the information that you believe could be included in a
unit on creation. Remember, you may not include religious works. Based
on the information I have, limiting creationism to science would be a
one word discussion: "Nothing." If you have more, I would be happy to
read it.
>Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
>lewis...@geocities.com
>
>Homeschooling Preschoolers
>http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
//also mailed//
>>>>> <<<<<
The Talk.Origins Archives are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Ken Winters
Tony Schountz wrote:
>
> Michele Lewis wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> > theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>
> explanation for the fact of evolution.
>
> > if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>
> action.
>
> >
> > afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
> creationism does not because it *is not* science.
>
> >
> > lewis...@geocities.com
> >
> > Homeschooling Preschoolers
> > http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
>
>
> Tony
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Schountz, Ph.D. mailto:to...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu
> Mammalian Genetics Section mailto:schou...@bioax1.bio.ornl.gov
> Biology Division http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~tonys/
> Oak Ridge National Laboratory MS 8080, Y-12 Bear Creek Rd.
> Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Voice: (423) 574-0701 FAX: (423) 574-1274
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
accountable to a higher being.
Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
site:
http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
Herb Huston
In article <329B71...@olympus.net>,
Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net> wrote:
}Tony Schountz wrote:
}> Michele Lewis wrote:
}>
}> > Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
}> > theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
}> > Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
}>
}> No, evolution is a fact. The *Modern Theory of Evolution* is the best
}> explanation for the fact of evolution.
}>
}> > old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
}> > if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
}> > is what they base their belief on..."
}>
}> ...lots and lots of expermental data that clearly show evolution in
}> action.
}>
}> >
}> > Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
}> > afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
}>
}> No, evolution belongs in science classes because it *is* science, while
}> creationism does not because it *is not* science.
}>
}
}hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it.
Please post full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed scientific
literature.
> If
}evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, [...]
Where does Dr. Schountz suggest that evolution is incontrovertible?
} [...] then why are
}many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
}criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
}ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
}academia).
Full bibliographic references, please.
}Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
}credibility.
I've never seen any that wasn't absolute rubbish being foisted on mental
defectives by a a cadre of moral degenerates.
} But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
}both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
}site:
}
}http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
}
}If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
}sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
I looked at it and found it to be the usual absolute rubbish foisted on
mental defectives by a cadre of moral degenerates.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Julie Pascal
You had a reasonably good point to make here but ensured that
NO productive discussion could continue by crossposting to
talk.orgins. It leads me to doubt the sincerety of your
initial focus. Did you care about a dictatorial attitude
from one fundamentalist to another or was it just a cover
to get a flame buring. Is talk.orgins getting boring
or something?
Chances are most posters to misc.education.home-school.christian
know to avoid discussing Evolution. If you've noticed, very few
of the posts originate here.
To respond to your supposed concern that Lonny was telling us
what to do; we educate our children in freedom and do not feel
in the least compelled by what one of our members thinks is
very important. We take what we can use and leave the rest.
Some will have seen the post as much needed encouragement.
Others will not. Are people not supposed to express their
opinions or concerns?
The public school mentality that what is good for one must be
forced on all does not exist here. Yes, much effort has been
made in many places, sometimes even successfully, to include
Creationism in science classes. I could go on at great
length, and have in the past, about why I think attempting
to "Christianize" public schools is a really bad idea. But
homeschool is not public school and none of us has to react the
way we might if majority opinion dictated the substance of
the education our children would get.
Finally, any one of us who has a desire to participate on talk.orgins
is fully capable of subscribing to it. If anyone on talk.orgins
would like to participate in discussions about home school, christian
or otherwise, they are equally capable of subscribing to one or all
of the home school newsgroups.
The invitation to see what home school is all about is a serious
one. Our discussions are far from single issue and just _maybe_
the urge to categorize and dismiss people will give way to
understanding. (And as I've said before, "understanding" is
not "agreement.")
j.pascal
dlharm1 wrote:
>
> In article <19961126160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> lonny...@aol.com writes:
>
> >So many now are letting the teaching of evloution creep into the home
> >school environment. We need to keep before our youth the truths about
> >creation and the wonderful truths of their one and only God of the
> >universe.
>
> Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
> without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
> parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
> you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
> attitude.
>
> I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
> would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
> religion.
>
> >It is sad to see so many embrace with open arms the Theo-Evolution Theory.
> > If we are just animals, what would be the need to salvation or
> >redemption. We must be oh, so very, very careful what are children learn.
>
Julie Pascal
Tony Schountz wrote:
>
> Normally, I disregard spelling errors. But since "home schooling" is
> the subject I feel like I should mention it. If this is just a typo,
> please forgive me.
>
> Michele Lewis wrote:
>
>
Oh, come on. And my high school English teacher made grammar errors
with regularity. Your point is only to illustrate how valuable your
Ph.D. is. Apologize if it was a typo? Polite people _assume_ it
was a typo.
j.pascal
Michele Lewis
Tony Schountz wrote:
>
> Normally, I disregard spelling errors. But since "home schooling" is
> the subject I feel like I should mention it. If this is just a typo,
> please forgive me.
>
> Michele Lewis wrote:
>
> > and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>
> ("cannot" is *always* one word)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Schountz, Ph.D. mailto:to...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu
> Mammalian Genetics Section mailto:schou...@bioax1.bio.ornl.gov
> Biology Division http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~tonys/
> Oak Ridge National Laboratory MS 8080, Y-12 Bear Creek Rd.
> Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Voice: (423) 574-0701 FAX: (423) 574-1274
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing that you have nothing more intellegent to contribute than the
fact that I made a simple typing error.
Prince Vermillion
> Dear Lonny,
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
> is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
What about the Indian creation stories?
Or the Hindu creation stories?
Or the Shinto creation stories?
Should we delve into what the Temple of Set believe? I think Dr. Aquino is
free for next week...
There are a lot of sticky, uncomfortable, and unconstitutional issues at
hand when you teach Christian Creationism in Science class. Perhaps in a
comparative religion class it might be more relevant.
- Dave
--
David Sticher
subdued yet genial amusement
William H. Jefferys
#Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
#hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
#evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
#many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
#criticizing it?
On the other hand, you will find that many of the participants in
this newsgroup have studied the books criticizing evolution that
you refer to quite extensively, subscribe to creationist journals
and periodicals, and know exactly why the people you refer to who
are writing these books are wrong. Try posting your favorite
anti-evolutionary argument here. See if you can defend it against
the evidence that will be marshalled against it.
BTW, many of the participants here on the side of evolution
are Christians, too. Do not make the mistake of thinking that
because one supports evolution, one is an atheist. That would
be offensive.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill[a]clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Alexey Merz
In article <Susan-Brassfield...@129.15.90.99>,
Susan Brassfield <Susan-Br...@ou.edu> wrote:
>In article <329B36...@geocities.com>, Michele Lewis
><lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>> theory of evolution and creation?
Yes. Science and religion should each get 50% of the time.
And each religion's view of creation should get equal emphasis -
Hindu, Islam, Satanism, Hare Krishna, Hopi, Taoism, Bhuddism,
Unitarianism, Toltec, Aztec, Mayan, Eskimo, Confucian...
That _was_ what you had in mind, wasn't it?
-Alexey
Andrew Dalton
Ken Winters wrote:
[deleted]
> Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
> ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
> alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
> accountable to a higher being.
It is a tremendous error to equate controversy, opposition, and
criticism _per se_ with real *evidence*. In science, that's what really
matters. It doesn't matter how many people fervently believe in
creationism; if they can't provide any serious evidence or compelling
logical arguments, then their rantings are next to meaningless. A rule
that I like to remember is the following: if 40 million people believe
in a stupid idea, it's still a stupid idea.
--
_____________________________________________________________
Andrew Dalton
asda...@umich.edu
"Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who
speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
Ambrose Bierce
_____________________________________________________________
Bill Weaver
Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>Christian would be exposed to both sides.
You mean, teach both science and religion? But which religion? Whose
religion? Yours, I'll bet. I know, why don't we stick to the facts
in school and let the parents and churches take care of the religion.
>Evolution is only a theory
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
>old)
Michele this makes absolutely no sense. I hope you are not trying to
teach your children science! The term "theory" has a specific meaning
in science. Theories don't graduate to be facts once proven - a
theory in science is always a theory, whether universally accepted or
totally nuts. Natural selection is a "theory" for the process of
evolution. Evolution is a fact that can be directly observed. It was
taught that way when you and I were in school, when it was taught at
all, and it is still taught that way.
>I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
Creationism is pure religion Michele. Surely you can admit that, to
yourself at least.
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
I'm a Christian. I have no reconciling my science with my religion.
Taken allegorically, the Bible is an inspiring source of spiritual
guidance and direction. Taken literally, is a deeply flawed
historical document and a ridiculous and self-contradictory science
text. I prefer the allegorical interpretation.
>Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
>lewis...@geocities.com
>Homeschooling Preschoolers
>http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
God help us.
--------------------------------------------------
"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the
approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing
the subversions of the duperies on which they live."
Thomas Jefferson
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
>> without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
>> parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
>> you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
>> attitude.
>>
>> I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
>> would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
>> religion.
>>
>>That is your opinion, but why should anyone else care? Do you wish to be
>> the Grand Inquisitor?
>>
>> >Lonny...@aol.com
>>
>> DLH
>
>Dear Lonny,
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>Christian would be exposed to both sides.
It is a good thing there are only these two options. It would be messy
if there were other religions.
>Evolution is only a theory
Do you know what "theory" means? Evolution is both fact and theory.
That is, evolution (the change in allele frequency in a population
over time) is observable. The various explanations for this phenomena
is called the theory of evolution.
>and can not be proven scientifically
Nothing can be proved scientifically because science does not deal in
proof. But evolution is as factual as the pull between masses.
>but unfortunately, the public
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
Should they also present criticism of both sides? And should they
present many creationist viewpoints, or just Christian?
>
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
And you would never agree if it were really implemented. Or do you
want the public schools to teach non-Christian religions?
>Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
>lewis...@geocities.com
>
>Homeschooling Preschoolers
>http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
Do you teach them with as little knowledge of science as you display
in this post? If so, I am sorry for them.
Matt Silberstein
===========================
Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to live in these.
Ovid
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Tony Schountz wrote:
>>
>> Normally, I disregard spelling errors. But since "home schooling" is
>> the subject I feel like I should mention it. If this is just a typo,
>> please forgive me.
>>
>> Michele Lewis wrote:
>>
>> > and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>>
>> ("cannot" is *always* one word)
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Amazing that you have nothing more intellegent to contribute than the
>fact that I made a simple typing error.
>
Amazing that you have no response to any of the other posts, including
Tony's. These posts have responses on other than spelling issues. Or
have I just missed those response and they will show up later?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin
Tony Schountz
Michele Lewis wrote:
> Amazing that you have nothing more intellegent to contribute than the
> fact that I made a simple typing error.
Dear Michele,
I deeply regret posting my comments regarding your typographical error.
My intent was to send it to you privately by email, but clearly I
clicked "post" instead of "mail." I by no means intended to place this
in the public venue, and for my transgression, I hope that you will
accept this public apology.
Sincerely,
Tony
Tony Schountz
Ken Winters wrote:
>
> Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
> hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it.
Yes, it's amazing what rational thought can lead to.
> If
> evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
The fact of evolution is:
*The change in gene frequency in a population over time*
This has been documented many, many times. I suggest you pick up any
textbook on population genetics, for there will be numerous references
to original articles for you to read.
The Theory of Evolution provides an explanation of the fact of evolution
and why there is such great diversity of life forms on the earth.
> many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
> criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
> ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
What I'd like to see is these scientists publishing their experimental
data in *peer reviewed journals.* Anyone can write a book without any
data to support their contentions, such as Mike Behe's "Darwin's Black
Box."
> academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
> alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
> accountable to a higher being.
Isn't this known as a "false dichotomy?" Why couldn't the earth have
been seeded by aliens from another planet? There's just as much
evidence for this as there is for creationism.
>
> Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
^^^^
all
> credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
> both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
> site:
>
> http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
>
> If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
> sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
Are any of these books going to be available at local libraries?
Daniel Earl Bacon
Ken Winters wrote:
> Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
> hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
> evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
> many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
> criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
> ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
> academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
> alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
> accountable to a higher being.
