Evolutionists on the Rampage (not)
Serenity
Dan wrote:
> Hi Nokosugi
> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being told
> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race came
> form the pond? Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
> other possibilities? I find this to be a dumbing down of our educational
> potential. The word science = knowledge, a more expanded meaning is,
> knowledge learned by observation and experimentation.
>
> The Theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex
> as time progresses. Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to believe that
> organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and
> those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of
> evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. If life
> started off like mold or penicillin with only 2 chromosomes and slowly evolved
> into a fruit Fly with 8 chromosomes and so on as a honeybee with 16
> chromosomes. At some point live continued to evolve into a carrot at 20 at
> chromosomes and so on until we reach the human stage with 46 chromosomes.
>
> Using this logic if we are allowed to 'continue evolving' we may someday
> become a tobacco plant with 48 chromosomes or a cow with 60 chromosomes,
> maybe we could end as advanced as a carp with 100 chromosomes, or the ultimate
> life form the fern with 480 chromosomes!
>
> In an answer to your first question I'm not going to turn off my brain and
> accept something if it does not add up or come to any logical conclusion. I
> remember failing a test in high school because the question read "describe the
> origin of the universe." Explained that I did not believe the facts in the
> text book were correct nor did it represent all the possible theories, and
> based on the evidence I have seen nobody was there when it happened. The
> universe continues to show that there is a common design to everything and
> that brings me back to "God said let there be. and it was." I got that
> question wrong and the correct answer was "a Big Bang." This is indoctrination
> of a religion, the "religion of evolution."
>
> All My Best
> Dan Davis
Touché!
I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The religion of
evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to say,
"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
unscientific God.
Regards,
Sherwood
mel turner
wrote...
>Dan wrote:
>> Hi Nokosugi
>> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being told
>> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race came
>> form the pond?
What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
You mean abiogenesis?
>> Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
>> other possibilities?
Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
>> I find this to be a dumbing down of our educational
>> potential. The word science = knowledge, a more expanded meaning is,
>> knowledge learned by observation and experimentation.
>> The Theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex
>> as time progresses.
No, that's incorrect. It teaches no such thing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
>> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
>> bits of matter in the known universe,
That's rather a silly thing to say.
>> it would seem logical to believe that
>> organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and
>> those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of
>> evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
Nope. Chromosome numbers can and do go either up or down during the
course of evolution. There's a lot of both. Biologists understand
this, and study the processes involved. And this has nothing to do
with the overall "complexity" of the genome or chromatin [although
polyploidy does increase its overall amount by duplicating whole
chromosome sets]. Is the same amount of stuff in one big jar less
complex than if it was packaged in two or more smaller jars?
And don't you know about much simpler prokaryotic chromosomes
like those of bacteria?
>>If life
>> started off like mold or penicillin with only 2 chromosomes
Who says "molds" have only two chromosomes? And "penicillin" is the
name of a drug; the genus _Penicillium_ is a type of fungus. There
are indeed eukaryotic organisms with very low chromosome numbers, but
there's no reason to assume that this is primitive.
>> and slowly evolved
>> into a fruit Fly with 8 chromosomes and so on as a honeybee with 16
>> chromosomes.
You think molds are ancestral to flies and flies are ancestral to
bees?
>> At some point live continued to evolve into a carrot at 20 at
>> chromosomes and so on until we reach the human stage with 46 chromosomes.
Bizarre. Humans' 46 [23 pairs] results from a fusion between
chromosomes in an ancestral set of 48 [24 pairs, as in chimps
and gorillas].
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
>> Using this logic
If you can call it that.
>>if we are allowed to 'continue evolving' we may someday
>> become a tobacco plant with 48 chromosomes or a cow with 60 chromosomes,
>> maybe we could end as advanced as a carp with 100 chromosomes, or the ultimate
>> life form the fern with 480 chromosomes!
Which "fern" did you have in mind? There are thousands, with
a vast range of chromosome numbers.
You forgot the species of _Ophioglossum_ with well over a thousand
chromosomes [1260 or so...] So, what's the point to any of this? No
biologist would say that chromosome numbers always increase, or that
they are any mark of "advancement" or complexity. [Nor will they say
that organismal "complexity" inexorably increases during evolution]
>> In an answer to your first question I'm not going to turn off my brain
You mean you hadn't already? ;-)
>> and
>> accept something if it does not add up or come to any logical conclusion. I
>> remember failing a test in high school because the question read "describe the
>> origin of the universe." Explained that I did not believe the facts in the
>> text book were correct nor did it represent all the possible theories,
Then you could/should have described the facts and theories that
were in the book with a "well, these scientists cited in our
textbook say...". It seems rather unlikely you'd be required to
believe it at all so long as you could explain it clearly.
Similarly, creationist public school students can't be required to
believe any of what they learn about evolutionary biology in science
classes, but they can and should be expected to learn something about
what it is the scientists think they have learned, and the reasons
[the evidence, its interpretation] why the scientists think so.
>> and
>> based on the evidence I have seen nobody was there when it happened.
Sheesh. The scientists were there when the evidence was observed
and studied. That's all that science ever requires.
>> The
>> universe continues to show that there is a common design to everything and
>> that brings me back to "God said let there be. and it was."
Doesn't give too many details, does it? Maybe the methods
would have involved steps like a Big Bang, and such?
>> I got that
>> question wrong and the correct answer was "a Big Bang." This is indoctrination
>> of a religion, the "religion of evolution."
The Big Bang has nothing at all to do with "evolution", which is just
about biology. You were presumably being tested on what you were
supposed to have learned about what cosmologists think they understand
about the universe. You undoubtedly didn't have to personally endorse
any of their conclusions to adequately explain what they were: "Well,
the scientists say that the evidence [examples] indicates a big bang,
because [interpretations]...".
>Touché!
>
>I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
>the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook.
And so you might deserve one, if you couldn't even answer questions
about what the scientists _thought_ they understood, and why [i.e.,
the observations they considered supporting evidence].
>The religion of
>evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
>Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to say,
>"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>unscientific God.
All of which is nonsense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#science
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
cheers
Boikat
What a coincidence. I was given an "F" in
Catechism in the third grade because I asked some
questions about Darwin and evolution. I knew the
difference between religion and science long
before I got to HS, however. I see you are still
having a problem distinguishing the two.
> The religion of
> evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
> Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
You are making the same mistake I did in the third
grade. You are confusing science and religion.
Biological evolution is not a religion, and
religion is no science.
> It encourages youngsters to say,
> "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> unscientific God.
>
So, you are under the impressing that the only
thing to keep "kids in line" is to have them
indoctrinated into a religion that threatens them
with "eternal damnation", rather than simply point
out that they will at the very least be held
accountable by their fellow classmates (or
society)? Why not just tell them from an early
age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man"
will get them? Same principle applies.
Boikat
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
>the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The religion of
>evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
>Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to say,
>"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>unscientific God.
>
>Regards,
>Sherwood
>
>
so instead of learning, you wanted to push ideology? and you expected
to pass the course? the teacher didnt say you had to believe it,
merely you had to understand it
and creationists are of such limited intellects, they call EVERYTHING
they dont like 'religion'. evolution says ZIP about god. if my
religion says grass is pink, then those who say its green are
atheists. if my religion says evolution isnt true, then those who
accept evolution are atheists. its an arbitrary cult belief.
Aron-Ra
Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Hi Nokosugi
> > That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being
told
> > that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race
came
> > form the pond? Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out
examining
> > other possibilities?
We aren't. We are expected to examine all possibilities, even in issues
that are well understood. The way we find out which concept of origin is
more probable is by truly examining them. Creationism cannot withstand
examination and religious promoters discourage their followers from doing
so. Let's see a church congregation actually try to examine thier own
theory without asserting that it must be correct and must be accepted.
> > I find this to be a dumbing down of our educational
> > potential.
This poster also finds chemical stimulus encouraging replicative protiens as
"impossible" And an infinite supermagical immortal entity killing himself
before he can forgive us for wanting to know the difference between right
and wrong he finds "probable".
> > The word science = knowledge, a more expanded meaning is,
> > knowledge learned by observation and experimentation.
The word science does not equal knowlege. Science = study. So does the
word "Theory".
> > The Theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more
complex
> > as time progresses. Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most
complex
> > bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to believe
that
> > organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve
and
> > those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years
of
> > evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. If
life
> > started off like mold or penicillin with only 2 chromosomes and slowly
evolved
> > into a fruit Fly with 8 chromosomes and so on as a honeybee with 16
> > chromosomes. At some point live continued to evolve into a carrot at 20
at
> > chromosomes and so on until we reach the human stage with 46
chromosomes.
Increased "complexity" is probable, but by no means required. The kind of
advancement he's trying to allude is woefully inacurate.
> > Using this logic if we are allowed to 'continue evolving' we may someday
> > become a tobacco plant with 48 chromosomes or a cow with 60 chromosomes,
> > maybe we could end as advanced as a carp with 100 chromosomes, or the
ultimate
> > life form the fern with 480 chromosomes!
Another typical creationist misrepresentation. Producing an illusory
definitive and deliberately misrepresenting the concept for the purpose of
ridicule. He knows he cannot critique evolution at all if he addresses the
actual points. His argument is lost. There is no defense of his position
against it unless he intentionally lies.
> > In an answer to your first question I'm not going to turn off my brain
and
> > accept something if it does not add up or come to any logical
conclusion.
No one should. That is probably the main point of what science is all
about.
Yet if I present powerful arguments against his conclusions, that is exactly
what he will do.
> > I
> > remember failing a test in high school because the question read
"describe the
> > origin of the universe." Explained that I did not believe the facts in
the
> > text book were correct nor did it represent all the possible theories,
and
> > based on the evidence I have seen nobody was there when it happened.
Including mythical men made of magic. No man was there. And neither were
the figments of our imaginations. However, the facts in the book likely
were wrong to some extent. Question all assumptions and don't ever accept
anything without a challenge.
> > The
> > universe continues to show that there is a common design to everything
Where?
> > and
> > that brings me back to "God said let there be. and it was."
All planets are round so they must have been created by magic words? How
can you argue with logic like that?
> > I got that
> > question wrong and the correct answer was "a Big Bang."
I am an atheist and I don't subscribe to the Big Bang theory at all.
However, I cannot critique it if I don't understand it. I wonder why
creationists think thier own limitations in comprehension to be evidence in
support of thier position? I would have learned the theory as it was taught
and answered correctly. Only after I really know what I'm talking about can
I present an argument against it.
This is indoctrination
> > of a religion, the "religion of evolution."
Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins
of
> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
> organic soup.
Fortunately blasphemy is a victimless crime.
> The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
> the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook.