>
> Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
> credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
> both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
> site:
>
> http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
>
> If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
> sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
I found the information challenged not challenging. I suggest a good
science journal for science and a religious journal for your (public
“your”) beliefs, and not to try to make the real world fit your(public)
beliefs.
Marc Satterwhite
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
>
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
Some people believe that blacks are inferior to whites, and
here are their reasons. Some people believe that blacks
are are not inferior to whites and here are their reasons.
These are both unprovable theories so we are going
to give them equal weight in our instruction.
Some people believe that demons cause illness while
others believe illness is caused by a variety of factors,
including microbes, environmental toxins and heredity.
These are both unprovable theories, so we are going to
give them equal weight in our instruction, and prayer
and research are going to be given equal funding in
medical schools and research hospitals.
--MTS
Sam Finlay
Daniel Earl Bacon wrote:
>
>
> And which creation STORY should we tell. Aztecs, Mayan, Hindu, etc. I
> have always thought it funny that these groups wish to have organized
> prayer in schools , but do not stop and think that you would have to
> accommodate all beliefs. I would love to see your face when you child
> is force to say a Moslem prayer or a prayer to Satin.
> Daniel,
Prayer to Satin? Believe me I have NO room to object about other people's
spelling, but this reminded me of a silly joke:
Did you hear about the dyslexic Satan worshipers?
They sold their souls to Santa!
> The test to know if you are intelligent .
> An intelligent person alters his view or even his beliefs to fit the
> facts; while an unintelligent person alters the facts to fit his views
> or beliefs Daniel Bacon
> http://www.mindspring.com/~dbacon
Or: Another beautiful theory spoiled by a lousy fact! But people who
refuse to alter their views may not be unintelligent, just stubborn.
Maybe even just doubtful of the evidence. Remember, a fundamemtalist
has an awful lot to lose by rejecting Biblical literalism. It's not
realistic & possibly unfair to expect one of them to change easily.
Sam
>
Charles Dyer
In article <329B36...@geocities.com>, Michele Lewis
<lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > Hmm... Usually home schooling parents say they wish to teach their kids
> > without outside interference. You seem to wish to dictate what those
> > parents can teach because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I hope
> > you get lots of flack from your fellow fundamentalists for your dictatorial
> > attitude.
> >
> > I wish all the creationists would home school their kids. Perhaps they
> > would quit trying to force the public schools to replace science with
> > religion.
> >
> >That is your opinion, but why should anyone else care? Do you wish to be
> > the Grand Inquisitor?
> >
> > >Lonny...@aol.com
> >
> > DLH
>
> Dear Lonny,
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
> and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
> school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
> school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
> old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
> if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
> is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
> this is what they base their beliefs on."
>
> Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
> afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
> Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
> lewis...@geocities.com
>
> Homeschooling Preschoolers
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094
Amazing. Every single day I spent in school elemenary to univeristy, was in
Church schools. In elementary and high school we started the day (and,
depending on the instructor, each class) with prayer. You _were_ gonna
pray, or you were gonna be sorry. In addition, in high school we were
_required_ to attend church at least once a month (on First Fridays, if
that means anything to you...) and the only way to get out of that was a)
to be sick that day or b) to be one of the prefects charged with assisting
the Dean of Disciplne enforce the rules. (That's me... The last two years I
was in high school, I rarely made mass, as I was out looking for those
_unofficially_ playing hooky...)
Now, the bio teacher was a short (maybe 5' 3"...) Jesuit. He'd been a
professional biologist and retired to teach. He could, and did, give
examples from his personal experience of how the theory of evolution
explains the facts uncovered in 30 plus years of work. And he could, and
did, point out that all of this was, to quote the Jesuit motto, to the
greater glory of God, something else he had spent more than 30 years
working for. You don't mind if I believe him, when he says that it is
perfectly possible to both follow Jesus Christ _and_ use the eyes God gave
us and the brain He also gave us to see that evolution is a fact at present
inaccurately described by the theory of evolution? 'Inaccurately' because
the current evolutionary theory, as all things made by man, including the
Bible, is imperfect. (The Bible was inspired by God, but assembled by man.
Men make mistakes. God is not responsible for men's mistakes.)
One more thing. In high school I was _required_ to _memorize_ several
sections of the Bible, including the Pentatuch, the Synoptic Gopspels,
Acts, several of the Epistles of Paul. We had tests on a weekly basis, and
had 'context questions'; the test would quote a verse, without any ID, and
we had to identify the quote and place it in context, and give a commentary
to show that we actually understood what we were talking about and weren't
just reguritating crib sheets. I was pretty good at it; how do you think I
got to be a prefect? Now, _I_ don't recall any part of the Bible which
conflicts with evolutionary theory unless you take it absolutely word for
word literally, which is rediculous as the Bible was originally written in
Amharic and Greek, translated to Latin, then to English. And before it was
written down, the Old Testament, especially including the Pentatuch (that's
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Duetronomy, and Numbers) were maintained by
oral tradition. Oral tradition is why the Bible has verses; before mass
literacy, the best way to remember things was to make sure they rhymed and
to give a good structure to them. Problem with that is if something doesn't
fit the structure or doesn't rhyme, it gets forgotten. Oral traditions are
notoriously inaccurate, prone to exaggeration (e.g. Samson slaying 10,000
with the jawbone of a creationist) and to leaving out inconvinent facts.
(What _did_ happen to the 'lost tribes of Israel'?) The Bible is an
excellent work for teaching about God. It is not a physics text. It is not
a biology text. It is not a geology text. Render onto Caeser what is
Caeser's and onto God what is God's.
--
"The plausibility of a statement has no bearing on its accuracy. And vice
versa." -- Robert A. Heinlein.
My newsfeed is acting up again. To be sure a posting gets to me, email me.
Even you, Ted.
William H. Jefferys
#alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
#accountable to a higher being.
Many supporters of evolution believe in God. It is offensive
to assume that people support evolution because they don't
want to be accountable to God.
#
#Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
#credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
#both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
#site:
#
#http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
#
#If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
#sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
I visited this site. It is Hugh Ross' site. It has some outright
errors such as:
However, in this decade, astronomers and physicists have proven that the
universe is finite in time and in extent.
[Dons hat of professional astronomer.]
This is wrong. The consensus is that the universe is infinite in spatial
extent, and no one knows about the processes that went on before the
Planck time (the physics breaks down) so that it is quite possible that
the universe is infinite in time going backwards in time as well. Ross,
who was trained as an astronomer (Ph.D. from Toronto, I believe)
ought to know better. Of course, he's not active as an astronomer
at the present time...he's not a member of the American Astronomical
Society, for example.
[Removes astronomer's hat]
Hugh Ross is an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) so his stuff isn't as
bad as the YEC's stuff, but there's still a lot wrong. His arguments
as given on this website about whether evolution is possible amount
to the usual fallacious arguments from personal incredulity.
However, I'll give Hugh Ross credit for the following.
Ahem.
Tara! Tara!
****THIS IS THE FIRST CREATIONIST WEBSITE I HAVE SEEN THAT ACTUALLY
****CONTAINS A LINK TO THE TALK.ORIGINS ARCHIVES!
Sam Finlay
Ken Winters wrote:
>
> Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
> hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
> evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
> many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
> criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
> ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
> academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
> alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
> accountable to a higher being.
>
> Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
> credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
> both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
> site:
>
> http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
>
> If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
> sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
I may be making the waters a bit more muddy but here goes...
Evolution is a fact but the Theory of Evolution is not a
fact. How can that be? Fossil evidence & observation tells
us that evolution has occured & continues to occur. Darwin's theory
of Evolution was an attempt to explain the facts that he saw in
nature. In other words, Darwin attempted to understand and
explain the mechanism of how evolution worked. He didn't come up
with this theory & then go out & try to find facts to prove it.
Just the opposite happened, he was driven to evolution by the
facts. His theory has been modified quite a bit since then as
new information has been discovered & there are several variants,
such as Punctuated Equiblibrium (S.J.Gould). While this or that
part of Evolutionary theory may be changed or disproved it won't
make the facts go away. That's what scientists mean when they
say that evolution is a fact. In the same way gravity is a fact.
By analogy: Newton's theory of gravitation isn't gravity. It's an
attempt to explain gravity & describe its properties. If you can find
some error in Newton's math, fine. Just don't jump off a cliff on
account of the error. You'll land just as hard!
Sam
PS. To those who say Evolution can't be observed on a human time scale,
you may want to consider this: Several years ago I attended a seminar
at the Blandy Experimental Farm (in VA). We were shown a fine example
an a new tree species. This was a now common landscape evergreen called
the Leyland Cypress. It is a natural Bi-generic hybrid (the offspring of
two completely different genera) that was discovered growing in someone's
garden. This sort of thing is not unknown & happens all too frequently
at the microbial level. Why suppose it didn't happen in the past when
we can see it happening today?
Daniel Earl Bacon
Sam Finlay wrote:
>
> Daniel Earl Bacon wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > And which creation STORY should we tell. Aztecs, Mayan, Hindu, etc. I
> > have always thought it funny that these groups wish to have organized
> > prayer in schools , but do not stop and think that you would have to
> > accommodate all beliefs. I would love to see your face when you child
> > is force to say a Moslem prayer or a prayer to Satin.
> > Daniel,
> Prayer to Satin? Believe me I have NO room to object about other people's
> spelling, but this reminded me of a silly joke:
> Did you hear about the dyslexic Satan worshipers?
> They sold their souls to Santa!
I misspelled Satan saatan(or simething like that) and when I used spell
check I clicked on the first choice satin not the second choice Satan.
>
> > The test to know if you are intelligent .
> > An intelligent person alters his view or even his beliefs to fit the
> > facts; while an unintelligent person alters the facts to fit his views
> > or beliefs Daniel Bacon
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~dbacon
>
> Or: Another beautiful theory spoiled by a lousy fact! But people who
> refuse to alter their views may not be unintelligent, just stubborn.
Altering your(one's) view is a mark of intelligents, stubborn is a mark
of unintelligents.
> Maybe even just doubtful of the evidence.
evidence can be tested, checked etc.
> Remember, a fundamemtalist
> has an awful lot to lose by rejecting Biblical literalism.
unintelligents.
> It's not
> realistic & possibly unfair to expect one of them to change easily.
> Sam
Sam, I believe that a fundamentalist can change and learn to think!!!
The real problem is when you're one of the facts that needs altering,
WWII the Jews.
It's not realistic & possibly unfair to expect one of them(Nazis) to
change easily.
--
Bruce Salem
In article <57hqrp$l...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
William H. Jefferys <bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <329B71...@olympus.net>,
>Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net> wrote:
>#
>#These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
>#alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
>#accountable to a higher being.
>
>Many supporters of evolution believe in God. It is offensive
>to assume that people support evolution because they don't
>want to be accountable to God.
>
Here it is, a Creationist sympathizer admitting what I have
always thought was the hidden agenda of Creationism! Ken Winters has
been so stupid as to indiscriminately mix his religious/cultural
biasis with an issue which has merits indepandant of his social
bigotry, but that is what this so-called debate has been about
from the beginning. Once people realize that the discussion with
Creationists truely has such a mean low-down political basis as
the primacy of their moral prejudices and religion above all else,
the seriousness of the discussion is out the window. We no longer
need to bother with the likes of Ken Winters. He is not to be
taken seriously except as a political extremist ought to be
taken with heed.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Thomas Swanson
In article <329B71...@olympus.net> Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net> writes:
>Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
>hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
I, for one, have studied criticisms of evolution. They are flawed, many of
them trivially so (age of the earth stuff like moon dust, ocean chemical
concentrations, magnetic field decay, speed of light decay)
I'm amazed that the creationists are so ignorant that they buy in to
such lame arguments.
>evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
>many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
>criticizing it? Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
>ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
>academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
>alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
>accountable to a higher being.
This ignores the large number of scientists who are religious.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
ksjj
In article <329b6976.4945172@news>, dje...@madison.tds.net (David Jensen)
wrote:
> No. Creation is exclusively a religious belief. Creation is a part of
> numerous religious myths, which creation story would you like told in
> public school? It is not a scientific theory. It has no scientific
> basis.