Again I say, you cannot argue against any theory if you haven't learned it
and cannot accurately identify errors. The only error creationists can see
is that if doesn't give credit or praise to thier specific invisible friend
in some way.
> The religion of
> evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
> Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
Explain exactly how blind faith is involved? I don't see how it can be when
the entire scientific community are challenging each other in peer review.
There is no faith at all and I dare you to show me where you think it is.
Seriously, I defy you to present evidence of this blind faith you allude to.
> It encourages youngsters to say,
> "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> unscientific God.
Would that we could really do something like that. Actually, kids *should*
be encouraged to think analytically and only adhere to concepts that they
think can be supported. Then they should be encouraged to question *all*
theories including those that plead desperately "you gotta BELIEVE" while
fabricating mallicious conspiracies to inflame the ignorant and posture them
against objectivity.
There is no religion to evolution and there is no science in creationism.
Aron-Ra
Jon Fleming
wrote:
<snip>
>
>I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
>the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The religion of
>evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
>Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to say,
>"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>unscientific God.
Many many moons ago, I was a TA for a required course. At the end of
the semester, I had discussions with several people about why they
flunked. Several of them had (implicitly or explicitly) decided that
something else was more important than getting a good grade in this
particular class.
If something else is more important to you than your grade in a class,
OK. Accept the responsibility for your actions and decisions.
If you cannot or will not meet the requirements of the course, accept
the F.
>
>Regards,
>Sherwood
>
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Gary Hurd
>
> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins
of
> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
> organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't
answer
> the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook.
<clip>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
>
I would guess that you have not paid any attention to Pope JP2. You should
particularly read his convocation of the Papal Academy of Science a few
years ago. Then you should apologize to your HS teacher who was only trying
to keep you from growing up to be what you are today.
Adam Marczyk
>
> > Hi Nokosugi
> > That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being
told
> > that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race
came
> > form the pond? Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out
examining
> > other possibilities?
You're not. We _have_ examined other possibilities, and all have eventually
collapsed. Creationism _was_ at one time the default paradigm, but it fell
apart when Darwin came along because evolution explained all the evidence so
much better. Evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the
diversity of life that has consistently been able to explain all the
evidence we find.
> I find this to be a dumbing down of our educational
> > potential. The word science = knowledge, a more expanded meaning is,
> > knowledge learned by observation and experimentation.
And evolution has been observed (both in the form of local variation
[microevolution] and speciation [macroevolution]), and is very easy to
experiment with.
> > The Theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more
complex
> > as time progresses.
No, it doesn't. It teaches that living things become more adapted to their
environment as time passes, which may involve either an increase or a
decrease in complexity.
> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> > bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to believe
that
> > organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve
and
> > those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years
of
> > evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
No, it wouldn't, as detailed above.
> If life
> > started off like mold or penicillin with only 2 chromosomes and slowly
evolved
> > into a fruit Fly with 8 chromosomes and so on as a honeybee with 16
> > chromosomes. At some point live continued to evolve into a carrot at 20
at
> > chromosomes and so on until we reach the human stage with 46
chromosomes.
> >
> > Using this logic if we are allowed to 'continue evolving' we may someday
> > become a tobacco plant with 48 chromosomes or a cow with 60 chromosomes,
> > maybe we could end as advanced as a carp with 100 chromosomes, or the
ultimate
> > life form the fern with 480 chromosomes!
Straw man. Mold did not evolve into fruit flies, fruit flies did not evolve
into bees, bees did not evolve into carrots and carrots did not evolve into
humans. Rather, mold, fruit flies, bees, carrots and humans are all _modern_
species, none of them more or less evolved than any other -- each one is the
result of four and a half billion years of evolution. The evolution of each
different species has simply taken different paths. Each one evolved from
its own separate common ancestor, which in turn it shared with similar
organisms, but those common ancestors have their own common ancestors, and
so on. If you went back far enough, it would indeed be possible to show that
all these species share a common ancestor -- but the common ancestor of
humans and flies or humans and bees was way back in the Cambrian, when
animal life was just beginning to emerge, and the common ancestor of humans
and carrots or humans and mold was likely not even multicellular.
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/whatevoisnt.html
> > In an answer to your first question I'm not going to turn off my brain
and
> > accept something if it does not add up or come to any logical
conclusion. I
> > remember failing a test in high school because the question read
"describe the
> > origin of the universe." Explained that I did not believe the facts in
the
> > text book were correct nor did it represent all the possible theories,
Well, of course you failed. You don't have to agree with the prevailing
theories, but you have to show that you understand them before you disagree
with them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
> and
> > based on the evidence I have seen nobody was there when it happened.
But, of course, no one is required to be there when it happens. That's
what's so great about science; we can figure out what happened afterwards by
studying the evidence. Would you argue that forensic science can't convict a
murderer if there are no eyewitnesses, because "nobody was there when it
happened?"
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/paradigm.html
> The
> > universe continues to show that there is a common design to everything
and
> > that brings me back to "God said let there be. and it was." I got that
> > question wrong and the correct answer was "a Big Bang." This is
indoctrination
> > of a religion, the "religion of evolution."
Evolution is not a religion in any sense of the word.
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/atheistevo.html
> Touché!
>
> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins
of
> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
> organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't
answer
> the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook.
And I fully agree. That's the purpose of school -- to learn things, not to
make up your own explanations for everything. What if someone rejected math
on religious grounds? Should he be able to get credit for writing that
1+1=3?
> The religion of
> evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
> Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to
say,
> "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> unscientific God.
Rather than try to correct all these misunderstandings and distortions, I'll
give this link again where most of them are handled.
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/atheistevo.html
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
seaotter
>evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
>Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
As one of those indoctrinators I find your questioning of faith disturbing.
Really your story leaves out a crucial piece of information. Did your high
school teacher not teach you the scientific method? At the root of all
science is questioning of every description and explanation.
seaotter
Serenity
mel turner wrote:
> In article <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>, skto...@ix.netcom.com [Serenity]
> wrote...
> >Dan wrote:
>
> >> Hi Nokosugi
> >> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being told
> >> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race came
> >> form the pond?
>
> What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
> You mean abiogenesis?
Get real. School textbooks are the subject matter. You know, the "lie" kids are
being taught ;-)
> >> Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
> >> other possibilities?
>
> Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
> at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
Nonesense.
> >> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> >> bits of matter in the known universe,
>
> That's rather a silly thing to say.
It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more than six
feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an
inch in diameter.
> >> it would seem logical to believe that
> >> organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and
> >> those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of
> >> evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
>
> Nope. Chromosome numbers can and do go either up or down during the
> course of evolution. There's a lot of both. Biologists understand
> this, and study the processes involved. And this has nothing to do
> with the overall "complexity" of the genome or chromatin [although
> polyploidy does increase its overall amount by duplicating whole
> chromosome sets]. Is the same amount of stuff in one big jar less
> complex than if it was packaged in two or more smaller jars?
But, this is not what is taught in schools to kids.
{snipped the rest of the post to avoid repeating the above saying}
Regards,
Sherwood
David Jensen
Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
>I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>organic soup.
The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who
understands the Bible. You may believe that the earth was created
recently, but there is no scientific evidence for that belief.
>The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't answer
>the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The religion of
>evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
>Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to say,
>"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>unscientific God.
The vast majority of Christians who not agree with that heretical
statement.
Serenity
Boikat wrote:
> Serenity wrote:
>
> > The religion of
> > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
> > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
>
> You are making the same mistake I did in the third grade. You are confusing science
> and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no science.
Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
> > It encourages youngsters to say,
> > "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> > unscientific God.
> >
>
> So, you are under the impressing that the only thing to keep "kids in line" is to
> have them indoctrinated into a religion that threatens them with "eternal
> damnation", rather than simply point out that they will at the very least be held
> accountable by their fellow classmates (or society)? Why not just tell them from an
> early
> age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man" will get them? Same principle
> applies.
No, that is not it. I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be taught in
schools. I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools, teaches that,
"God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a unscientific
God." You don't need a god to teach religion; Just ask a Buddhist.
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
Aron-Ra wrote:
> Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
> inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
> project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason
is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and
other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion
pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear
or read phrases such as, "When man evolved from the lower animals," or,
"Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans." Thus, people are
conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes
unnoticed.
When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and
imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to
contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on the
Religion of Evolution's behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large
numbers of people.
You don't need a god to teach a religion; just ask a Buddhist.
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
seaotter wrote:
The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy" of
so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
created us.
Regards,
Sherwood
Adam Marczyk
>
>
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > Serenity wrote:
> >
> > > The religion of
> > > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
> > > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> >
> > You are making the same mistake I did in the third grade. You are
confusing science
> > and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no
science.
>
> Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
And Christianity is the religion of people who hate Allah! See, I can make
nonsensical empty assertions too. What sort of assumptions did you have in
mind? Any particular ones you'd care to challenge, or are you just blowing
smoke again?
> > > It encourages youngsters to say,
> > > "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to
such a
> > > unscientific God.
> > >
> >
> > So, you are under the impressing that the only thing to keep "kids in
line" is to
> > have them indoctrinated into a religion that threatens them with
"eternal
> > damnation", rather than simply point out that they will at the very
least be held
> > accountable by their fellow classmates (or society)? Why not just tell
them from an
> > early
> > age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man" will get them? Same
principle
> > applies.
>
> No, that is not it. I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be
taught in
> schools. I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools,
teaches that,
> "God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a
unscientific
> God."
It really is a shame that you can't tell the difference between atheism and
something which fails to support your own ridiculously narrow-minded reading
of Genesis. Do you believe the heretical spherical-earth theory, which
clearly runs counter to the Biblically inspired view of the earth as a flat,
fixed plane, denies God too?
www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/atheistevo.html
[snip]
Dick C.
<3ABCFA74...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
>
>Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
>> inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt
>> to project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One
> reason
Evidence. There is a lot for evolution, including observations of
evolution occurring. there is none for creationism.
>is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science
>textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint.
What viewpoint is that?
The student
>is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments
>against Religion of Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in
>school textbooks
Please tell us what this so called religion of evolution is. Where
we can go to worship, where its god is. What religious rites are
practiced.
snip more ignorant ranting.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
seaotter
> so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
> created us.
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
Again evolution is an explanation based on observations, which pretty much
takes out of the faith category. It certainly could be wrong, although all
the evidence so far supports the concept, but it isn't based on faith. I can
assure you that I have no such motive for my acceptance of evolution. I base
all my beliefs on evidence. I don't see any evidence that this "One" exists
much less created me.
seaotter
Serenity
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3ABCF7A5...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
>
> And Christianity is the religion of people who hate Allah! See, I can make
> nonsensical empty assertions too. What sort of assumptions did you have in
> mind? Any particular ones you'd care to challenge, or are you just blowing
> smoke again?