>
Evolution is based squarely on *faith*. *Faith* that the stuff in the big
bang appreared out of no where then exploded. *Faith* that the dead stuff
in a puddle of gue came to life and slowly evolved into us. *Faith that
the fossils that appeared in the cambrian layers fully formed without any
ancestral linage actualluy have a linage. *Faith* that their fossil
records with the major gaps actually show evolution. Evolution is not a
proven fact. It is based on the *faith* that certain events happened.
The evolutionist are trying to use scientific techniques to justify their
*faith*. On the same hand, so are the creationist. But, thats ok.
For you to tell me that creation is not demonstrated through scientific
models and scenerios is nothing but spreading a lost argument.
--
see ya,
karl
*********************************************
The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Micheal Keane
Emailed and posted to talk.origins
In article <329B36...@geocities.com>,
Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
That'd be great. Now get back to us when there actually is a theory of
creation.
>Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
That's because it IS a fact. It's also a scientific theory. The theory
describes why and how the fact of evolution occurs. I think this reflect
that you don't really understand evolution. Don't worry, it's not your
fault. If you choose to be willfully ignorant, well, it is.
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
I have no problem with teaching about creationism in a religious studies
class or some such. But creationism is *not* science. Why? It makes no
predictions, it has no supporting evidence, is untestable, and is
unfalsifiable. Thus, it has no place in a science class.
Creationism, OTOH, has to resort to outright lies, mistruths, and slander
to bolster it's case.
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
Of course, the public schools already present all the evidence for
creationism. It's not their fault that there isn't any to teach.
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu) Join the Church of Last Thursday!
Sending unsolicited email this address implies that you wish to use my
free service to kill you at an unspecified time, place and manner.
I am the sole determiner of what is unsolicited. On-topic replies welcomed.
David L Evens
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <329b6976.4945172@news>, dje...@madison.tds.net (David Jensen)
: wrote:
: > No. Creation is exclusively a religious belief. Creation is a part of
: > numerous religious myths, which creation story would you like told in
: > public school? It is not a scientific theory. It has no scientific
: > basis.
: Evolution is based squarely on *faith*. *Faith* that the stuff in the big
: bang appreared out of no where then exploded.
One of the great mysteries of TO is why Karl cannot differentiate between
cosmology and evolution.
: *Faith* that the dead stuff
: in a puddle of gue came to life and slowly evolved into us.
Another one is why he cannot differentiate between abiogenesis and evolution.
: *Faith that
: the fossils that appeared in the cambrian layers fully formed without any
: ancestral linage actualluy have a linage.
The generally accepted explanations of his inability to deal with the
fact that there ARE lineages for the organisms in the fossil record
generally goes in the realm of "He's stupid" or the less charitable "He's
a liar."
: *Faith* that their fossil
: records with the major gaps actually show evolution.
It is generally accepted that Karl is unable to absorb contradictory
information, which could be either him being stupid or being dishonest
and there is no easy way to differentiate the two.
: Evolution is not a
: proven fact. It is based on the *faith* that certain events happened.
Like the speciation events we can demonstate in the lab, you mean?
: The evolutionist are trying to use scientific techniques to justify their
: *faith*. On the same hand, so are the creationist. But, thats ok.
: For you to tell me that creation is not demonstrated through scientific
: models and scenerios is nothing but spreading a lost argument.
Yes, but you keep on screaming about your failed argument.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Haynes
Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> Michele Lewis wrote:
>>
>> > and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>>
>> ("cannot" is *always* one word)
According to my Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, "cannot" is
written "can not" for emphasis.
//
In article <329BE2...@pascal.org>, Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>Marty Carts wrote:
>>
>> Michele Lewis: >DLH...@ukcc.uky.edu (dlharm1): >>lonny...@aol.com:
>>
>> Guys, a discussion in m.e.h-s.C. on creation and/or evolution would be
>> fine by me, except that whenever the discussion spreads beyond this ng
>> to talk.origins the whole thing degenerates from civility to flame.
>>
>> The solution seems clear to me: Let's either not discuss cr./ev. or
>> let's keep the discussion limitted to this one newsgroup (i.e. delete
>> talk.origins from the NEWSGROUPS line when you post or reply).
>>
>> If we all are able to remain polite and calm this should help the
>> discussion evolve :) past its normal stunted form.
>>
>> Thanks_________Marty
>
>Hi Marty!
>
>Hey, I'll second it. I have to admit, though. I don't
>have a lot of optimism about keeping the thread here. I
>don't know if someone monitors this group or if it's
>a matter of doing a word search on Usenet or something, but
>somehow _any_ mention of cr./ev. seems to bring a talk.orgins
>crosspost.
>
>cr./ev. ? Now, _that's_ an idea! Maybe if we spoke in code? ;-)
>
>j.pascal
Hmm, what was talk.origins charter again?
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
A...@gwyha3.demon.co.uk
Michele Lewis <lewis...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>Christian would be exposed to both sides. Evolution is only a theory
>and can not be proven scientifically but unfortunately, the public
>school system has chosen to start teaching it as fact. When I was in
>school it was still taught as the THEORY of evolution. (I am 34 years
>old) I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in the public schools
>if it is taught "Some people believe inthe theory of evolution and this
>is what they base their belief on..." "Others believe in creation and
>this is what they base their beliefs on."
>
>Of course an evolutionist would never agree to this because they are
>afraid of the opposing viewpoint! :)
>
>Michele Lewis (Frazz on chat)
>lewis...@geocities.com
>
>Homeschooling Preschoolers
In http://www.geocities.com/athens/9094/samples.html there occurs:
"紐EAD: The Beginner痴 Bible pages 9-15.
紐EVIEW/QUIZ: Go over the creation booklet page by page and ask what
each page represents as well as the following questions: 標ho made the
day and night? (God)
標ho made the sky? (God)
標ho made the land and the seas? (God)
標ho made the sun, moon and stars? (God)
標ho made the birds and fish? (God)
標ho made all of the animals and people? (God)
菱ow many days did it take God to create all of these things? (Six)
標hat did God do on the seventh day after he created all of these
things? (Rested)
百AY MEMORY VERSE
百ING THIS WEEK担 SONG
姫RAYER: Thank God creating our world and us.
(After daddy gets home from work, the girls are to show their creation
booklet to him explaining each page, they are to say their memory
verse and sing their song)"
(snip)
"SCIENCE/SOCIAL STUDIES
MONDAY
Start week long project classifying animals into groups. Today,
discuss farm animals. (Names, sounds they make, what they eat, how
they help us) Use a farm bulletin board set. Also read a library book
about farm animals. Talk about how the farmer is responsible for
taking good care of his animals just like God takes good care of us.
TUESDAY Discuss animals that live in the ocean and at the beach. Use
an ocean life bulletin board set. Go outside in the sandbox and
pretend to be at the beach. (Let the girls play with our shell
collection and beach toys) Read a library book about animals that live
in the ocean. Talk about how God looks after all of the animals, no
matter where they live.
WEDNESDAY Discuss animals that live in the wild and that we see in a
zoo.Talk about how God takes care of the animals. He provides food,
water and shelter for them. Talk about how mommies and daddies take
care of their children and make sure that they have everything that
they need."
Michelle, others in this thread have addressed some of your other
misapprehensions, but do you realize that your course plan fails to
give any evidence for evolution (which is a shame, because that
evidence forms most of biology and quite a lot of other branches of
science) to your children. Your kids are going to miss out on an
awful lot because your narrow interpretation of Christianity can't
cope with the facts and distorts the meaning of "science". In using
the bible as a basis for "science" teaching, you merely remind me how
very important your constitutional separation of Church and State is.
I guess from the above that you'd like to force your bigoted ideas on
all the rest of us via the public schooling system. Or do you wish to
deny that?
Richard
//
In article <19961128051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lace...@aol.com wrote:
>>>I have no problem with teaching about creationism in a religious studies
>class or some such. But creationism is *not* science. Why? It makes no
>predictions, it has no supporting evidence, is untestable, and is
>unfalsifiable. Thus, it has no place in a science class.<<
>
Certainly. In fact, evolution 'borrows' it's tools from other
science fields like physics. If you have a problem with evolution,
you've a problem other sciences.
>Does it meet your criteria?
If it's the scientific method, sure.
> For
>example, you say "testable"....doesn't this include being reproducible?
Yep. Dobszhansky's experiments have been reproduced many times.
>The creation of the universe has not been reproduced,
It has in miniture. Ever hear of Cern? Or Fermi? (Not the men themselves).
>nor have monkeys
>been seen to turn into men,
That's a strawman. Or is logic not a subject of homeschooling?
> nor have alligators been seen to sprout wings.
Another strawman?
> Therefore, I will tend to be skeptical of the claim that such ideas
How about being skeptical of something real instead of your last two imagined
ideas?
Saulius Muliolis
Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net> wrote in article
<329B71...@olympus.net>...
>
> Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation
science" lacks
> credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally
credible to
> both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the
references at this
> site:
>
> http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
>
> If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the
information at this
> sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
>
I checked out his site, but found no information that challenged anything I
know
about evolution.
In fact, there was little information at all.
What it said about the feasibility of the Ark was that Noah didn't have to
take
all animals on the Ark with him, only the ones that were necessary for
human life. So how did all the other animals survive? The web page doesn't
say.
On human ancestors, which it calls cavemen, it says almost nothing. It
acknowledges their existence, but states that they were extinct before God
created Adam and Eve. Any evidence for this?
About the probability of evolution occurring, it gives some very general
and vague descriptions of what we need to know about physical processes,
but says nothing about how they apply to evolution.
Other topics are treated similarly.
You sound like a creationist who might be honest, but has just not been
properly educated about evolution, and so is easily mislead about its
claims and evidence. I suggest you find some real books on evolution
to correct your misunderstandings.
I would suggest some or all of the following:
Richard Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker_
Anything by Stephen Gould, such as _Eight Little Piggies_, _The Panda's
thumb_,
or _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A. Heinlein.
Saulius Muliolis
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html
A. Deckers
In <1xZnywZH...@kaiwan.com>,
ra...@kaiwan.com <ra...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>It has in miniture. Ever hear of Cern? Or Fermi? (Not the men themselves).
Oh yes, the famous Professor Cern. ;-)
--
Alain....@man.ac.uk <URL:http://www.man.ac.uk/%7Embzalgd/>
ksjj
In article <57is3e$p...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
L Evens) wrote:
>
> The generally accepted explanations of his inability to deal with the
> fact that there ARE lineages for the organisms in the fossil record
> generally goes in the realm of "He's stupid" or the less charitable "He's
> a liar."
Would you be so kind as to show me one undisputed example of a creature
that was transitional between the fish and the amphibian?
Would you be so kind as to show me a transitional between a non-flying
insect and a flying insect?
ima pseudonym
In article <ksjj-28119...@ppp-abe-331.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net says...
>In article <57is3e$p...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
>L Evens) wrote:
>>
>> The generally accepted explanations of his inability to deal with the
>> fact that there ARE lineages for the organisms in the fossil record
>> generally goes in the realm of "He's stupid" or the less charitable "He's
>> a liar."
>
>Would you be so kind as to show me one undisputed example of a creature
>that was transitional between the fish and the amphibian?
>
Easy. Look up for example the fossil Pandericthyid [and other
crossopterygian] "fishes" and very early "amphibians" like Acanthostega. These
are very close to the transition you want. What is the word "the" doing in
there ["the" fish]? Do you think there is only one kind? For that matter,
there are intermediates like lungfish and coelacanths that are still extant
and closer to amphibians than to other "fish".
"Transitionals" like these needn't be exactly on a direct ancestral line to be
instructive; side branches of are also important to working out the
evolutionary patterns.
And yes, I saw that weasel-word "undisputed" in there; zealous creationists
will automatically dispute any fact if this suits their ideology, so their
"disputes" count for nothing. Doubtless one can also dredge up minor variant
opinions by biologists, including some of purely historical interest. [Often
they are more a matter of discussing which of a few alternative groups of
mutually related intermediates is closest to the direct ancestry].
This doesn't let you off the hook of having to explain exactly why you think
the cited examples aren't good intermediates [if indeed you do reject them].
"Dang! A new intermediate -- two more gaps!"