You're the one blowing the smoke pipe of fanciful transition links. Your
evolutionist religious beliefs are seen in the statement made by you below.
> It really is a shame that you can't tell the difference between atheism and
> something which fails to support your own ridiculously narrow-minded reading
> of Genesis. Do you believe the heretical spherical-earth theory, which clearly
> runs counter to the Biblically inspired view of the earth as a flat, fixed
> plane, denies God too?
Huh. The bible does not claim the earth is flat. Men claimed such things
"about the bible" in their ignorance. The bible made no such claim.
From outer space, the earth is circular. This is what the bible states. You
can nitpick all you "wish" about the known fact that it is a "sphere" but within
any given moment of the sphere, it is seen as circular.
Isaiah 40:21-23
Do you people not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told to you from the
outset? Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth?
22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in
which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a
fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, 23 the One who
is reducing high officials to nothing, who has made the very judges of the earth
as a mere unreality.
Job 26:7
He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing.
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
seaotter wrote:
Ah, so that gives you the go ahead to blindly accept the fantasy of transitional
links.
Regards,
Sherwood
seaotter
transitional
> links.
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
What are you on about? Transitional links?
seaotter
Tom
Serenity stated..."
>
>
>
>Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
>> inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
>> project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason
>is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
>nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
>ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
>Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
In response to Aron-Ra's comment about "evolution is not a
religion" and that to say it is, is an attempt an inflaming passion ...
what do we get?
This blatant attempt to inflame passions, repetitions of the
slogan "Religion of Evolution", and no attempt to back it up. (We have
gone around about this enough that it shouldn't be necessary to point
out once again that there are plenty of people who have faith in their
Creator and also accept the evidence for evolution.)
Aron-Ra should thank you for giving further confirmation for
his comments on this.
Tom
Boikat
and alt.religion.jehovahs-witn removed.
Serenity wrote:
>
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > Serenity wrote:
> >
> > > The religion of
> > > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
> > > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> >
> > You are making the same mistake I did in the third grade. You are confusing science
> > and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no science.
>
> Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
I suppose you can provide an example of this
"blind faith assumption"?
>
> > > It encourages youngsters to say,
> > > "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> > > unscientific God.
> > >
> >
> > So, you are under the impressing that the only thing to keep "kids in line" is to
> > have them indoctrinated into a religion that threatens them with "eternal
> > damnation", rather than simply point out that they will at the very least be held
> > accountable by their fellow classmates (or society)? Why not just tell them from an
> > early
> > age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man" will get them? Same principle
> > applies.
>
> No, that is not it.
Yes it is. It's exactly the same thing.
> I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be taught in
> schools.
Good thing it's not. Your incorrect claim that
evolution is a religion, not withstanding.
> I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools, teaches that,
Evolution is not a religion. That makes your
"point" moot.
> "God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a unscientific
> God."
Please provide a citation from a text book,
currently in use, that makes this statement.
> You don't need a god to teach religion; Just ask a Buddhist.
So, you agree that god is of equal standing as the
boogie man, does not exist, yet you want to claim
that teaching biological evolution eliminates the
need to fear being answerable to this nonexistent
god. Did you have a *logical* point to make, or
were you just making rhetorical noise?
Boikat
Boikat
and alt.religion.jehovahs-witn removed.
Serenity wrote:
>
How does your imagined lack of transitionals cause
one to 'evade responsibility' to the boogie man,
Jabbers Jr?
Boikat
Ashland Henderson
>
>
> mel turner wrote:
>
> > In article <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>, skto...@ix.netcom.com
[Serenity]
> > wrote...
> > >Dan wrote:
> >
> > >> Hi Nokosugi
> > >> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we
being told
> > >> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human
race came
> > >> form the pond?
> >
> > What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
> > You mean abiogenesis?
>
> Get real. School textbooks are the subject matter. You know, the "lie"
kids are
> being taught ;-)
It certainly appears that you were taught some lies. But not
in high school science class.
> > >> Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
> > >> other possibilities?
> >
> > Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
> > at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
>
> Nonesense.
Perhaps you would care to mention some actual science
in "creation science." We'd all be interested since we've
never really seen any yet.
> > >> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> > >> bits of matter in the known universe,
> >
> > That's rather a silly thing to say.
>
> It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more
than six
> feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four
ten-thousandths of an
> inch in diameter.
So. How much real chemistry do you know?
> > >> it would seem logical to believe that
> > >> organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to
evolve and
> > >> those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of
years of
> > >> evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
> >
> > Nope. Chromosome numbers can and do go either up or down during the
> > course of evolution. There's a lot of both. Biologists understand
> > this, and study the processes involved. And this has nothing to do
> > with the overall "complexity" of the genome or chromatin [although
> > polyploidy does increase its overall amount by duplicating whole
> > chromosome sets]. Is the same amount of stuff in one big jar less
> > complex than if it was packaged in two or more smaller jars?
>
> But, this is not what is taught in schools to kids.
Everything known in all it's complexity is not taught to high school
students. A good basic knowledge course does not include overwhelming
masses of explanation about how things work. A through education in
even part of biology will take you through your PhD, and even then you
will be just starting. High school physics courses don't generally teach
you too much about quantum mechanics either.
Adam Marczyk
>
>
> seaotter wrote:
>
> > > The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy"
of
> > > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One
who
> > > created us.
> >
much
> > takes out of the faith category. It certainly could be wrong, although
all the
> > evidence so far supports the concept, but it isn't based on faith. I can
> > assure you that I have no such motive for my acceptance of evolution. I
base
> > all my beliefs on evidence. I don't see any evidence that this "One"
exists
> > much less created me.
>
> Ah, so that gives you the go ahead to blindly accept the fantasy of
transitional
> links.
Oh, good, he's descending into "is not, is not." The last refuge of the
desperate creationist. Did you ever answer my challenge to present even one
scrap of positive evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o. FAQ
on transitional fossils, pick out an example or two and explain why it's not
transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what you _would_ accept as a
transitional fossil. Any answer containing something more substantive than
your usual content-free rhetoric will do.
Serenity
David Jensen wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2001 04:19:30 -0500, in talk.origins
> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
> >life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
> >organic soup.
>
> The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who understands the
> Bible. You may believe that the earth was created recently, but there is no
> scientific evidence for that belief.
I don't believe the "earth" was created recently. I believe Man was created around
six thousand years ago. The Seven Days of creation were mentioned in Genesis,
however, we are "still" in the Seventh Day,, when God Rested. This means, other
Days of Creation are viewed from God's standpoint of a Creation Day with a evening
and morning. God has not revealed the "length" of such a CreationDay in the bible
with a evening and morning. The bible is not a textbook of Science, but what is
reveals about Creation is true. Current "facts" reveal the bible to be accurate.
Hebrews 4:1-5
4 Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into his rest, let us fear that
sometime someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it. 2 For we have had the
good news declared to us also, even as they also had; but the word which was heard
did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who did hear.
3 For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: "So I
swore in my anger, 'They shall not enter into my rest,'" although his works were
finished from the founding of the world. 4 For in one place he has said of the
seventh day as follows: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works," 5 and
again in this place: "They shall not enter into my rest."
Genesis 2:1-3
2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And
by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he
proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God
proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been
resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Notice the usual content-free rhetoric of Adam Marczyk. (works both ways, don't
it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
Regards,
Sherwood
Aron-Ra
>
>
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
> > inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
> > project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One
reason
> is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school.
I started out in a church primary school. I was never taught religion in
any public school system I ever attended until I specifically took that
class in college.
And you really should explain how you think evolution is a religion.
Whatever your motive is, it is incorrect.
> Science textbooks
> nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint.
In biology, it is somewhat difficult not too. Especially since there is no
viable alternative. In all other aspects of scientific study, evolution is
irrelevant.
> The student is rarely, if
> ever, exposed to opposing arguments.
What country do you live in again? MY children face Christian creationist
indoctrination at every turn. Many teachers make boldly biased statements
against evolution in class, (if it is ever mentioned at all) and indeed in
the either my case or my daughter's was never brought up. There is the
issue of vouchers of course, but what I find most offensive is the other
students passing out Chick tracts to my kids in the hallways and classrooms
where thier supposed to be learning about reality for the betterment of
mankind. Jack Chick don't know Jack Shit about either of those concepts.
All of our neighbors are fundamentalist zealots as are most of the assorted
relatives. Every set of grandparents coming from a different creationist
perspective, (Mormon, Baptist, Pentacostal, & "none-denominational"
fundamentalist) all inclined to believe that the others are going to Hell.
God is drummed into kids in this country so badly that my 13 year-old
daughter actually thought that a soul was element of biology that was
studied in medical school! She is constantly assaulted by deceitful
programming that intentionally lies about government conspiracies to hide
Adam's coffin in "the bowels of the Smithsonian Institution" and other such
preposterous televised bullshit as "Miracle Pets" and all of the other
brain-dead programming there is in this nation.
My daughter wouldn't know anything at all about evolution if I hadn't
finally gotten fed up with everyone automatically assuming that God exists
the same way they accepted Santa Clause.
> In fact, arguments against Religion of
> Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
Do by all means list any and all arguments against evolution. And your book
of re-written pagan myths does not count as a scientific argument.
> Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science
and
> other fields such as history and philosophy.
When you discover the truth. Everything just tends to fall into place that
way. The fact that absolutley everything in the entire universe without
exeption either allows for or directly supports evolution is a good reason
to suspect that it is probably correct. Especially since the few other
theories ever presented have each been refuted into oblivion by a dearth of
supportive evidence and mountains of evidence to the contrary. *All* you
have and all you ever will have is a 3,000 year-old book of fables that is
in turn based on a 5,000 year-old book of pagan fables.
> Books, magazine articles, motion
> pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact.
Which seems fairly appropriate. When I see footprints on the beach, I
consider it a fact that someone walked there. It is about the same thing in
this case.
> Often we hear
> or read phrases such as, "When man evolved from the lower animals," or,
> "Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans." Thus, people
are
> conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes
> unnoticed.
No. Never accept anything as fact without a challenge! That sort of
cognizant handicap leads to religion. Question all assumptions or assume
nothing with profound evidenciary support.
> When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact,
and
> imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are
going to
> contradict them?
Approximately 46% of the United States current population.
Incedentally I am a also layman. I challenged them. I did research. I
learned. Then I started high school.
> This weight of authority that is brought to bear on the
> Religion of Evolution's behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by
large
> numbers of people.
No matter how often you chant "evolution is a religion", it will never be
so. Evolution is a biological process that is and always has been observed,
confirmed, and even employed at various levels throughout biology.
Evolutionary Theory is the study of the observed process and the weight of
its authority was acheived by it being among the most solidly supported of
all scientific precepts in history.