>Would you be so kind as to show me a transitional between a non-flying
>insect and a flying insect?
[Not "the non-flying insect"? ;-)]
It's very easy. Look at juveniles of living winged insects with developing
wings [especially ones with gradual metamorphosis].
Also, yes, there are fossils of early pterygote insects with primitive wings
that are different from those of all living ones. Some early ones show
winglike lobes extending from the pronotum as well as the outgrowths that form
the two posterior pairs of wings.
cheers
>The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Oh? Why not creation via evolution, [and for that matter why not abiogenesis
from "dust" = nonliving prebiotic stuff?
Richard Shalvoy
Hi Julie, You have made a good response. I am visiting a few newsgroups
as I play with my new Prodigy Internet setup. I am learning something
about 'cross posting' that can have upwanted side effects, as in this
argument. If I wanted to argue evolution as I have done in the past, I
can. But to have about half the notes I got here be on this argument
seems to be rather wasteful of my time and disk space.
OK, that's my opinion, FWIW. I appreciate your clear response to that
long string, most of which I'm skipping. The beauty of homeschool is
just as you say, that we don't have to teach like the public schools.
As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
Rich
ksjj
In article <57lu6c$b...@newsgate.duke.edu>, ficti...@alias.incognito.myob
(ima pseudonym) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-28119...@ppp-abe-331.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net says...
> >In article <57is3e$p...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
> >L Evens) wrote:
> >>
> >> The generally accepted explanations of his inability to deal with the
> >> fact that there ARE lineages for the organisms in the fossil record
> >> generally goes in the realm of "He's stupid" or the less charitable "He's
> >> a liar."
> >
> >Would you be so kind as to show me one undisputed example of a creature
> >that was transitional between the fish and the amphibian?
> >
>
> Easy. Look up for example the fossil Pandericthyid [and other
> crossopterygian] "fishes"
Yup, thats why they appear suddenly in the fosill record. This supports
creationism. Even the different classes of fish appear suddenly with no
ancestral traces. By the way, why do the trilobites appear suddenly with
out any transitional fossils either? You guy never did answer that
question adequately. (of course I bet you feel you did.)
and very early "amphibians" like Acanthostega. These
> are very close to the transition you want. What is the word "the" doing in
> there ["the" fish]? Do you think there is only one kind? For that matter,
> there are intermediates like lungfish and coelacanths that are still extant
> and closer to amphibians than to other "fish".
You also forgot the rhipidistian fish. Now which one of the 3 evolved into
amphibians? Hummm Seems like the evolutionist are full of empty scenarios
and rhetoric.
Besides you open more questions the more you try to explain your
speculations. As your soon to be amphibians moved to the land from the wet
water they would ave lost serious amounts of water through mouth, lungs,
and body surfaces. Quick significant changes would have had to occur to
reduce these losses.
The sense organs of the fish were made for the fish. But somehow through
random mtation and chance, they just so happened to be perfectly suited
for amphibian.
The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
inbetween phase.
> "Transitionals" like these needn't be exactly on a direct ancestral line
to be
> instructive; side branches of are also important to working out the
> evolutionary patterns.
>
> And yes, I saw that weasel-word "undisputed" in there; zealous creationists
> will automatically dispute any fact if this suits their ideology, so their
> "disputes" count for nothing.
Absolutly not. undisputed it is. Which of the 3 fish mentioned above
turned into amphibians?
Doubtless one can also dredge up minor variant
> opinions by biologists, including some of purely historical interest. [Often
> they are more a matter of discussing which of a few alternative groups of
> mutually related intermediates is closest to the direct ancestry].
>
> This doesn't let you off the hook of having to explain exactly why you think
> the cited examples aren't good intermediates [if indeed you do reject them].
>
> "Dang! A new intermediate -- two more gaps!"
>
> >Would you be so kind as to show me a transitional between a non-flying
> >insect and a flying insect?
>
> [Not "the non-flying insect"? ;-)]
>
> It's very easy. Look at juveniles of living winged insects with developing
> wings [especially ones with gradual metamorphosis].
>
> Also, yes, there are fossils of early pterygote insects with primitive wings
> that are different from those of all living ones. Some early ones show
> winglike lobes extending from the pronotum as well as the outgrowths
that form
> the two posterior pairs of wings.
So. All you have is an insect with wings that are different. Speculate it
into your theory if you want.
> cheers
>
> >The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
>
> Oh? Why not creation via evolution, [and for that matter why not abiogenesis
> from "dust" = nonliving prebiotic stuff?
--
see ya,
karl
*********************************************
Dr. Regina Bacon
Richard Shalvoy wrote:
>
> Hi Julie, You have made a good response. I am visiting a few newsgroups
> as I play with my new Prodigy Internet setup. I am learning something
> about 'cross posting' that can have upwanted side effects, as in this
> argument. If I wanted to argue evolution as I have done in the past, I
> can. But to have about half the notes I got here be on this argument
> seems to be rather wasteful of my time and disk space.
> OK, that's my opinion, FWIW. I appreciate your clear response to that
> long string, most of which I'm skipping. The beauty of homeschool is
> just as you say, that we don't have to teach like the public schools.
> As a practicing scientist (physics PhD)
You cannot tell the difference between science and religion!
evolution is- The change in gene frequency in a population over time.
(this is very testable)
Scientific creation is a religion!(not testable)
I know a number of (physics Ph.D.) and you are the first that I have
seen that is scientifically challenged!! Is you Ph.D. from a home
school.
What area of physics did you get your degree in, or are you just saying
you have a Ph.D. in physics.
This is little basic physic test:
What famous equation dose the following belongs to:
(del)(dot)B=0
and what area of physics (This is a BS level degree basic question)
Rick Melcer
> >Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
> >theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
> >Christian would be exposed to both sides.
> It is a good thing there are only these two options. It would be messy
> if there were other religions.
I would suggest the school system teach the facts and not the contrived
opinions of a few members of the "scientific community" who are obiously
prejudiced against any fatc that support a religious view point.
Point in fact, as many scientists believe that "Lucy" is an extinct ape as
a precurser to humanity. But of course you don't hear that side of the
story.
Rick
Micheal Keane
In article <329F04...@prodigy.net>,
Richard Shalvoy <RichS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
Note to Bruce Salem: Is this close enough to being an Engineer? =-)
>evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
>hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
>is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
>apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
>to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
>evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
>the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
>is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
In your opinion. Evolution is an entirely reproducable experiment and can
be observed in the lab. Granted, we don't have the time and resources to
conduct larger experiments that took millions of years to accomplish, but
smaller ones can be done quite easily, especially with plants and
bacteria.
Evolution also makes predictions. And lo and behold, those predictions
hold true. It also has fossil evidence to back it up, genetic evidence,
etc, etc.
Evolution is also falsifiable. There are certain things tht you can do or
find that would disprove at least a portion of the theory. However, no
one's found anything that would do that. And anyone has, the theory has
changed to fit the evidence.
Let's look at the creationism. No evidence, no predictions,
unfalsifiable(and those parts of it that are falsifiable have been) and
completely unreproducable. Creationism is nothing more than a thinly-veiled
attempt by right-wing fundamentalists to shove their twisted version of
Christianity down the throats of public school children.
Wait, I predict that the "Science is based on faith" argument is going
to pop up. Science is really based on two assumptions:
1. that reality, as we perceive, is true.
2. That the "laws" that govern reality have remained constant throughout
time(except before plank time of course)
There's been no reason to think that either of these is false. Sure, a god
could have created the universe to appear 6000 years old, but he'd be a
liar and unworthy of worship at that point.
Perhaps you'd care to swing down to the talk.origins FAQ archive?
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs
Mike Ales
Looks like this post started a long discussion with some good points and some
bad. As all discussions usually do.
First a little background, I am a Christian who is an Engineer (sort-of scientist).
Now to the matter at Hand.
Gen 1:21 (NIV):
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
The above verse uses the word "kind". Science uses the words:
phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species to categorize different "kinds"
of floral and fauna.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
phylum:
1. Biology:
A primary division of a kingdom, as of the animal kingdom, ranking next
above a class in size.
class:
5. Biology:
A taxonomic category ranking below a phylum or division and above an order.
order:
20. Biology:
A taxonomic category of organisms ranking above a family and below a class.
family:
7. Biology:
A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order
and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera.
genus:
1. Biology.
A taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a
species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting
similar characteristics.
species:
1. Biology.
a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking
below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable
of interbreeding.
b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in
binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun
following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the
pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
My personal belief is in Genesis 1:21 the word "kind(s)" is equivalent to the
scientific word "species". Others may have different "translations" of the
word "kind" and we all certainly have that right (at least in this country).
After all, Christian's generally all call the Bible the Living Word of God.
In my opinion that means we all come away with a different application of the
actual words of the Bible to our lives.
Now what about Evolution verses Creation.
evolution:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually
more complex or better form.
2. a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology:
a. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly
as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ
morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
creation:
1. a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3. a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Theology:
The act of God by which the world was brought into existence.
Evolution has a very broad definition and people (believer or non-believer)
need to ensure they are clear before they start arguing one side or the
other. Otherwise we all wind up arguing about a point, when in fact we are in
total agreement. Thus missing out on the greater joys each of us have.
Darwin's original works ("scientific" observations of the world around him and an
attempt at a "scientific" explanation) were focused on how "species" change over
time to better deal with the world around them.
I think all of us would accept the observed fact that "species" evolve over time.
If I were thrust back in time 2000 years ago I would have a hard time continuing
to exist. Something if thrust 2000 years in the future.
I just don't see what the problem is with teaching this form of "evolution" to
my children or to any one else's either. It explains the world around us.
If we want to discuss whether God created the world or whether we "evolved" from
a single "phylum" many-many millions of years ago. Then the discussion is not about
Creation versus Evolution. In fact it is whether or not God exists or existed.
Neither group has a single fact (that the other side would believe in). Both
sides have a "belief". Christians have the Bible that "says" God created the
world. "Evolutionist" have evidence that "says" it is possible that we evolved
from lower life forms. Either way we will never ever be able to argue our
case to the other. My responsibility as a Christian is telling the Good news to
all creation. Either way we are here in this world today and the past is behind
us and it is not worth our energies to argue over. What should be looking
forward to?
What I want my children to be thought is Fact and a set of beliefs that will
allow them to blessed in this lifetime and in all eternity.
Personally I would rather spend my energy convincing someone that God exists
today and making sure my teaching(s) and world views line up with scripture
than frustrating both viewpoints about something that happened many-many years
in the past.
Mark 16:15-16 (NIV):
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all
creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
not believe will be condemned....
Do I believe in the infallible word of God in the Bible. Yes!!!
Do I believe in my falliblity in reading between the lines. Yes!!!
Do I believe in my falliblity in pride, arrogrance, and arguing. Yes!!!
But by Grace I will overcome these failings (oneday).
One day we will ALL stand before His throne and be judged for our conduct.
Ezek 24:14 (NIV):
"'I the LORD have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not
hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged
according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign
LORD.'"
Sorry for the length of this post.
God Bless each one.
lonny...@aol.com writes:
>
> So many now are letting the teaching of evloution creep into the home
> school environment. We need to keep before our youth the truths about
> creation and the wonderful truths of their one and only God of the
> universe.
>
> It is sad to see so many embrace with open arms the Theo-Evolution Theory.
> If we are just animals, what would be the need to salvation or
> redemption. We must be oh, so very, very careful what are children learn.
>
> Lonny...@aol.com
//
In article <19961128034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lace...@aol.com wrote:
>Just jumping in quickly...I'm new around these parts, but wanted to
>respond to a couple of comments.
>
>>>Doesn't the bible say that the sky is a dome, and that stars are lights
>in that dome?<<
>
>I couldn't find this expression anywhere in the Bible in my online Bible's
>concordance, either in the King James Version or the New International
>Version. Would you please find a reliable chapter and verse for me to
>look at?
>
>>>I assume form this that you at
>least accept a possibility that God did it with evolution.<<
>
>I wonder how people can reconcile the Bible with evolution.
I take it that was a question and not a statement.
Why not ask the majority of Christians like Catholics?
> It just seems
>that they are so conflicting. For example, if the Bible is true, but so
>is evolution, how are the accounts of Adam and Eve handled?