> You don't need a god to teach a religion; just ask a Buddhist.
Umm. The Buddhists have a god. It is the Dharma. I was a Buddhist for the
last ten years of my life. Check the archives of my posts if you don't
believe me.
You can't be right about anything, can you?
Aron-Ra
Gromit
Serenity wrote:
>
> David Jensen wrote:
>
>
>> On 24 Mar 2001 04:19:30 -0500, in talk.origins
>> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>>
>>> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>>> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>>> organic soup.
>>
>> The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who understands the
>> Bible. You may believe that the earth was created recently, but there is no
>> scientific evidence for that belief.
>
>
> I don't believe the "earth" was created recently. I believe Man was created around
> six thousand years ago. The Seven Days of creation were mentioned in Genesis,
Why? How do you define "man"? And why was he created 6000 years ago?
What evidence for this exists?
> however, we are "still" in the Seventh Day,, when God Rested. This means, other
> Days of Creation are viewed from God's standpoint of a Creation Day with a evening
> and morning. God has not revealed the "length" of such a CreationDay in the bible
> with a evening and morning. The bible is not a textbook of Science, but what is
> reveals about Creation is true. Current "facts" reveal the bible to be accurate.
Of course it is 'accurate', since it is not a science book one can
dismiss certain inconsistencies quite easily.
Aron-Ra
Are you by chance referring to these?
Transitional species
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://members.aol.com/ps418/tran.htm
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/evo-creation/evo-vs-creation1a.shtml#se
ction1
==========================
Proto-whales of the Eocene
Basilosaurus
http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/Basilosaurus1.html
"Zeuglodon"
http://www.unmuseum.mus.pa.us/zeuglodo.htm
===============================
Cretaceous Snakes with legs:
Haasiophis terrasanctus
http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/20000317/animals_snakes.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/50084_SNAKELEGS17.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_680000/680116.stm
Pachyrhachis problematicus
http://www.ngnews.com/news/1999/12/121799/snakelegs_8255.asp
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2000/032000snake/
=========================
Feathered dinosaurs http://dannsdinosaurs.terrashare.com/featdino.html
Archaeopteryx lithographica 150mya
http://members.gotnet.net/maier/Dinosaurs/Archaeopteryxlithographica.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.weigert-fossil.de/html/primal-bird.html
Sinosauropteryx prima 121 - 135 mya
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey/html/sinos256.htm
Protarchaeopteryx robusta 121 - 135 mya
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Protarchaeopteryx.
shtml
Skeptical dissertation regarding Protarchaeopteryx
http://www.theness.com/css2.html
Caudipteryx zoui 121 - 135 mya
http://www.terribleclaw.com/dinosaurs/caudipteryx.html
Shuvuuia deserti
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/amnh-sobastbdb.html
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus
http://www.adi.co.uk/~luisrey/html/chinese.htm
Sinornithosaurus millennii
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/dinorama/feathered.html
Microraptor zhaoianus 124 mya
http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999244
Protopteryx fengningensis 120 mya
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/dinosaur_bird001207.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns226939
Rahona ostromi 70 mya
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/dinobird0317.html
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis
http://www.foxnews.com/science/040700/dinosaur.sml
Archaeoraptor contraversy
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/fossil_hoax.htm
Hoatzin
http://montereybay.com/creagrus/hoatzin.html
=================================
Transitionals between fish and amphibeans
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html
Panderichthys
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/biosphere/vertebrates/rhipidistia/Panderichth
yida.html
Unnamed fish developing "fingers" amid its rays.
http://www.acnatsci.org/news/tedsfish/fin.html
Sauripteris
http://www.museum.nrc.gamagori.aichi.jp/interfa/ATLASE/CROSSO.HTM
Liviana
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/missinglink_transcript.shtml
Acanthostega Gunnari
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/acanthostega/a
canthostega.html
http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html
http://www.personal.u-net.com/~paleomod/p97/g-aca.htm
Ichthyostega
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/ichthyostega/i
chthyostega.html
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/re-ichthyostega.html
Salamanders with gills and other distinctively "fish" features
http://homepage.eircom.net/~axolotl/
Salamanders without lungs
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
Fish with lungs (including amphibian "fish"
http://www.neosys.ne.jp/neo/english/HG01.html
Walking catfish
http://www.nrm.se/ve/pisces/clarias.shtml.en
===============================
Proto-mammals
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1636/synapsida/therapsida.html
(pay particular attention to the numurous intermediates identified here
between therapsida and mammalia)
Sinoconodon / Megazostrodon
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/c.sinoc.html
Thrinaxodon
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/biosphere/vertebrates/therapsida/Theriodontia
..htm
Therapsida
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/biosphere/vertebrates/therapsida/Therapsida.h
tm
Procynosuchus delahayi.
http://www.personal.u-net.com/~paleomod/p97/g-procy.htm
Cynodonts
http://www.triplej.net.au/dinosaurs/fact_files/dried/cynodont.htm
Lystrosaurus and Thrinaxodon
http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses/v1001/dinoorig9.html
Cynognathus
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/c.cyno.html
Moschops
http://www.familia.cl/familia/animales/dino/moschops.asp
http://faculty.uca.edu/ben.waggoner/biol4402/lecture13/sld016.htm
And finally, a illustration of Clades.
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/mammalia/prima
tes/hominidae/homo/homo.html
Click the <<== links on the left to review parent taxa.
Or go the other way, beginning here:
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/life.html#TOC2
Follow Eukaryotes, Animals, Chordata, Craniata, vertebrates, Gnathostomata,
Sarcopterygii, Terrestrial vertebrates, Amniota, Synapsida, Therapsida,
Mammalia, Eutheria, Primates, Catarrhini, and Hominidae to Homo. This will
give an indication of how many infinitesimally gradual intermediate steps
there are from cell to man.
================================
Transitional vertibrates
Conodonts
http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v8.html
Vendian period of the Protoazoic Era
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
The Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era
http://www.phacops.com/cambrianperiod.html
Sinoconodon / Megazostrodon
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/c.sinoc.html
Thrinaxodon
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/biosphere/vertebrates/therapsida/Theriodontia
..htm
Therapsida
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/biosphere/vertebrates/therapsida/Therapsida.h
tm
By all means, do not let me be blind. Do show me with your blinding sight
*exactly* how each one of these exists only in fantasy.
If you want to wimp out, then I dare you, nay DEFY you to present an
argument against the reality of any one of these. EVEN archoraptor.
Refusal to do may be paramount to blinding yourself and maintaining willful
ignorance, which are synonemous aren/t they?
I would hate to believe in something that didn't even exist. And I refuse
to blindly accept anything at all ever.
So do get back to me on these, would you?
I'll be away for awhile. If you want an immediate response, it may have to
be via email.
Aron-Ra
Gromit
>
>
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
> > Notice the usual content-free rhetoric of Adam Marczyk. (works both ways, don't
> it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
> transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
>
Does that mean that the content free rethoric seen in some of your postings shows your blind faith as well?
But you are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence.
Why is that?
Gromit
>
>
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> > Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ABCF7A5...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > > Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
> >
> > And Christianity is the religion of people who hate Allah! See, I can make
> > nonsensical empty assertions too. What sort of assumptions did you have in
> > mind? Any particular ones you'd care to challenge, or are you just blowing
> > smoke again?
>
> You're the one blowing the smoke pipe of fanciful transition links. Your
> evolutionist religious beliefs are seen in the statement made by you below.
>
What particular about the known transitional links do you not like?
>
> > It really is a shame that you can't tell the difference between atheism and
> > something which fails to support your own ridiculously narrow-minded reading
> > of Genesis. Do you believe the heretical spherical-earth theory, which clearly
> > runs counter to the Biblically inspired view of the earth as a flat, fixed
> > plane, denies God too?
>
> Huh. The bible does not claim the earth is flat. Men claimed such things
> "about the bible" in their ignorance. The bible made no such claim.
Men make many ignorant claims "about the Bible". Do you think you are immune from such errors?
Gromit
Shame on you for suggesting that his acceptance is blindly. Especially given his response.
May God have Mercy
Oh btw if you are looking for some evidence of these links and are willing/able to address them, let me know.
Gromit
> > >evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
> > Higher
> > >Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> > >Serenity
> >
> > As one of those indoctrinators I find your questioning of faith disturbing.
> > Really your story leaves out a crucial piece of information. Did your high
> > school teacher not teach you the scientific method? At the root of all
> > science is questioning of every description and explanation.
>
> so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
> created us.
I guess you are unwilling to address why these links are fantasy?
Well?
Gromit
>
>
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
> > inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
> > project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason
Why do people accept creation AND evolution>
> is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
Never heard of the Religion of Evolution. More fanciful imagination?
> nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
> ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
There are no opposing scientific arguments.
> Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
Because they are religious.
> Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and
> other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion
> pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear
> or read phrases such as, "When man evolved from the lower animals," or,
> "Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans." Thus, people are
> conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes
> unnoticed.
It's a fact.
Gromit
>
>
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > Serenity wrote:
> >
> > > The religion of
> > > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
> > > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> >
> > You are making the same mistake I did in the third grade. You are confusing science
> > and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no science.
>
> Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
Please support your assumption. Or is a blind one?
Gromit
>
>
> mel turner wrote:
>
> > In article <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>, skto...@ix.netcom.com [Serenity]
> > wrote...
> > >Dan wrote:
> >
> > >> Hi Nokosugi
> > >> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being told
> > >> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race came
> > >> form the pond?
> >
> > What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
> > You mean abiogenesis?
>
> Get real. School textbooks are the subject matter. You know, the "lie" kids are
> being taught ;-)
>
Such as that evolution is not supported by facts ;-)
>
> > >> Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
> > >> other possibilities?
> >
> > Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
> > at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
>
> Nonesense.
Examples please.
>
>
> > >> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> > >> bits of matter in the known universe,
> >
> > That's rather a silly thing to say.
>
> It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more than six
> feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an
> inch in diameter.
>
What's this nonsense? Please support this with some data. Please....
Gromit
'We need no stinkin' evidence'. Let's not confuse our religious friends with such things as science.
> ...htm
> ...htm
Adam Marczyk
Since you seem to have dodged my questions, I'll just repeat them.
Did you ever answer my challenge to present even one scrap of positive
evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o. FAQ on transitional
fossils (conveniently located at
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), pick out an example or
two and explain why it's not transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what
you _would_ accept as a transitional fossil.
--
Adam Marczyk
>
>
> David Jensen wrote:
>
> > On 24 Mar 2001 04:19:30 -0500, in talk.origins
> > Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> > <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
> >
> > >I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the
"origins of
> > >life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from
an
> > >organic soup.
> >
> > The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who
understands the
> > Bible. You may believe that the earth was created recently, but there is
no
> > scientific evidence for that belief.
>
> I don't believe the "earth" was created recently. I believe Man was
created around
> six thousand years ago.
Unfortunately, radiometric dating (which you seem to accept in other
instances, if you accept that the earth is billions of years old) shows this
statement to be erroneous. Next.
> The Seven Days of creation were mentioned in Genesis,
> however, we are "still" in the Seventh Day,, when God Rested. This
means, other
> Days of Creation are viewed from God's standpoint of a Creation Day with a
evening
> and morning. God has not revealed the "length" of such a CreationDay in
the bible
> with a evening and morning. The bible is not a textbook of Science, but
what is
> reveals about Creation is true. Current "facts" reveal the bible to be
accurate.
Like when Mir crashed into that solid firmament covering the earth, right?
Or when we found flowering plants in the fossil record before land animals?
Or when we found evidence for a global flood? Oops - none of those things
ever happened.
[snip]
Serenity
Aron-Ra wrote:
> > You don't need a god to teach a religion; just ask a Buddhist.
>
> Umm. The Buddhists have a god. It is the Dharma. I was a Buddhist for the
> last ten years of my life. Check the archives of my posts if you don't
> believe me.
>
> You can't be right about anything, can you?
I'll take that implied insult as having little importance from such a
"intellectually dishonest" or ignorant former Buddhist.
"Buddhism teaches the way to perfect goodness and wisdom without a personal
God; the highest knowledge without a 'revelation';.... the possibility of
redemption without a vicarious redeemer, a salvation in which everyone is his
own saviour." The Message of Buddhism, by the Bhikkhu Subhadra, as quoted in
"What Is Buddhism?"
Then are Buddhists atheists? The book What Is Buddhism? published by the
Buddhist Lodge, London, answers: "If by atheist you mean one who rejects the
concept of a personal God, we are." Then it goes on to say: "A growing mind can
as easily digest the idea of a Universe guided by unswerving Law, as it can the
concept of a distant Personage that it may never see, who dwells it knows not
where, and who has at some time created out of nothing a Universe which is
permeated by enmity, injustice, inequality of opportunity, and endless suffering
and strife."
Thus, in theory, Buddhism does not advocate belief in God or a Creator.
However, Buddhist temples and stupas are found today in nearly every country
where Buddhism is practiced, and images and relics of Buddhas and bodhisattvas
have become objects of prayers, offerings, and devotion by devout Buddhists.
The Buddha, who never claimed to be God, has become a god in every sense of the
word."
Regarding Gautama, the Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions observes, "The
'biographies' are both late in origin and replete with legendary and mythical
material, and the oldest canonical texts are the products of a long process of
oral transmission that evidently included some revision and much addition." One
scholar even "contended that not a single word of the recorded teaching can be
ascribed with unqualified certainty to Gautama himself." Similar blind faith
seen in the Evolution Religion.
Having attained enlightenment, and after overcoming some initial hesitation,
the Buddha set forth to teach his newfound truth, his dharma, to others. His
first and probably most important sermon was given in the city of Benares, in a
deer park, to five bhikkus--disciples or monks. In it, he taught that to be
saved, one must avoid both the course of sensual indulgence and that of
asceticism and follow the Middle Way. Then, one must understand and follow the
Four Noble Truths, which can briefly be summarized as follows:
(1) All existence is suffering.
(2) Suffering arises from desire or craving.
(3) Cessation of desire means the end of suffering.
(4) Cessation of desire is achieved by following the Eightfold Path, controlling
one's conduct, thinking, and belief.
This sermon on the Middle Way and on the Four Noble Truths embodies the
essence of the Enlightenment and is considered the epitome of all the Buddha's
teaching. (In contrast, compare Matthew 6:25-34; 1 Timothy 6:17-19; James
4:1-3; 1 John 2:15-17.) Gautama claimed no divine inspiration for this sermon
but credited himself with the words "discovered by the Tathagata." It is said
that on his deathbed, the Buddha told his disciples: "Seek salvation alone in
the truth; look not for assistance to anyone besides yourself." Thus, according
to the Buddha, enlightenment comes, not from God, but from personal effort in
developing right thinking and good deeds.
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
Gromit wrote:
Your content free rhetoric provided nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
transitional links. (is this the best argument Evolutionist can come up with, sheeesh)
Regards,
Sherwood
Serenity
Gromit wrote:
I guess you are unwilling to address why the root of the evolutionist blind faith
is to concoct the "fantasy" of so-called transitional links, so as to evade
responsibility to the One who created us?
Well?
Regards,
Sherwood
Gromit
So we are both guilty of context free rethoric. But others have provided you with links of transitionals and correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen you address them in any scientific manner.
It seems that you are not only guilty of content free rethoric but also of jumping to conclusions that were not supported by evidence. In the mean time evolution and the quoted transitional links seem
to remain unassailed.
Care to try again and explain your jumping to conclusions, content free posting and unfamiliarity with the facts?
Gromit
It's obvious that you are unable/unwilling to address why these links are a fantasy. As a Christian I consider these links hardly a fantasy but perhaps you can point out what's wrong with them?
Looking forward to your avoidance or confrontation of these facts.
A fellow Christian.
Gromit
> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Adam Marczyk wrote:
snip
> > Notice the usual content-free rhetoric of Adam Marczyk. (works both ways,
> don't
> > it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
> > transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
>
> Since you seem to have dodged my questions, I'll just repeat them.
>
> Did you ever answer my challenge to present even one scrap of positive
> evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o. FAQ on transitional
> fossils (conveniently located at
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), pick out an example or
> two and explain why it's not transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what
> you _would_ accept as a transitional fossil.
>
Hardly context free. So how will Serenity respond? We shall see
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>Boikat wrote:
>
>> Serenity wrote:
>>
>> > The religion of
>> > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable Higher
>> > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
>>
>> You are making the same mistake I did in the third grade. You are confusing science
>> and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no science.
>
>Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
really? laboratory sciences are based on blind faith?
then why does your computer work? its based on the lab science of
quantum mechanics.
Why not just tell them from an
>> early
>> age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man" will get them? Same principle
>> applies.
>
>No, that is not it. I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be taught in
>schools. I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools, teaches that,
>"God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a unscientific
>God." You don't need a god to teach religion; Just ask a Buddhist.
>
evolution, like chemistry or physics, says nothing about god at all.
you want it to...thats part of your religion, not a falsification of
science.
there is a difference.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
>> inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
>> project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead?
uh, because the former is magic and the latter science??? go figure
One reason
>is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
>nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint.
yeah just like chemistry classes dont teach alchemy or astronomy
classes dont teach astrology. creationism is as scientific as
astrology.
>
>Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and
>other fields such as history and philosophy.
whatever this means. science works. creationism does not. creationism
is a failure. it explains nothing at all. no creationist explanation,
in the entire history of the human race, has explained any fact about
the physical world.
ever.
>
> When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and
>imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to
>contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on the
>Religion of Evolution's behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large
>numbers of people.
it is the ignorant who refuse to accept evolution. thats your problem.
>\
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>seaotter wrote:
>
>> The religion of
>> >evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
>> Higher
>> >Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
>> >Serenity
>>
>> As one of those indoctrinators I find your questioning of faith disturbing.
>> Really your story leaves out a crucial piece of information. Did your high
>> school teacher not teach you the scientific method? At the root of all
>> science is questioning of every description and explanation.
>
>The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy" of
>so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
>created us.
really? how did he 'create' us? if you cant tell us, its not science.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2001 04:19:30 -0500, in talk.origins
>> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>> >I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>> >life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>> >organic soup.
>>
>> The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who understands the
>> Bible. You may believe that the earth was created recently, but there is no
>> scientific evidence for that belief.
>
>I don't believe the "earth" was created recently. I believe Man was created around
>six thousand years ago. The Seven Days of creation were mentioned in Genesis,
actually its an interpretation that the 7 days are literal. theres no
support in the bible for a literal interpretation at all. this is
unbiblical.
>however, we are "still" in the Seventh Day,, when God Rested. This means, other
>Days of Creation are viewed from God's standpoint of a Creation Day with a evening
>and morning. God has not revealed the "length" of such a CreationDay in the bible
>with a evening and morning. The bible is not a textbook of Science, but what is
>reveals about Creation is true. Current "facts" reveal the bible to be accurate.
what current 'facts'? if you say science is wrong, then the facts are
wrong, and they cant be used to support creationism.
>
Serenity
Aron-Ra wrote:
> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3ABD0873...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> > Ah, so that gives you the go ahead to blindly accept the fantasy of
> transitional
> > links.
>
> Are you by chance referring to these?
>
> Transitional species
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
I hope you will give me latitude to only address the above referenced link, as
it is a perceived extension of talk.origins. It would be most time consuming to
address every link individually, not to mention it would have the entertainment
value of reading the dictionary. All quotes are "snipped" from this link except
where I personally interject my sentiments by using the symbol ()*()
So then, what can one interject about the so-called evidence found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so
fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know
which
jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
()*() but let's concoct the evidence ()*()
Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor
can't be identified.
()*() but lets "assume" it's reality for science sake ()*()
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on
the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land
()*() notice the word "seems to have developed." So this is not observable
evidence, but fanciful speculation ()*()
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late
Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
()*() so keep in mind "the fantasy of evolution" based on fragments, but
presented as observable evidence ()*()
In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were
probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout
life
()*() Another fanciful theory based off fragments? LOL! ()*()
OK, THAT'S IT. I need to catch my breath from such a golly good time reading
this hype. I bought the DVD Dune which at least professes to be what it real
is, Science Fiction. I'll be back after watching that for a spell.
Regards,
Sherwood
Robert Carroll
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Hi Nokosugi
> > That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being
told
> > that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race
came
examining
> > other possibilities? I find this to be a dumbing down of our educational
> > potential. The word science = knowledge, a more expanded meaning is,
> > knowledge learned by observation and experimentation.
> >
> > The Theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more
complex
> > as time progresses. Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most
complex
> > bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to believe
that
> > organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve
and
> > those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years
of
> > evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. If
life
> > started off like mold or penicillin with only 2 chromosomes and slowly
evolved
> > into a fruit Fly with 8 chromosomes and so on as a honeybee with 16
> > chromosomes. At some point live continued to evolve into a carrot at 20
at
> > chromosomes and so on until we reach the human stage with 46
chromosomes.
> >
> > Using this logic if we are allowed to 'continue evolving' we may someday
> > become a tobacco plant with 48 chromosomes or a cow with 60 chromosomes,
> > maybe we could end as advanced as a carp with 100 chromosomes, or the
ultimate
> > life form the fern with 480 chromosomes!