Same as many other parts, as allegory.
[deletia as the statement above applies to all]
>Because of such reasons, I personally have to either accept that Adam was
>literally the first man or reject the entire Bible as a farce.
I take it that you've never studied logic, nor do you have any innate
feeling for logic.
Next time your mouse fails, let me know. I'm sure you'll give me your
computer for free.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Rick Melcer" <rme...@comnet.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> >Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>> >theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>> >Christian would be exposed to both sides.
>
>> It is a good thing there are only these two options. It would be messy
>> if there were other religions.
>
>I would suggest the school system teach the facts and not the contrived
>opinions of a few members of the "scientific community" who are obiously
>prejudiced against any fatc that support a religious view point.
>
Could you present some facts that support a religious but not a
scientific view? Or references to peer-reviewed literature containing
these facts and a reasonable summary?
>Point in fact, as many scientists believe that "Lucy" is an extinct ape as
>a precurser to humanity. But of course you don't hear that side of the
>story.
>
It is amazing how they have been able to keep that information secret.
Unfortunately it did get out a little, how else did you hear about it?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Though it would take him a long time to understand the principle,
it was that to be paid for one's joy is to steal.
Mark Helprin
Mark Isaak
In article <ksjj-27119...@ppp-abe-412.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>Evolution is based squarely on *faith*. . . .
For people who never take their eyes off of their one book, of course
evolution is based on faith (as is electronics, carpentry, meat packing, and
everything else in the world). People who actually spend time looking at
the real world, however, can see huge amounts of physical evidence that
evolution is fact. The comparative anatomy of a couple hundred different
flies is enough to convince me, and I've seen plenty of evidence beyond
that.
--
Mark Isaak "Have you seen this side? Look also
is...@aurora.com at the other." - Marcus Aurelius
Mitchell Coffey
Karl,
You wrote:
> The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
> balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
> inbetween phase.
Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
Mitchell Coffey
--
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
I read a book on congitive dissonance once,
but it only proved my point.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>...
David Jensen
On 29 Nov 1996 14:03:47 GMT, "Rick Melcer" <rme...@comnet.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> >Wouldn't it be nice if the public school taught both viewpoints; The
>> >theory of evolution and creation? Then children, both secular and
>> >Christian would be exposed to both sides.
>
>> It is a good thing there are only these two options. It would be messy
>> if there were other religions.
>
>I would suggest the school system teach the facts and not the contrived
>opinions of a few members of the "scientific community" who are obiously
>prejudiced against any fatc that support a religious view point.
>
>Point in fact, as many scientists believe that "Lucy" is an extinct ape as
>a precurser to humanity. But of course you don't hear that side of the
>story.
>
Rick-
I'm not familiar with this. Could you help me find that information.
Dave
===========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Ken Winters
Daniel Earl Bacon wrote:
>
> > Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation science" lacks
> > credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is totally credible to
> > both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the references at this
> > site:
> >
>
> > http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
> >
> > If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the information at this
> > sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
>
> science journal for science and a religious journal for your (public
> “your”) beliefs, and not to try to make the real world fit your(public)
> beliefs.
>
> --
If I were a betting man and could verify the bet I'd wager you probably didn't even look at
the site. If you did look, I'm sure it wasn't with much depth. The content of this site and
the resources it offers are definitely not "challenged". Try looking again and actually
reading the material (hopefully with an open mind) and some of the books/tapes referenced,
then come back and say why it's challenged.
cheers,
Ken Winters
William H. Jefferys
In article <wksp5sy...@micro.ti.com>,
Mike Ales <ma...@micro.ti.com> wrote:
#
#First a little background, I am a Christian who is an Engineer (sort-of scientist).
Another data point for the Salem hypothesis.
#Now to the matter at Hand.
# Gen 1:21 (NIV):
# So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and
# moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and
# every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
#
#The above verse uses the word "kind". Science uses the words:
#phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species to categorize different "kinds"
#
#My personal belief is in Genesis 1:21 the word "kind(s)" is equivalent to the
#scientific word "species".
One reason why most Creationists have abandoned this definition
is that there are then far too many animals to stick on board the
ark. Additionally, the evolution of new species has been observed
many times. See the talk.origins FAQs at http://www.ediacara.org/
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill[a]clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Dr. Regina Bacon
Dr. Regina Bacon wrote:
>
> Richard Shalvoy wrote:
> >
> > Hi Julie, You have made a good response. I am visiting a few newsgroups
> > as I play with my new Prodigy Internet setup. I am learning something
> > about 'cross posting' that can have upwanted side effects, as in this
> > argument. If I wanted to argue evolution as I have done in the past, I
> > can. But to have about half the notes I got here be on this argument
> > seems to be rather wasteful of my time and disk space.
> > OK, that's my opinion, FWIW. I appreciate your clear response to that
> > long string, most of which I'm skipping. The beauty of homeschool is
> > just as you say, that we don't have to teach like the public schools.
>
> evolution is- The change in gene frequency in a population over time.
> (this is very testable)
> Scientific creation is a religion!(not testable)
>
> I know a number of (physics Ph.D.) and you are the first that I have
> seen that is scientifically challenged!! Is you Ph.D. from a home
> school.
>
> What area of physics did you get your degree in, or are you just saying
> you have a Ph.D. in physics.
>
> This is little basic physic test:
> What famous equation dose the following belongs to:
>
> (del)(dot)B=0
>
> and what area of physics (This is a BS level degree basic question)
>
> > hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
> > is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
> > apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
> > to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
> > evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
> > the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
> > is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
Apologies to Dr. Regina Bacon from her husband Daniel Bacon
(dba...@mindspring.com) for using her newsreader account and not mine.
All comments and grammatical error were mine and not hers. My comments
should have read:
You cannot tell the difference between science and religion!
Evolution is- The change in gene frequency in a population over time.
(This is very testable.)
Scientific creationism is a religion!(not testable)
I know a number of physicists (PhDs), and you are the first that I
have
seen that is scientifically challenged!! Is you PhD from a home
school?
In what area of physics did you get your degree, or are you just saying
you have a PhD in physics?
This is a little basic physic test:
To what famous equations does the following belong:
(del)(dot)B=0
In what area of physics does this fall? (This is a BS degree level
basic question.)
If you indeed have a physics degree, I offer my apologies.
Unfortunately, I have encountered imposters many times. If you do hold
a physics PhD and regard scientific creationism as a science, then you
are the first physicist to accept this premise that I have met.
Daniel Bacon
David Jensen
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 13:06:10 -0800, Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net>
wrote:
I looked. Here are my specific objections.
In the physical science FAQ.
Infinite Universe? This contains misleading information, and makes
unsubstantiated and unsupportable assertions about the age of the
universe.
Life on Mars? Misleading information.
Other kinds of life? Wrong. Unsopported and unsupportable statistics
about the unlikelihood of some event. What is a scientific proof?
Other kinds part 2? God of the gaps at best.
Dinos? Correct, but this won't please the Young Earth Creationists.
Science and the Bible FAQ.
Insects last? Interesting reading of Genesis, no science.
Hominids? Before Adam and Eve. How does this fit into six day creation?
Sun and stars? Interesting reading.
Contradiction? No actual evidence was presented.
Creation or evolution? No evidence was presented, but the definition of
evolution was incorrect. Shills for Hugh Ross.
Abiogenesis? No evidence presented.
Probability of evolution? It may mean abiogenesis, but there is no
answer. More Ross.
Possibility of evolution? No evidence presented.
Ark holds the animals? Ah yes. There is no evolution, but Noah only had
a few hundred or thousand species and everything evolved
instantanteously after the flood from that. Ross is stretching things
here to provide "evidence".
Find ark? Okay answer.
Ken, I'm not sure it's a valuable science site.
ksjj
In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
> > inbetween phase.
>
> Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
ksjj
Yes Mark, it is rather interesting how science leads to creation. The real
world indicates creation and a flood. Those who want to believe in a fairy
tale such as evolution have the right to do so. Last time I remember we
were in the USA. So keep the faith Mark.
Rick Melcer
> inaccurately described by the theory of evolution? 'Inaccurately' because
> the current evolutionary theory, as all things made by man, including the
> Bible, is imperfect. (The Bible was inspired by God, but assembled by
man.
> Men make mistakes. God is not responsible for men's mistakes.)
You are DEAD wrong on the Bible part. Current scientific evidence
regarding the Torah (first five books of the Bible) show definitive proof
that the Bible has not changed since its original writting and is not the
exclusive writting of man. The University of Jerusalem and others arround
the world are studying the Torah and the rest of the Biblical scriptures
for the new found codes. (The word codes is used for lack of a better
term). Numerous "Words and names are being decifered from the Torah in
regular (consistant) numerical order. Ex. The word Torah is found at the
beginning of the book of Genesis and Exodus in a sequence of every seventh
character. This is not numerology. Names of people are found in close
proximity to their date of birth or death. Ex Sadat, 1981, Parade. The 66
top Rabbis names to the year 1900 are listed with either their date of
birth or death.
Super computers are being used to decifer additional names and words.
These characteristcs to NOT appear in any other Hebrew text no matter how
large the document. The probability of these "codes" appearing natually
are 100,000 to 1. They are not Coinsidences.
If you are not convinced then talk to your local Rabbi and he will tell you
all about it. These occurances could not be there if the original inspired
word of God was changed in any way.
> One more thing. In high school I was _required_ to _memorize_ several
> sections of the Bible, including the Pentatuch, the Synoptic Gopspels,
> Acts, several of the Epistles of Paul. We had tests on a weekly basis,
and
> had 'context questions'; the test would quote a verse, without any ID,
and
> we had to identify the quote and place it in context, and give a
commentary
> to show that we actually understood what we were talking about and
weren't
> just reguritating crib sheets. I was pretty good at it; how do you think
I
> got to be a prefect? Now, _I_ don't recall any part of the Bible which
> conflicts with evolutionary theory unless you take it absolutely word for
> word literally, which is rediculous as the Bible was originally written
in
> Amharic and Greek, translated to Latin, then to English. And before it
was
> written down, the Old Testament, especially including the Pentatuch
(that's
> Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Duetronomy, and Numbers) were maintained by
> oral tradition.
You are wrong! See above.
Richard
Scandalon
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
<snipped>
> ... prayer
> and research are going to be given equal funding in
> medical schools and research hospitals.
>
> --MTS
>
BTW Marc, there was a study recently (controlled, at least single-blind
and probably double, etc.) which showed that praying for sick people
really did help them to recover faster than medical treatment alone.
Amazing what science doesn't know yet, isn't it?
Herb Huston
In article <01bbde4c$eeb8f480$43d5...@comnet.comnet.ca>,
Rick Melcer <rme...@comnet.ca> wrote:
}> inaccurately described by the theory of evolution? 'Inaccurately' because
}> the current evolutionary theory, as all things made by man, including the
}> Bible, is imperfect. (The Bible was inspired by God, but assembled by
}man.
}> Men make mistakes. God is not responsible for men's mistakes.)
}
}You are DEAD wrong on the Bible part.
Do leporids really redigest their food in the manner described in Leviticus
11:6?
} Current scientific evidence
}regarding the Torah (first five books of the Bible) show definitive proof
}that the Bible has not changed since its original writting and is not the
}exclusive writting of man.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
please.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston
Herb Huston
In article <01bbde21$17ba6840$33d5...@comnet.comnet.ca>,
Rick Melcer <rme...@comnet.ca> wrote:
}I would suggest the school system teach the facts and not the contrived
}opinions of a few members of the "scientific community" who are obiously
}prejudiced against any fatc that support a religious view point.
Since when were creationists prejudiced against a religious viewpoint?
}Point in fact, as many scientists believe that "Lucy" is an extinct ape as
}a precurser to humanity.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
please.
} But of course you don't hear that side of the
}story.
We hear that lie posted by either mentally defective or morally degenerate
creationists all the time. You're just the latest.
Herb Huston
^^^^^^^ ^^^
}evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
}hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
}is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
}apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
}to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
}evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
}the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
}is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
It's amazing the things one can get by collecting and sending in proofs of
purchase from ceral boxes.