> >
> > In an answer to your first question I'm not going to turn off my brain
and
> > accept something if it does not add up or come to any logical
conclusion. I
> > remember failing a test in high school because the question read
"describe the
> > origin of the universe." Explained that I did not believe the facts in
the
> > text book were correct nor did it represent all the possible theories,
and
> > based on the evidence I have seen nobody was there when it happened. The
> > universe continues to show that there is a common design to everything
and
> > that brings me back to "God said let there be. and it was." I got that
> > question wrong and the correct answer was "a Big Bang." This is
indoctrination
> > of a religion, the "religion of evolution."
> >
> > All My Best
> > Dan Davis
>
> Touché!
>
> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins
of
> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
answer
> the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The
religion of
> evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
say,
> "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
> unscientific God.
Um, let's see. Your teacher in a Catholic HS led you to believe that God had
nothing to do with how life on earth has developed. Is it possible that
you may have misinterpreted this teacher?
Bob
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
>
>
Null A.N.D. Void
>No, that is not it. I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be taught in
>schools. I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools, teaches that,
>"God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a unscientific
>God." You don't need a god to teach religion;
Nor do you need religion to teach morality.
Null A.N.D. Void
>Huh. The bible does not claim the earth is flat. Men claimed such things
>"about the bible" in their ignorance. The bible made no such claim.
Remember this line then. For when you can no longer deny evolution,
you'll need it.
Gromit
>
>
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ABD0873...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > > Ah, so that gives you the go ahead to blindly accept the fantasy of
> > transitional
> > > links.
> >
> > Are you by chance referring to these?
> >
> > Transitional species
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
>
> I hope you will give me latitude to only address the above referenced link, as
> it is a perceived extension of talk.origins. It would be most time consuming to
> address every link individually, not to mention it would have the entertainment
> value of reading the dictionary. All quotes are "snipped" from this link except
> where I personally interject my sentiments by using the symbol ()*()
>
> So then, what can one interject about the so-called evidence found at:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
>
> Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays
>
> GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so
> fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know
> which
> jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
>
> ()*() but let's concoct the evidence ()*()
Unsupported by the evidence
> Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
>
> GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor
> can't be identified.
Irrelevant to transitionals
> ()*() but lets "assume" it's reality for science sake ()*()
Nope.
> Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
>
> The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on
> the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land
>
> ()*() notice the word "seems to have developed." So this is not observable
> evidence, but fanciful speculation ()*()
Based on the evidence.
> GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late
> Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
>
> ()*() so keep in mind "the fantasy of evolution" based on fragments, but
> presented as observable evidence ()*()
The only fantasy is in your refusal to address the evidence. Instead you focus on the tentative nature of science. Not very convincing.
> In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from fragments) were
> probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills throughout
> life
>
> ()*() Another fanciful theory based off fragments? LOL! ()*()
>
>
> OK, THAT'S IT. I need to catch my breath from such a golly good time reading
> this hype. I bought the DVD Dune which at least professes to be what it real
> is, Science Fiction. I'll be back after watching that for a spell.
Shame shame shame dear.
Null A.N.D. Void
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead?
First of all, last time I checked, it was about half and half, for USA
anyway, not that Americans are renowned for their intellect. Second,
it is probably true that a great many of the half that accept
evolution do so for the wrong reasons (mainly because somebody with
authority told them so). See, most people are basically stupid and
easily suggestiable. However, whether the general education system
fails (which it does, miserably) or succeeds has nothing to do with
the validity of evolution. See, Theory of Evolution is a very strong
theory and perfectly valid science and that is why there is no
alternative theory, in spite of all the incentive and power the
religious circles have. That the only alternative *myth* the
fundementalists could come up with after two millenia is "Goddidit and
hid the evidence" should be telling to anyone with half a brain.
Null A.N.D. Void
>Adam Marczyk wrote:
>> Oh, good, he's descending into "is not, is not." The last refuge of the
>> desperate creationist. Did you ever answer my challenge to present even one
>> scrap of positive evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o. FAQ
>> on transitional fossils, pick out an example or two and explain why it's not
>> transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what you _would_ accept as a
>> transitional fossil. Any answer containing something more substantive than
>> your usual content-free rhetoric will do.
>Notice the usual content-free rhetoric of Adam Marczyk. (works both ways, don't
>it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
>transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
His wasn't content free: He openly challenged you and gave you an
opportunity. Do you have to be smacked on the face with a glove to see
that? He does not have to prove you anything for you are the one
barging in and claiming that the fossil evidence is bogus (or
something to that effect, since you aren't making any intelligent
statement). If you have a problem with any or all of the fossils he
pointed at, please feel free to explain why and enlighten us. Go
ahead..
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>
of course, sherwood, being a creationist, has a double standard. the
proof for evolution is not 100% perfect. but there is evidence to
support natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. in fact, it
can be duplicated in the lab
creationists have never told us, however, HOW creationism is supposed
to work. they say evolution is false because it cant answer any
questions, then say creationism is TRUE, but it doesnt HAVE to answer
any questions.
Robert Carroll
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:99j3ks$1g6g$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> >
> > > > The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy"
> of
> > > > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the
One
> who
> > > > created us.
> > >
> much
> > > takes out of the faith category. It certainly could be wrong, although
> all the
> > > evidence so far supports the concept, but it isn't based on faith. I
can
> > > assure you that I have no such motive for my acceptance of evolution.
I
> base
> > > all my beliefs on evidence. I don't see any evidence that this "One"
> exists
> > > much less created me.
> >
> transitional
> > links.
>
> desperate creationist. Did you ever answer my challenge to present even
one
> scrap of positive evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o.
FAQ
> on transitional fossils, pick out an example or two and explain why it's
not
> transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what you _would_ accept as a
> transitional fossil. Any answer containing something more substantive than
> your usual content-free rhetoric will do.
Sherwood can't see the forest: the trees are in the way...
Bob
Dan
Your new to the discussion and I will welcome you however what you wrote
needs to be addressed:
> You're not. We _have_ examined other possibilities, and all have
eventually
> collapsed. Creationism _was_ at one time the default paradigm, but it fell
> apart when Darwin came along because evolution explained all the evidence
so
> much better. Evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the
> diversity of life that has consistently been able to explain all the
> evidence we find.
Where is your scientific evidence that the biblical account of the beginning
"fell apart?"
Please show us your facts that you are basing this statement on.
You also wrote:
> And evolution has been observed (both in the form of local variation
> [microevolution] and speciation [macroevolution]), and is very easy to
> experiment with.
OK Adam, I have never heard a creationist say that microevolution can be
seen and occurs yes it happens. For example we can see the many breads of
dogs however we do not see a dog kind become a new kind animal. As for
macroevolution I would like to see your examples of this phenomenon
especially if this is so easy to experiment with.
Maybe you could explain How, when, where and why did
a. Single celled plants become multi-celled?
b. Two and three-celled intermediates evolve?
c. Single-celled animals evolve?
d. Fish become amphibians?
e. Amphibians change into reptiles?
f. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs,
heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc., are all very different!)
Adam you wrote:
>No, it doesn't. It teaches that living things become more adapted to their
> environment as time passes, which may involve either an increase or a
> decrease in complexity.
> Straw man. Mold did not evolve into fruit flies, fruit flies did not
evolve
> into bees, bees did not evolve into carrots and carrots did not evolve
into
> humans. Rather, mold, fruit flies, bees, carrots and humans are all
_modern_
> species, none of them more or less evolved than any other -- each one is
the
> result of four and a half billion years of evolution.
Adam, how do you know this? Where you there? This is my point you cant
explain how something happened so you add the 4.5 millions of years and say
this is science? No my friend this has become you religion. It takes faith!
Please give me the text book your digging this out of because I got my
example from a Junior high school paper that was sent home with my
13-year-old boy last year.
I have read through the web site that you sighted, the examples of the
bluegills is a good example of microevolution. This is my observation here
you have a scientist trying to prove his theory, this is good knowledge by
observation and experimentation. However with all his education and
knowledge he has not been able to get his examples to successfully breed or
reproduce it own kind. He interjects his theory as conclusion of fact never
proving that macroevolution happens. From that same web site I found this
definition “In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer
to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek
meaning "the origin of a branch").”
Adam, You said: “-- but the common ancestor of
> humans and flies or humans and bees was way back in the Cambrian, when
> animal life was just beginning to emerge, and the common ancestor of
humans
> and carrots or humans and mold was likely not even multicellular.
Adam Please show me where in the world does the geological column occurs?
I’ll talk to you latter on,
Dan Davis
Gromit
> Adam
Snip
> You also wrote:
> > And evolution has been observed (both in the form of local variation
> > [microevolution] and speciation [macroevolution]), and is very easy to
> > experiment with.
> OK Adam, I have never heard a creationist say that microevolution can be
> seen and occurs yes it happens. For example we can see the many breads of
> dogs however we do not see a dog kind become a new kind animal. As for
So what prevents microevolution from becoming microevolution?
> macroevolution I would like to see your examples of this phenomenon
> especially if this is so easy to experiment with.
Speciation events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> Maybe you could explain How, when, where and why did
> a. Single celled plants become multi-celled?
"5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation.
He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas
sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial
form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized
at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys.
They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Ibid
> b. Two and three-celled intermediates evolve?
> c. Single-celled animals evolve?
> d. Fish become amphibians?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
> e. Amphibians change into reptiles?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
> f. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs,
> heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc., are all very different!)
So are fish and amphibians why should that be a problem per se?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
> Adam you wrote:
> >No, it doesn't. It teaches that living things become more adapted to their
> > environment as time passes, which may involve either an increase or a
> > decrease in complexity.
>
> > Straw man. Mold did not evolve into fruit flies, fruit flies did not
> evolve
> > into bees, bees did not evolve into carrots and carrots did not evolve
> into
> > humans. Rather, mold, fruit flies, bees, carrots and humans are all
> _modern_
> > species, none of them more or less evolved than any other -- each one is
> the
> > result of four and a half billion years of evolution.
> Adam, how do you know this? Where you there? This is my point you cant
> explain how something happened so you add the 4.5 millions of years and say
> this is science? No my friend this has become you religion. It takes faith!
Not at all. All the available data show indeed that bees did not evolve into carrots. On the contrary, the data show a nested structure.
How do we know that evolution is a fact? Common descent is observed in fossil data, morphology, genetic data, embryology etc.
> Adam, You said: “-- but the common ancestor of
> > humans and flies or humans and bees was way back in the Cambrian, when
> > animal life was just beginning to emerge, and the common ancestor of
> humans
> > and carrots or humans and mold was likely not even multicellular.
> Adam Please show me where in the world does the geological column occurs?