Bill Piper
ksjj wrote:
>
> In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
> Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
>
> > Karl,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
> > > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
> > > inbetween phase.
> >
> > Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
> > routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
>
> A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
> distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
"in between" phases and Mitchell offers the valid point that fins can be observed doing
that very thing today demonstrating CLEARLY your feeble grasp on reality and YOU rush
right out and build a straw dog and kick it demonstrating CLEARLY your feeble grasp
upon logical processes. CLASSIC. And so typical.
And of course some transitional animals had fins that were very much like feet
and used for propulsion by "walking" on the sea BOTTOM as well. But then you never were
one to let a fact get in the way of a dogmatic belief were you?
I can't TELL you how gratifying it is to see that you are as much of a smarmy,
dishonest, brainless, asshole here as you were on CIS.
Leaopards and spots, karl, leopards and spots.
God says "think". Karl says "no".
Dr. Regina Bacon
Ken Winters wrote:
> =
> Daniel Earl Bacon wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation =
science" lacks
> > > credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is t=
otally credible to
> > > both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the =
references at this
> > > site:
> > >
> >
> > > http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
> > >
> > > If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the i=
nformation at this
> > > sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
> >
> > I found the information challenged not challenging. I suggest a good=
> > science journal for science and a religious journal for your (public
> > =93your=94) beliefs, and not to try to make the real world fit your(p=
ublic)
> > beliefs.
> >
> > --
> =
> If I were a betting man and could verify the bet I'd wager you probably=
didn't even look at
> the site. If you did look, I'm sure it wasn't with much depth. The co=
ntent of this site and
> the resources it offers are definitely not "challenged". Try looking a=
gain and actually
> reading the material (hopefully with an open mind) and some of the book=
s/tapes referenced,
> then come back and say why it's challenged.
> =
> cheers,
> Ken Winters
Ken you would lose your bet! It is very challenged! I have a degree in
physics and astronomy. I have read about and known about the Hubble
Constant conflict in the journals. As far as the moon origin update,
the source was 1965!
Again, a good science journal for science and a religious journal for
religion. Try not to make your belief science; both will be better for
it. Don't diminish your belief system. Belief in God doesn't require
science. =
=D2why it's challenged.=D3 A short example the =D2Permian Extinction Upda=
te=D3 =
=D2... This probability spells trouble for Darwinists,....=D3 This is an
opinion of Dr. Ross. No peer review article on this trouble at all. =
=D2...for it necessitates repeated widespread radical speciation worldwid=
e
to explain the near-immediate replacement of extinct species by new and
sometimes different species. Given the extreme environmental stress
under which such speciation occurs, the strictly natural process
explanation fall apart=D3 Not only is this Dr. Ross opinion; it is
dribble! Dr. Ross is saying all the species must evolve during the
event(This is BS). The survivors (10% from Dr. Ross article) of the
event would evolve AFTER THE EVENT in there on good time. Why would
there be a need for speciation during the event?
Daniel Bacon
(using my wife's account again)
bob puharic
Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net> wrote:
-----
>Interesting thread. I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution
>hook, line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it. If
>evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz suggests, then why are
>many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones mind you) still writting books
>criticizing it?
no, they write books criticizing various specific concepts about how
it took place. we scientists ALL accept evolution...without exception.
Now YOU ANSWER the question: why is creation being pushed ONLY by
religious fundamentalists?
Yes, such books are still being written, even at the threat of
>ostracism or not gaining tenure (such thoughts are just not polically correct in
>academia). These books don't get wide notice, because without evolution there is NO
>alternative to a creator and people don't want to deal with the issue that they are
>accountable to a higher being.
you are positing an idea that we scientists have a conspiracy to
destroy your religion. the only conspiracy is amongst people who want
to prove the bible true. History is FULL of examples of scientists
correcting their own ideas...ever hear of relativity? a "higher being"
is irrelevant to science...there are many scientists who are
christian.
if you were true to yourself you would admit your own bias and lack of
objectivity
bob puharic
Richard Shalvoy <RichS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
>evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
>hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Creation was a one time event and so
>evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
>the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
>is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
>Rich
evolution at its core is hardly scientific? sounds like dr. gerardus
bowe, phd astrophysics, interviewed in "physics today" a number of y
rs ago....was a creationist, and was forced to admit that the only
reason he's a creationist is because of the bible.
obviously youve sold out...too bad...evolution occurs every day. no
more scientific than creationism...since creationism is a lie..that
makes PHYSICS a lie too...ever read what creationists say about the
speed of light? cepheid variables? radioactive decay? lie lie lie...
Robert Davidson
Science has known for generations about the psychological benefits of
positive social attention in sickness, as the action of prayer provides
(usually). No supernatural explanations required here.
Robert Davidson.
Thomas Swanson
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
>Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
>> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
>> > inbetween phase.
>>
>> Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
>> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
>
>A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
>distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
>>
Whether the sea lion evolves into something else is beside the point.
Your contention that a fish or fish-like being could not exist in an
in-between phase has been refuted, as that phase has been observed to
exist.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
Thomas Swanson
> As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
>evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
>hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
>is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
>apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
>to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
>evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
>the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
>is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
One *can* do reproducible experiments to confirm the mechanisms of
evolution. Some observations cannot be made directly as they would take
millions of years, but to exclude evolution because of this would require
excluding much of astronomy/astrophysics and geology from the realm of
science as well. Just beacause one cannot create a star in the lab
does not mean one cannot investigate stellar formation.
Micheal Keane
In article <329F5D...@geocities.com>,
Scandalon <scan...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> ... prayer
>> and research are going to be given equal funding in
>> medical schools and research hospitals.
>>
>and probably double, etc.) which showed that praying for sick people
>really did help them to recover faster than medical treatment alone.
>Amazing what science doesn't know yet, isn't it?
Amazing how people don't bother to read the study themselve, isn't it?
1. It was hardly controlled as this sort of thing is impossible to
control.
2. The supposed benefits were marginal and didn't get them out of the
hospital any earlier.
ima pseudonym
In article <57oglq$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, swa...@alph04.triumf.ca says...
>In article <329F04...@prodigy.net> Richard Shalvoy
<RichS...@prodigy.net>
> writes:
>
>> As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
>>evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
>>hardly scientifically challenged in our homeschool. Part of the problem
>>is that terms in that debate get blurred and the argument gets to be
>>apples and oranges. FWIW remember that science is based on the ability
>>to do reproducible experiments. Creation was a one time event and so
>>evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
>>the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
>>is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
>
>One *can* do reproducible experiments to confirm the mechanisms of
>evolution. Some observations cannot be made directly as they would take
>millions of years, but to exclude evolution because of this would require
>excluding much of astronomy/astrophysics and geology from the realm of
>science as well. Just beacause one cannot create a star in the lab
>does not mean one cannot investigate stellar formation.
Exactly right. It is remarkable how often creationists make the silly
claim "evolution isn't repeatable, so it isn't scientific".
Specific evolutionary hypotheses lead to lots of specific predictions that are
testable by direct observations. As in all science, it is these studies and
observations that need to be repeatable, not the specific phylogeny in
question.
Anyway, evolutionary changes have in fact been observed, both in wild
organisms in the field and in laboratory experiments. Speciation has in fact
been observed, and so have clear examples of morphological and genetic changes
mediated by processes of natural selection.
cheers
StarGazer aka LUP
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: Yes Mark, it is rather interesting how science leads to creation. The real
: world indicates creation and a flood. Those who want to believe in a fairy
: tale such as evolution have the right to do so. Last time I remember we
: were in the USA. So keep the faith Mark.
Funny, it is true that Evolution might not be correct, but even
if Evolution is incorrect, it does not instantiate that Creation
is correct. And as far as the definition of the word "fairytale"
goes, Creation fits better, not Evolution.
: The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
Funny, when did the people in the Net start quoting from a book
possibly written by liars ?
--
=== Amoralist === Nihilist == Me == Eternalist == Anti-Religionist ===
StarGazer aka Laugh Until Peng userid : ngkaihoe pager : 95217560
Chieftain of the Flamers Stockade
'Christianity is a metaphysics of the Hangman.'
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Charles Dyer
[snip]
>
> Do I believe in the infallible word of God in the Bible. Yes!!!
> Do I believe in my falliblity in reading between the lines. Yes!!!
> Do I believe in my falliblity in pride, arrogrance, and arguing. Yes!!!
> But by Grace I will overcome these failings (oneday).
>
> One day we will ALL stand before His throne and be judged for our conduct.
> Ezek 24:14 (NIV):
> "'I the LORD have spoken. The time has come for me to act. I will not
> hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I relent. You will be judged
> according to your conduct and your actions, declares the Sovereign
> LORD.'"
>
> Sorry for the length of this post.
> God Bless each one.
>
> lonny...@aol.com writes:
> >
> > So many now are letting the teaching of evloution creep into the home
> > school environment. We need to keep before our youth the truths about
> > creation and the wonderful truths of their one and only God of the
> > universe.
> >
> > It is sad to see so many embrace with open arms the Theo-Evolution Theory.
> > If we are just animals, what would be the need to salvation or
> > redemption. We must be oh, so very, very careful what are children learn.
> >
> > Lonny...@aol.com
I agree with some of your post, but not all. Yes, God exists (if only so we
have someone to blame...) Yes, the Bible (and the Q'ran, and the Vedas...)
is (are) the Word of God. Yes, humans are supposed to do better than just
exist. Yes, humans are animals. (Some of the posters on t.o seem to be
solid oak from ear to ear, but they are special cases.) Yes, we must be
careful what children learn. The truth is a good start. And the truth is
that evolution is a fact, at present imperfectly described by the current
theory(ies) of evolution. The theory(ies) will change, that is certain.
They are made by man, and like all man-made things, are imperfect. But they
are the best we have right now.
Also, I _really_ don't think that it's your place to tell God that He
couldn't use evolution to set up His universe if He wanted to. And, given
the evidence, it certainly seems that He did. If you can show me a theory
which explains the facts covered by the current theory(ies) of evolution,
and do a better job, and at the same time show that the current theory is
incorrect, I'll be on your side in a flash. But no creationist ever has
been able to show such a theory, and I've been asking that question since
July last year, when I first came onto this newsgroup. In fact, only two
have even tried to answer. Which suggests to me that they do not have an
answer.
Recall that 'God did it' is not an answer. Recall further that the new
theory has to hang together with the rest of science (geology, physics,
chemistry, etc.) or you have to explain why. Evolutionary theory does hang
together with the rest of science, with everything from speed-of-light to
lightbulbs to continental drift to stellar formation. It is possible that
all the evidence piled up on the evolutionary theory side is wrongly
interpeted or simply mistaken, but it is _highly_ improbable.
Charles Dyer
In article <329F50...@olympus.net>, Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net>
wrote:
> Daniel Earl Bacon wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation
science" lacks
> > > credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there that is
totally credible to
> > > both science and religion. May I suggest checking out some of the
references at this
> > > site:
> > >
> >
> > > http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html
> > >
> > > If one is really willing to invest the time, they should find the
information at this
> > > sight very challenging to some of their thinking.
> >
> > I found the information challenged not challenging. I suggest a good
> > science journal for science and a religious journal for your (public
> > “your”) beliefs, and not to try to make the real world fit your(public)
> > beliefs.
> >
> > --
>
> If I were a betting man and could verify the bet I'd wager you probably
didn't even look at
> the site. If you did look, I'm sure it wasn't with much depth. The
content of this site and
> the resources it offers are definitely not "challenged". Try looking
again and actually
> reading the material (hopefully with an open mind) and some of the
books/tapes referenced,
> then come back and say why it's challenged.
_I_ have looked at the site. It's not challenged. It's, to call a spade a
spage, retarded. I have no intension of wasting money on any of the crap
advertised therein. If you would send them to me (email me and I'll give
you my mailing address) I'll read/view/listen. But I don't expect much.
(Proof that I actually have visited the site: the mailing address for those
who wish to be parted from their money is:
Reasons to Believe, P.O. Box 5978,
Pasadena CA 91117
Nuff said.)
>
> cheers,
> Ken Winters
Herb Huston
In article <329F5D...@geocities.com>,
Scandalon <scan...@geocities.com> wrote:
}BTW Marc, there was a study recently (controlled, at least single-blind
}and probably double, etc.) which showed that praying for sick people
}really did help them to recover faster than medical treatment alone.