Another creationist strawman.... Geez how hard is it to search the web?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
So much evidence for what some have been saying never exists/existed. I was quite upset as
well when I found out that my religious 'friends' had misled me with creationist 'data'.
David C. Fritzinger
Serenity wrote:
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
> > inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
> > project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason
> is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
> nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
> ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
> Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
>
> Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and
> other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion
> pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear
> or read phrases such as, "When man evolved from the lower animals," or,
> "Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans." Thus, people are
> conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes
> unnoticed.
What contrary evidence? You have yet to present any. Neither has any creationist
I've seen, either on this newsgroup, or any where else.
>
>
> When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and
> imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to
> contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on the
> Religion of Evolution's behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large
> numbers of people.
Gee, there is probably a reason why leading educators and scientists all say
evolution is a fact. It is! Again, look at the evidence. The talk.origins FAQs
would be a good place to start.
Dave Fritzinger
>
>
> You don't need a god to teach a religion; just ask a Buddhist.
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
David C. Fritzinger
Serenity wrote:
Go to the talk.origins FAQs and look for the transitional fossil links. Then, explain why you don't think they
are transitionals. Is that so hard?
Dave Fritzinger
>
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
Pat James
(in message <mqav6.1653$Te.1...@monger.newsread.com>):
>> I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins
>> of
>> life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>> organic soup. The Science teacher told me I would get a "F" if I didn't
>> answer
>> the questions the way they were outline in the school textbook. The
>> religion of
>> evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
>> Higher
>> Learning which is in reality, blind faith. It encourages youngsters to
>> say,
>> "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>> unscientific God.
>
>
> Um, let's see. Your teacher in a Catholic HS led you to believe that God had
> nothing to do with how life on earth has developed. Is it possible that
> you may have misinterpreted this teacher?
quite likely. He's got everything else wrong, after all.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
seaotter
don't
> it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
> transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
>
> Sherwood
The fossil record speaks for itself if that's what your uptight about.
Again, faith is belief in absence of evidence.
seaotter
Adam Marczyk
That would be more of a valid criticism coming from someone who could
present even the smallest scrap of positive evidence for his own side. As it
is, it's just more empty rhetoric. The evidence has not been "concocted" -
the fossils are there whether you like it or not, and they clearly show
transitional characteristics.
> Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
>
> GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual
ancestor
> can't be identified.
>
> ()*() but lets "assume" it's reality for science sake ()*()
That *whoosh* sound is the point sailing over your head. The original common
ancestor diversified into several lineages, one of which led to modern fish.
We don't have a fossil of that actual original common ancestor, but we do
have fossils of the transitions along the way. Go back and read the page
again, and this time employ reading comprehension, and you'll see that.
> Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians
>
> The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud
around on
> the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land
>
> ()*() notice the word "seems to have developed." So this is not
observable
> evidence, but fanciful speculation ()*()
No, it's observable evidence. There are fossils of early tetrapod
transitions, such as Acanthostega, that are indisputably fish with legs.
Equally indisputably, however, the structure and arrangement of the legs
would not have supported the creature's weight on land - they weren't
aligned properly for load-bearing. The only rational conclusion is that legs
evolved before fish-like creatures left the water.
> GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late
> Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
>
> ()*() so keep in mind "the fantasy of evolution" based on fragments, but
> presented as observable evidence ()*()
You sure do like those gaps. Now read what comes before and after it -
Panderichthys and Elpistostege, lobe-finned fish with the proportions of
tetrapods and foot-like fins, and Acanthostega, a fish that very clearly had
feet, respectively. Somehow, I don't think this is too big of a leap. You've
certainly pointed out the gaps where they exist. Now tell us why the fossils
we do have aren't transitional.
> In summary, the very first amphibians (presently known only from
fragments) were
> probably almost totally aquatic, had both lungs and internal gills
throughout
> life
>
> ()*() Another fanciful theory based off fragments? LOL! ()*()
No, based on fossils found of early fish-like tetrapod transitionals in
which the internal gills were preserved. Really, you'd look a lot less
foolish if you learned these things first.
> OK, THAT'S IT. I need to catch my breath from such a golly good time
reading
> this hype. I bought the DVD Dune which at least professes to be what it
real
> is, Science Fiction. I'll be back after watching that for a spell.
Unfortunately, you failed to answer my question. I asked you to pick a few
transitional fossils from the FAQ and explain why they're not really
transitional. You didn't do that. In fact, you didn't address the evidence
at all. You just pointed to the gaps. There are a few, but that doesn't save
you from having to explain the transitional fossils that do exist. IOW,
you're still attempting to avoid having to give any substantive response to
the evidence. I think you're out of your territory. You seem comfortable
with empty rhetoric and God of the Gaps, but you keep dodging the question
when you're asked to actually address the real, physical evidence. Not very
intellectually honest of you.
Here, I'll repeat my three-part challenge yet again, and for the record, you
still haven't attempted to answer it.
1. What is the positive evidence supporting creationism? Note that positive
evidence is not "There isn't any" or "We don't know" or "You might be
wrong," but rather substantive, empirical evidence that specifically
contradicts one or more parts of evolutionary theory.
2. What would you accept as a transitional fossil? You claim they don't
exist, so I want to know what you think they are. What characteristics would
you expect them to have? Describe the traits and characteristics of a
hypothetical organism that you would accept as transitional if it were
found.
3. Why are the transitional fossils we have not really transitional? I'm not
asking you to point to the gaps as if that proves anything; it doesn't. I'm
asking you to pick one or more fossils from the FAQ and discuss them
briefly, explaining why leading paleontologists are wrong and they're not in
fact transitional. Note that an answer to this question requires an answer
to the preceding question first.
David C. Fritzinger
Serenity wrote:
Just once, would you include some facts in your posts. Just give some evidence
supporting what you say. A web page, even. Oh, and how about actually showing the
"fantasy" of the transitional links. Or, trying to show how some of the massive
evidence that supports evolution is wrong. C'mon, you can do it. Oh, that's right,
you can't.
Dave Fritzinger
>
>
> Well?
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
Mark VandeWettering
>I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the
>"origins of life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme
>to say I came from an organic soup. The Science teacher told me
>I would get a "F" if I didn't answer the questions the way they
>were outline in the school textbook.
Golly, imagine that. Being expected to demonstrate your knowledge
of science in a science class.
>The religion of evolution is being shoved down societies throats
>as the unquestionable Higher Learning which is in reality, blind
>faith. It encourages youngsters to say, "God had nothing to do
>with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a unscientific
>God.
Whatever floats your boat. But you will be tested on the material
in the textbook.
Mark
>Regards,
>Sherwood
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark VandeWettering
>The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy" of
>so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
>created us.
I'll give you a $10 if you can actually tell me what is wrong with any
transitional link. Pick one, and be specific.
Adam Marczyk
>
>
> Gromit wrote:
>
> > On 24 Mar 2001 14:53:57 -0500, Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The religion of
> > > > >evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the
unquestionable
> > > > Higher
> > > > >Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> > > >
> > > > As one of those indoctrinators I find your questioning of faith
disturbing.
> > > > Really your story leaves out a crucial piece of information. Did
your high
> > > > school teacher not teach you the scientific method? At the root of
all
> > > > science is questioning of every description and explanation.
> > >
of
> > > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One
who
> > > created us.
> >
> >
> > Well?
>
blind faith
> is to concoct the "fantasy" of so-called transitional links, so as to
evade
>
> Well?
Your continued avoidance of the question is getting tiresome. Here's my
three-part challenge again, which you keep dodging. You can't get away with
empty rhetoric, you know - I'm going to keep posting this until you answer
it, so you might as well quit trying to avoid it.
Adam Marczyk
news:oEbv6.36$aB6....@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Adam
> Your new to the discussion and I will welcome you however what you wrote
> needs to be addressed:
> > You're not. We _have_ examined other possibilities, and all have
> eventually
> > collapsed. Creationism _was_ at one time the default paradigm, but it
fell
> > apart when Darwin came along because evolution explained all the
evidence
> so
> > much better. Evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the
> > diversity of life that has consistently been able to explain all the
> > evidence we find.
> Where is your scientific evidence that the biblical account of the
beginning
> "fell apart?"
Um, the fact that it's no longer accepted in scientific circles, doesn't
have papers published about it in peer-reviewed mainstream journals and is
not taught in public schools. Sounds like it's collapsed to me.
> Please show us your facts that you are basing this statement on.
>
> You also wrote:
> > And evolution has been observed (both in the form of local variation
> > [microevolution] and speciation [macroevolution]), and is very easy to
> > experiment with.
> OK Adam, I have never heard a creationist say that microevolution can be
> seen and occurs yes it happens. For example we can see the many breads of
> dogs however we do not see a dog kind become a new kind animal. As for
> macroevolution I would like to see your examples of this phenomenon
> especially if this is so easy to experiment with.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> Maybe you could explain How, when, where and why did
Oh, please. Don't you have anything better to do than cribbing things from
Kent Hovind?
Most of these are answered here:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/hovind_questions.html
> a. Single celled plants become multi-celled?
See Gromit's post for an excellent response to this.
> b. Two and three-celled intermediates evolve?
Isn't this essentially the same question as the above one? They evolved when
a few single-celled organisms were induced to team up by mutation. Since
this turned out to confer a survival advantage, it persisted.
> c. Single-celled animals evolve?
This question concerns abiogenesis, not evolution. No one knows for sure how
the first forms of life arose.
> d. Fish become amphibians?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
> e. Amphibians change into reptiles?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
> f. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs,
> heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc., are all very different!)
No, they're not.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
> Adam you wrote:
> >No, it doesn't. It teaches that living things become more adapted to
their
> > environment as time passes, which may involve either an increase or a
> > decrease in complexity.
>
> > Straw man. Mold did not evolve into fruit flies, fruit flies did not
> evolve
> > into bees, bees did not evolve into carrots and carrots did not evolve
> into
> > humans. Rather, mold, fruit flies, bees, carrots and humans are all
> _modern_
> > species, none of them more or less evolved than any other -- each one is
> the
> > result of four and a half billion years of evolution.
>
> Adam, how do you know this? Where you there?
Sigh. Read this:
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/paradigm.html
> This is my point you cant
> explain how something happened
Where did you get this foolish notion from? What have I failed to explain?
Or did you just post those silly questions assuming I wouldn't be able to
answer them?
> so you add the 4.5 millions of years and say
> this is science? No my friend this has become you religion. It takes
faith!
No, it doesn't. Evolution, being a science, is based entirely on empirical
evidence and requires no faith.
http://www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/atheistevo.html
> Please give me the text book your digging this out of because I got my
> example from a Junior high school paper that was sent home with my
> 13-year-old boy last year.
Digging what out of?
> I have read through the web site that you sighted, the examples of the
> bluegills is a good example of microevolution. This is my observation here
> you have a scientist trying to prove his theory, this is good knowledge by
> observation and experimentation. However with all his education and
> knowledge he has not been able to get his examples to successfully breed
or
> reproduce it own kind. He interjects his theory as conclusion of fact
never
> proving that macroevolution happens. From that same web site I found this
> definition "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer
> to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
> splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the
Greek
> meaning "the origin of a branch")."
Yes, and this has been observed. Read the links to the speciation FAQ given
above.
> Adam, You said: "-- but the common ancestor of
> > humans and flies or humans and bees was way back in the Cambrian, when
> > animal life was just beginning to emerge, and the common ancestor of
> humans
> > and carrots or humans and mold was likely not even multicellular.
>
> Adam Please show me where in the world does the geological column occurs?
The whole geological column in one place? No problem.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
Boikat
In other words, you point at a gap, squink
"Ahah!", and think that you've demonstrated
something other than your own willful ignorance.
So, what happens when more complete records of
transitional that fills gaps are found? More
squinkage.
arc and amcr removed.
Boikat
David Jensen
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<3ABD0D9E...@bellsouth.net>:
>I suppose you can provide an example of this
>"blind faith assumption"?
I proudly admit that I assume that the laws of physics have not changed
since Planck Time, and I will continue to assume it until there is any
reason to believe otherwise.
David Jensen
Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<3ABD040D...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
>
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2001 04:19:30 -0500, in talk.origins
>> Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>
>> >I faced a similar dilemma in a Catholic HS when being taught the "origins of
>> >life." I explained to the teacher that is blaspheme to say I came from an
>> >organic soup.
>>
>> The blasphemy comes when you decide that you are the only one who understands the
>> Bible. You may believe that the earth was created recently, but there is no
>> scientific evidence for that belief.
>
>I don't believe the "earth" was created recently. I believe Man was created around
>six thousand years ago. The Seven Days of creation were mentioned in Genesis,
>however, we are "still" in the Seventh Day,, when God Rested. This means, other
>Days of Creation are viewed from God's standpoint of a Creation Day with a evening
>and morning. God has not revealed the "length" of such a CreationDay in the bible
>with a evening and morning. The bible is not a textbook of Science, but what is
>reveals about Creation is true. Current "facts" reveal the bible to be accurate.
All _real_ facts fail to support any historical claim in Genesis. The
Bible is not a witness for itself, though even there it is about as
inconsistent as any good storyteller is likely to be.
>Hebrews 4:1-5
>4 Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into his rest, let us fear that
>sometime someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it. 2 For we have had the
>good news declared to us also, even as they also had; but the word which was heard
>did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who did hear.
>3 For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: "So I
>swore in my anger, 'They shall not enter into my rest,'" although his works were
>finished from the founding of the world. 4 For in one place he has said of the
>seventh day as follows: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works," 5 and
>again in this place: "They shall not enter into my rest."
>
>Genesis 2:1-3
>2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And
>by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he
>proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God
>proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been
>resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.
Interesting translation. Which one?
Boikat
However, since to date, no evidence to the support
any claim that the laws of physics has changed
since Planck Time, it's not exactly a case of
"blind faith assumption", is it?
Boikat
Eros
> > >> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> > >> bits of matter in the known universe,
> >
>
> It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more
than six
> feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four
ten-thousandths of an
> inch in diameter.
Do you know why? Or do you think it is some kind of miracle that such a long
strand of molecules could fit into such a small volume?
--
EROS.
"Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him?"
Job 13:7
"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1
Tinky
wrote:
>
>
>Aron-Ra wrote:
>
>> Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
>> inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
>> project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason
>is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school. Science textbooks
>nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
>ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
>Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
Sher, if you're going to cut and paste, the very least you could do is
show a source. That way it doesn't look like you learned how to form
articulate sentences, albeit pro-Witness ones, overnight.
Tinks
Lexham
>
>
> Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Of course evolution is not a religion. It is an idtiotic attempt at
> > inflammitory passion pleading to say that it is. That and an attempt to
> > project his faults upon others not so encumbered.
>
> Why do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One
reason
> is what they were taught the Religion of Evolution in school.
Get over it. Those who favor tossing out biology textbooks and replacing
them with the first few chapters of Genesis, saying, "this here is all you
need to know" are not promoting Creation Science, but Creation Religion.
> Science textbooks
> nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely,
if
> ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion
of
> Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
And it is well that they should not. If they did, the schools would no
longer be schools, but churches.
>
> Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science
and
> other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles,
motion
> pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often
we hear
> or read phrases such as, "When man evolved from the lower animals," or,
> "Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans." Thus, people
are
> conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes
> unnoticed.
That's right. The anacrhonistic ideas are passing away and are being
replaced by the knowledge of our most recent understanding. I'm sure that
in Columbus' day someone like you derided the fact that more and more people
were believing the earth was spherical, and that that it went around the
sun, contrary to the Scriptures.
> When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact,
and
> imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are
going to
> contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on the
> Religion of Evolution's behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by
large
> numbers of people.
It's not the weight of authority that sways people, but the weight of
evidence, along with the absence of any sufficiently convincing
counter-arguments.
> You don't need a god to teach a religion; just ask a Buddhist.
Then everyone who cannot accept stories about talking snakes as fact is a
follower of godless Evolutionism to you?
Eros
>
>
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > Serenity wrote:
> >
> > > The religion of
> > > evolution is being shoved down societies throats as the unquestionable
Higher
> > > Learning which is in reality, blind faith.
> >
confusing science
> > and religion. Biological evolution is not a religion, and religion is no
science.
>
> Ha! Evolution is a religion of blind faith assumptions.
Only to those who have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of science
combined with an irrationally strong fundamentalist religious belief.
> > > It encourages youngsters to say,
> > > "God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to
such a
> > > unscientific God.
> > >
> >
> > So, you are under the impressing that the only thing to keep "kids in
line" is to
> > have them indoctrinated into a religion that threatens them with
"eternal
> > damnation", rather than simply point out that they will at the very
least be held
> > accountable by their fellow classmates (or society)? Why not just tell
them from an
> > early
> > age that if they do not behave, the "boogie man" will get them? Same
principle
> > applies.
>
> No, that is not it. I didn't endorse Religion to be a curriculum to be
taught in
> schools.
If by "Religion" you mean creation "science", I applaud your rationality.
> I merely pointed out the Evolution Religion taught in schools, teaches
that,
> "God had nothing to do with it, therefore, I am not accountable to such a
unscientific
> God."
You assume incorrectly that to be atheist means to have no morals. Morality
does not come from religion, it comes from the accepted social behavior
prevalent at the time. One does not have to believe in a god to follow an
acceptable moral code. In fact, religions are BASED on moral codes, not the
other way around. That's why many of the irrelevant or distasteful laws and
commandments in the Bible (particularly Exodus) are not followed today.
Even religions evolve.
Null A.N.D. Void
>GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so
[...]
>GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor
[...]
IOW, God of gaps. Are you waiting to see fossils of every species that
has ever lived to realize the validity of ToE? Do you suppose we have
discovered, let alone categorized every living being, not to say
anything about extinct ones? The realization on your part that there
are gaps actually indicates that you are accepting all the existing
evidence from the fossil record. It is like saying that there is a gap
between the numbers 67 and 99. To be able to say that, you need to
know 99 is a successor of 67 at some order, and that both are numbers,
thus to make such a statement you must have accepted the axioms of
number theory. If you want to attack the theory, you must do better
than "but we haven't discovered 71 yet", you must actually be able to
say "the existance of 67 is in conflict with the theory, thus based on
evidence, the theory is wrong". Get the idea now?
That is why the question you were asked was to point to an existing
fossil and explain why it conflicts with the theory of evolution. We
are still waiting on this.
Eros
>
>
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> > Serenity <skto...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ABCF7A5...@ix.netcom.com...
> >
> >
make
> > nonsensical empty assertions too. What sort of assumptions did you have
in
> > mind? Any particular ones you'd care to challenge, or are you just
blowing
> > smoke again?
> > It really is a shame that you can't tell the difference between atheism
and
> > something which fails to support your own ridiculously narrow-minded
reading
> > of Genesis. Do you believe the heretical spherical-earth theory, which
clearly
> > runs counter to the Biblically inspired view of the earth as a flat,
fixed
> > plane, denies God too?
>
> Huh. The bible does not claim the earth is flat. Men claimed such things
> "about the bible" in their ignorance. The bible made no such claim.
>
> From outer space, the earth is circular. This is what the bible states.
You
> can nitpick all you "wish" about the known fact that it is a "sphere" but
within
> any given moment of the sphere, it is seen as circular.
Nice attempt at an explanation, but then of course as you've said, you
already know that the earth is spherical. So, since nowhere does the Bible
explicitly state that the earth is spherical or even ball-shaped, you can
read anything into any passage that vaguely talks about the earth to suit
you, no matter that the descriptions given fit the ancient belief in a flat
earth, far better. Like all Creationists, your deep religious convictions
force you to explain away ALL facts to fit your unalterable fundamentalist
beliefs.
> Isaiah 40:21-23
> Do you people not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told to you
from the
> outset? Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the
earth?
> 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the
dwellers in
> which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just
as a
> fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, 23 the One
who
> is reducing high officials to nothing, who has made the very judges of the
earth
> as a mere unreality.
>
How do you stretch a tent over a sphere?
There is nothing in either of your two quotes that, without intensive
interpretation, even hints at anything but a flat, circular earth.
mel turner
>mel turner wrote:
>>In article <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>, skto...@ix.netcom.com [Serenity] wrote...
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>>That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we being told
>>>>that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human race came
>>>>form the pond?
>>What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
>>You mean abiogenesis?
>
>Get real.
Ironic.
>School textbooks are the subject matter. You know, the "lie" kids are
>being taught ;-)
Or "lies" [or charitably, mistakes] about what kids are being
taught.
>>>>Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
>>>>other possibilities?
>>
>>Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
>>at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
>
>Nonesense.
Yes, "scientific" creationism is indeed abject nonsense.
>>>Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
>>>>bits of matter in the known universe,
>>
>>That's rather a silly thing to say.
>
>It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more than six
>feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four ten-thousandths of an
>inch in diameter.
Refs? And so what? Yes, DNA molecules are very long.
Yes, genomes are very complex. So is a rock, at the
atomic/molecular level. Gotta point?
>>>>it would seem logical to believe that
>>>>organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and
>>>>those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of
>>>>evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
>>
>>Nope. Chromosome numbers can and do go either up or down during the
>>course of evolution. There's a lot of both. Biologists understand
>>this, and study the processes involved. And this has nothing