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
please.
--
Charles Dyer
In article <01bbde4c$eeb8f480$43d5...@Comnet.Comnet.ca>, "Rick Melcer"
<rme...@comnet.ca> wrote:
> > inaccurately described by the theory of evolution? 'Inaccurately' because
> > the current evolutionary theory, as all things made by man, including the
> > Bible, is imperfect. (The Bible was inspired by God, but assembled by
> man.
> > Men make mistakes. God is not responsible for men's mistakes.)
>
>
> You are DEAD wrong on the Bible part. Current scientific evidence
> regarding the Torah (first five books of the Bible) show definitive proof
> that the Bible has not changed since its original writting
Please give refs. I want to see this.
and is not the
> exclusive writting of man. The University of Jerusalem and others arround
> the world are studying the Torah and the rest of the Biblical scriptures
> for the new found codes. (The word codes is used for lack of a better
> term). Numerous "Words and names are being decifered from the Torah in
> regular (consistant) numerical order. Ex. The word Torah is found at the
> beginning of the book of Genesis and Exodus in a sequence of every seventh
> character. This is not numerology.
It's _not_?!!! Thanks for telling me.
Names of people are found in close
> proximity to their date of birth or death. Ex Sadat, 1981, Parade. The 66
> top Rabbis names to the year 1900 are listed with either their date of
> birth or death.
Just 66 of them? Not 666?
>
> Super computers are being used to decifer additional names and words.
> These characteristcs to NOT appear in any other Hebrew text no matter how
> large the document. The probability of these "codes" appearing natually
> are 100,000 to 1. They are not Coinsidences.
Please show where. Refs. data. information. your assertions will be laughed
at until you can back them up. Right now I'm laughing my ass off.
>
> If you are not convinced then talk to your local Rabbi and he will tell you
> all about it. These occurances could not be there if the original inspired
> word of God was changed in any way.
I have spoken to my local Rabbi. Easy to do, my brother married one of his
sisters. I've also spoken to my local priest. Again, easy to do, he's just
down the road from me. Both of them think you're as funny as I do. (one is
sitting next to me, laughing, as I type this.)
>
> > One more thing. In high school I was _required_ to _memorize_ several
> > sections of the Bible, including the Pentatuch, the Synoptic Gopspels,
> > Acts, several of the Epistles of Paul. We had tests on a weekly basis,
> and
> > had 'context questions'; the test would quote a verse, without any ID,
> and
> > we had to identify the quote and place it in context, and give a
> commentary
> > to show that we actually understood what we were talking about and
> weren't
> > just reguritating crib sheets. I was pretty good at it; how do you think
> I
> > got to be a prefect? Now, _I_ don't recall any part of the Bible which
> > conflicts with evolutionary theory unless you take it absolutely word for
> > word literally, which is rediculous as the Bible was originally written
> in
> > Amharic and Greek, translated to Latin, then to English. And before it
> was
> > written down, the Old Testament, especially including the Pentatuch
> (that's
> > Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Duetronomy, and Numbers) were maintained by
> > oral tradition.
>
> You are wrong! See above.
You haven't proved a damn thing. And two pro clergymen agree with me. Want
their names? Email me and I will provide.
>
>
>
> Richard
Charles Dyer
> Marc Satterwhite wrote:
> <snipped>
> > ... prayer
> > and research are going to be given equal funding in
> > medical schools and research hospitals.
> >
> > --MTS
> >
> BTW Marc, there was a study recently (controlled, at least single-blind
> and probably double, etc.) which showed that praying for sick people
> really did help them to recover faster than medical treatment alone.
> Amazing what science doesn't know yet, isn't it?
Name it. give refs. Lets see the data, so we can evaluate it for ourselves.
Lawrence Sayre
In message <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> - ks...@fast.net
(ksjj)Fri, 29 Nov 1996 18:34:20 -0400 writes:
:>
:>In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
:>Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
:>> Karl,
:>>
:>>
:>> > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
:>> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
:>> > inbetween phase.
:>>
:>> Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
:>> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
:>
:>A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
:>distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
:>> Mitchell Coffey
:>
:>--
:>see ya,
:>karl
:>*********************************************
:>The Bible says dust. Not evolution.
No one knows what the evolutionary future holds in store for the
sea-lion. OTOH, the awkward and near useless limbs that the sea-lion is
equipped with (speaking of their usability on land only here) seem to be good
evidence that the sea-lion is obviously in an evolutionary transition state at
present. This "in-between phase" is obviously NOT useless to the sea-lion.
Obviously all "in-between phases" have valid survivability value, or they would
be selected against, and dissapear.
-----------------------------------------
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival!
lsa...@en.com <Lawrence Sayre>
-----------------------------------------
Mark Isaak
I see Karl got his latest _Acts and Facts_. It contains a list of 33
"challenges" to evolution. Most of them imply the argument, "I'm smarter
than God, so if I can't answer this, there must not be an answer." We can
expect Karl to quote from the list for the next year or two. Those reading
this in m.e.h-s.c might want to follow talk.origins (where followups are
directed) to see real answers to all of them.
In article <ksjj-28119...@ppp-abe-331.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>Would you be so kind as to show me a transitional between a non-flying
>insect and a flying insect?
See the following:
Kukalova-Peck, Jarmila. 1986. New Carboniferous Diplura, Monura, and
Thysanura, the hexapod ground plan, and the role of thoracic side lobes in
the origin of wings (Insecta). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65: 2327-2345.
The following article is also relevant:
Marden, J.H. & M.G. Kramer. 1994. Surface-skimming stoneflies: A possible
intermediate stage in insect flight evolution. Science, 266: 427-431.
Your turn, Karl. I asked months ago for an explanation of why *all species*
of several entire orders of insects (such as the Monura mentioned above) are
found only in lower strata than *all species* of several other large and
diverse orders of insects. That's tens of thousands of species, and
countless individuals, which were sorted perfectly. None of the sorting
methods you mentioned can explain it. What, besides evolution, can?
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Ken Winters wrote:
> I'm always amazed how many Ph.D. types have bought into evolution hook,
> line, and sinker, without ever even studying the vast criticisms of it.
> If evolution were such an incontrovertible fact, as Mr. Schountz
> suggests, then why are many scientists (Christian and non-Christian ones
> mind you) still writting books criticizing it?
The problem with this is that the most notable and influential of those
writing the "vast criticisms" are producing rubbish. Anyone with a good
criticism to make, as soon as he opens his mouth, is automatically
associated with the poorly-researched nonsense produced by so many other
anti-evolutionists.
So suppose a reasonable person goes to look at the Creation/Evolution
controversy, happens across D James Kennedy on TV, and orders the free copy
of Scott Huse's book _The Collapse of Evolution_. Kennedy can't be blamed
for a book in a field he's not qualified to speak about, so this isn't a
direct criticism of him, but Huse's book (I got a copy myself) is
gibberish. If a student handed it in as a research paper, I'd flunk him.
The computer programs in the back are incompetent nonsense -- here at
Rowan, undergrad CS majors are expected to be able to write working
evolution programs. Scott Huse, who describes himself as a computer
expert, is unable to make one work.
ANYWAY, now our reasonable person says "Well, if that's the best book
Kennedy was able to find, and that was the one he felt worth giving away,
then evolution must be as well-proven as everybody says. These anti-
evolution guys are just a bunch of flat-earthers. Glad I don't have to
bother with that anymore." If a former student who got his evolution
program working looked at the lousy programs in the back of Huse's book,
he'd probably be able to fix them in under half an hour and make them do
exactly what Huse claims is impossible: evolve an answer from random
noise. Will that student have any respect for Mr Huse afterwards?
Mixing in weaker material to make a longer argument is always a bad move.
All it does is make the better material look bad by comparison. This same
principle does as much damage to Christian witness, even from books which
don't address evolution or only touch on it. I thought that some of Josh
McDowell's books would have been 10 times better if he had left out 75% of
the text.
Another problem caused by bad anti-evolution arguments is that whenever
anybody hears an argument for a Creator, they assume the person speaking is
a young-earth Creationist. Evolutionists then don't bother to listen to
the rest, and Creationists go on to misuse the quotes. Just in the last
few months, Charles Colson wrote a _Christianity Today_ column based on
Michael Behe's book _Darwin's Black Box_. But Michael Behe believes in the
common descent of all life forms, the 4.5billion-year age of the earth,
and the common ancestry of humans and apes. Mr Colson was criticising the
mainstream scientific view that humans and other animals have a common
ancestor -- and Mr Behe's book does not help him in that one little bit.
How is it Charles Colson managed to cite Mr Behe in support of his
position, when it is a position that Mr Behe explicitly rejects?
More importantly, suppose our reasonable person, deciding to give the
anti-evolutionists another chance, sees Mr Colson's column and decides to
read Behe's book. He comes away thinking "Colson thought that was a book
against common descent? Did he even read it?" What will our reasonable
person think the next time Colson, or anybody, says that a book by a
mainstream scientist supports creationism? The last time someone said
that, he was blatantly wrong. Why take such claims seriously in the
future?
Mr Winters referred people to <http://reasons.org/~westley/index.html>; I
found this text:
+ As an astronomer, educator, and evangelical minister, I concur that the
+ normal physical science definition for evolution is well established
+ things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a
+ time-scale of billions of years. Incidently, this fact can be
+ established not just from the scientific record but also from the Bible.
+ The first chapter of Genesis is set up as a chronolog documenting how
+ God changed the world over six specific time periods. A literal and
+ consistent reading of the Bible, taking into account all its statements
+ on creation, makes clear that the Genesis creation days cannot possibly
+ be six consecutive 24-hour days.
This fails to satisfy many who call themselves Creationists, and who would
reject outright the notion that the creation was not six literal days. On
top of which, the mainstream view of earth history is not consistent with
the "six time periods" view of Genesis -- some events are out of order, and
nothing in the Six Time Periods scenario makes even a little dent in the
problems with Noah's flood.
At least give the young-earth people credit: they say they believe the
Bible and they stick to it. The halfway reconciliations, where you take
the Bible and science and mush them together into a lukewarm mess that
doesn't take either one seriously, always abandon their adherents in the
end.
> Yes, much of what has been published under the banner of "creation
> science" lacks credibility. But there is some very good stuff out there
> that is totally credible to both science and religion.
So, name 10 anti-evolution books that are worth reading and don't contain
unacceptably many silly errors. Make clear which books accept the modern
view of earth history but argue for a designer, and which books reject the
modern view of earth history.
Darren F Provine / kil...@copland.rowan.edu
ksjj
In article <57og68$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, swa...@alph04.triumf.ca (Thomas
Swanson) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net> ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) writes:
> >In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
> >Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
> >> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
> >> > inbetween phase.
> >>
> >> Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
> >> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
> >
> >A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
> >distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
> >>
>
> Whether the sea lion evolves into something else is beside the point.
> Your contention that a fish or fish-like being could not exist in an
> in-between phase has been refuted, as that phase has been observed to
> exist.
>
Hey Tommy,
Take a fish, cut off his fins and throw him back in the water. Now, watch
him survive.
ksjj
> Your turn, Karl. I asked months ago for an explanation of why *all species*
> of several entire orders of insects (such as the Monura mentioned above) are
> found only in lower strata than *all species* of several other large and
> diverse orders of insects. That's tens of thousands of species, and
> countless individuals, which were sorted perfectly. None of the sorting
> methods you mentioned can explain it. What, besides evolution, can?
> --
> Mark Isaak "Have you seen this side? Look also
> is...@aurora.com at the other." - Marcus Aurelius
Why would your statement here disprove creation?
Certainly zonation would fit the model.
Julie Pascal
// wrote:
>
> In article <329BE2...@pascal.org>, Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:(In response to Marty's suggestion that talk.orgins be deleted from
followups...)
> >Hi Marty!
> >
> >Hey, I'll second it. I have to admit, though. I don't
> >have a lot of optimism about keeping the thread here. I
> >don't know if someone monitors this group or if it's
> >a matter of doing a word search on Usenet or something, but
> >somehow _any_ mention of cr./ev. seems to bring a talk.orgins
> >crosspost.
> >
> >cr./ev. ? Now, _that's_ an idea! Maybe if we spoke in code? ;-)
> >
> >j.pascal
>
> Hmm, what was talk.origins charter again?
Gee wiz, I don't have a clue. There must be something in it that
says _all_ other newsgroups _cannot_ discuss evolution or creation
without including youall.
Afraid of being left out?
Or maybe the possiblity of the subject being dropped after 3 or 4
posts is simply unbearable?
>
> ----------------------------
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
> ra...@kaiwan.com
Julie Pascal
bob puharic wrote:
>
> Richard Shalvoy <RichS...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > As a practicing scientist (physics PhD) I've been through this whole
> >evolution argument enough times to satisfy myself and my kids, who are
> >evolution at its core is hardly a scientific theory. Perhaps some of
> >the more recent events can be verified scientifically, but at its core it
> >is no more scientific than creationism. Enuff.
>
> evolution at its core is hardly scientific? sounds like dr. gerardus
> bowe, phd astrophysics, interviewed in "physics today" a number of y
> rs ago....was a creationist, and was forced to admit that the only
> reason he's a creationist is because of the bible.
>
> obviously youve sold out...too bad...evolution occurs every day. no
> more scientific than creationism...since creationism is a lie..that
> makes PHYSICS a lie too...ever read what creationists say about the
> speed of light? cepheid variables? radioactive decay? lie lie lie...
Yes, and of _course_ ALL creationists believe EVERYTHING that one or
more creationists have said. Isn't that so nice for you? You get to
group everyone together so neatly. Really saves on the brain work
doesn't it.
j.pascal
Steve Geller
Scandalon wrote:
> BTW Marc, there was a study recently (controlled, at least single-blind
> and probably double, etc.) which showed that praying for sick people
> really did help them to recover faster than medical treatment alone.
> Amazing what science doesn't know yet, isn't it?
It sure would be nice if it worked. Unfortunately, it takes a fair
amount of faith to see the effect.
The study was double-blind, I think, but the people processing the data
to generate the results were mostly convinced religious believers.
--
Steve Geller
(to be sure I respond to your reply, E-Mail it to me)
Todd Johnson
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:57:24 -0400, ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
>balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
>inbetween phase.
Karl, that's just bull. Have you ever watched a jellyfish swim? An
octopus? A sea snake? A person? Lot's of creatures swim without
fins.
-----------------------------------
Todd M. Johnson
to...@amcyber.com
The views and opinions expressed in the body of
this message DO reflect the views and opinions of
my employer
Erik Marksberry
Sea snakes seem to do just fine.
--
Erik Marksberry
mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Make something idiot-proof and they'll invent a better idiot.
Scandalon
Robert Davidson wrote:
>
> Science has known for generations about the psychological benefits of
> positive social attention in sickness, as the action of prayer provides
> (usually). No supernatural explanations required here.
>
> Robert Davidson.
No, I'm very sorry for not being clear in the original post. I am
looking for the references but for now will post what I remember of the
study. They took patients entering a hospital, matched 2 randomly
selected groups on the basis of illness and prognosis, and assigned one
group to be prayed for. The patient did not know they were being prayed
for, nor did the doctor. The group that was prayed for had a better
recovery rate and left the hospital sooner. I will post the reference
when I find it.
ksjj
In article
<Pine.A32.3.91.961130...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Erik
Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, ksjj wrote:
> > In article <57og68$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, swa...@alph04.triumf.ca (Thomas
> > Swanson) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Whether the sea lion evolves into something else is beside the point.
> > > Your contention that a fish or fish-like being could not exist in an
> > > in-between phase has been refuted, as that phase has been observed to
> > > exist.
> > >
> > Hey Tommy,
> > Take a fish, cut off his fins and throw him back in the water. Now, watch
> > him survive.
> >
>
> Sea snakes seem to do just fine.
Tommy and Todd,
Go to a pet store and buy a fish. Cut off his fins and throw him back into
the fish bowl. Let me know how he does.
>
> --
> Erik Marksberry
> mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
>
> Make something idiot-proof and they'll invent a better idiot.
--
Scandalon
Herb Huston wrote:
>
> Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
> please.
>
it, but when I find that I will post the references.
Scandalon
Micheal Keane wrote:
>
> Amazing how people don't bother to read the study themselve, isn't it?
>
> 1. It was hardly controlled as this sort of thing is impossible to
> control.
By "controlled" I meant that the patients in each group were randomly
selected, and then matched based on illness and prognosis.
> 2. The supposed benefits were marginal and didn't get them out of the
> hospital any earlier.
In fact one of the results was that they DID leave the hospital earlier.
> --
> Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu) Join the Church of Last Thursday!
> Sending unsolicited email this address implies that you wish to use my
> free service to kill you at an unspecified time, place and manner.
> I am the sole determiner of what is unsolicited. On-topic replies welcomed.
I'm posting this and not e-mailing it because I want to stay alive <g>.
Scandalon
bob puharic
Julie Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>Yes, and of _course_ ALL creationists believe EVERYTHING that one or
>more creationists have said. Isn't that so nice for you? You get to
>group everyone together so neatly. Really saves on the brain work
>doesn't it.
so you accept that creationism is a lie? about time!
Robert J B Wilson
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) writes:
> In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
> Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
>
>> Karl,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> > The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
>> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
>> > inbetween phase.
>>
>> Are you actually unaware that there are, in the world today, fish that
>> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
>
> A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
> distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
Not necessarily, any more than is a whale or any other marine mammal,
amphibious or otherwise.
It's no use trying to forecast the future, what particular set of random
mutations will occur. To most people (except for those who believe in
astrology, biblical prophecy or other sort of peasant superstition) it
is a pretty useless exercise.
Marine mammals may eventually form a new class, but I've never heard of
anything crossing over from one well-established class to another.
Of course, I'm not a biologist, but this should be common knowledge enough
even for the least scientific amongst us.
Evolution does have it's limits.
It might be a good idea if you actually read up on it first in a standard
textbook or two. But you seem to revel in your (pretended?) ignorance.
RJBW
ima pseudonym
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net says...
>In article
><Pine.A32.3.91.961130...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Erik
>Marksberry <mark...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, ksjj wrote:
>> > In article <57og68$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, swa...@alph04.triumf.ca (Thomas
>> > Swanson) wrote:
>> > > Whether the sea lion evolves into something else is beside the point.
>> > > Your contention that a fish or fish-like being could not exist in an
>> > > in-between phase has been refuted, as that phase has been observed to
>> > > exist.
>> > >
>> > Hey Tommy,
>> > Take a fish, cut off his fins and throw him back in the water. Now, watch
>> > him survive.
Never seen a moray eel [or a sea snake]? Besides we were talking about the
origin of land animal limbs from fins, not the origin of the first fins.
There are living fish that use their fins in "walking" type locomotion on
land [and others that "walk" on the sea bottom], and clear fossil transitions
between typical tetrapod limbs and sarcopterygian "fish" fins. Seal-like
flippers are also intermediates, [but of course the transiton is in the other
direction]. They still show that such functional intermediate stages serve
their possesors very well indeed.
Since you're so keen on fish-abuse, did you ever do that experiment to see if
you can keep typical salt and fresh water species alive together in a single
"Flood" aquarium? That should kill "em off quicker than the mutilation you
suggest above.
cheers
ima pseudonym
In article <ksjj-29119...@ppp-abe-415.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
says...
>In article <57lu6c$b...@newsgate.duke.edu>, ficti...@alias.incognito.myob
>(ima pseudonym) wrote:
>> In article <ksjj-28119...@ppp-abe-331.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
says...
>> >Would you be so kind as to show me one undisputed example of a creature
>> >that was transitional between the fish and the amphibian?
>>
>> Easy. Look up for example the fossil Pandericthyid [and other
>> crossopterygian] "fishes"
>Yup, thats why they appear suddenly in the fosill record.
Do they, now? Do you have literature citations for the sudden early
diversity of the group?
>This supports
>creationism. Even the different classes of fish appear suddenly with no
>ancestral traces.
False. References?
> By the way, why do the trilobites appear suddenly with
>out any transitional fossils either?
And do they? They don't.
>You guy never did answer that question adequately.(of course I bet you feel
>you did.)
And just how it is that you know better than we do? Do you have any real
refernces on the diversity of the earliest arthropods? Some of them are in
fact thought to be close to the trilobites.
>> and very early "amphibians" like Acanthostega. These
>> are very close to the transition you want. What is the word "the" doing
in
>> there ["the" fish]? Do you think there is only one kind? For that
matter,
>> there are intermediates like lungfish and coelacanths that are still
extant
>> and closer to amphibians than to other "fish".
>
>You also forgot the rhipidistian fish. Now which one of the 3 evolved into
>amphibians?
What 3? Those _are_ rhipidistian fish [some of them are; the
pandericthyiids have been considered osteolepiform rhipidistians] . Yes,
there has been lots of discussion about the interrelationships of the
different main groups of sarcopterygian fish and about which ones are the
closest to the ancestors of the tetrapods. There is a quite a bit of recent
literature on this -- should I post a few titles for you? The different
groups in question are all related to one another and to the tetrapods, and
the early ones of each group are very similar in important ways. They all
are good examples of the sort of the intermediates you asked for.
> Hummm Seems like the evolutionist are full of empty scenarios
>and rhetoric.
[You shouldn't tempt me like that to say just what it is that the
creationists are full of...;-)]
>Besides you open more questions the more you try to explain your
>speculations. As your soon to be amphibians moved to the land from the wet
>water they would ave lost serious amounts of water through mouth, lungs,
>and body surfaces. Quick significant changes would have had to occur to
>reduce these losses.
Have you looked at the living amphibians? There is good evidence that the
early tetrapods were largely still aquatic, anyway.
>The sense organs of the fish were made for the fish. But somehow through
>random mtation and chance, they just so happened to be perfectly suited
>for amphibian.
Look at living amphibians and at many living fish. [For a hoot,look up teh
odd fish Anableps] You left out "selection" that also would have played a
role in any changes [which would at first be very slight].
>The fins of a fish have a purpose. Without them the fish would have no
>balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
>inbetween phase.
False. Many living fish disprove this; they have fins that work both as
fins and as "legs".
>> "Transitionals" like these needn't be exactly on a direct ancestral line
>to be
>> instructive; side branches of are also important to working out the
>> evolutionary patterns.
>> And yes, I saw that weasel-word "undisputed" in there; zealous
creationists
>> will automatically dispute any fact if this suits their ideology, so
their
>> "disputes" count for nothing.
>
>Absolutly not. undisputed it is. Which of the 3 fish mentioned above
>turned into amphibians?
So you'd hold it against us that we have more than one very good candidate?
;-) That's rather amusing; if there is no plausible fossil ancestor the
crationist says "look at the gap!", if there are several very good ones to
choose from he says "Look! These evolutionists disagree! They must all be
wrong!"
The disputes are about fish that are pretty closely similar in the essential
details and are themselves probably derived from a similar common ancestor.
I did a search of both Biological Abstracts and the Zoological Record CDs in
the library here and could post a bunch of downloaded references if you're
really interested.
cheers
Thomas Swanson
In article <ksjj-30119...@ppp-abe-314.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
>In article <57og68$3...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, swa...@alph04.triumf.ca (Thomas
>Swanson) wrote:
>(ksjj) writes:
>> >In article <01bbde26$b5fb7620$e725...@davisn.va.grci.com>, "Mitchell
>> >Coffey" <mco...@grci.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > balance, steering or locomotion. basically the fish would not work in yur
>> >> > inbetween phase.
>> >>
>> >> routinely crawl for extended distances on dry land?
>> >
>> >A sea lion routinely spends a lot of time underwater and travel extended
>> >distances. Does this mean he'll be a fish someday? I think not.
>>
>> Your contention that a fish or fish-like being could not exist in an
>> in-between phase has been refuted, as that phase has been observed to
>> exist.
>>
>Hey Tommy,
>Take a fish, cut off his fins and throw him back in the water. Now, watch
>him survive.
>
Again, this is beside the point. The "in between phase" that you claim
could not survive is observed to exist. Thus your statement is incorrect.
Show some integrity and acknowledge this rather than some lame attempt
at a snappy comeback.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner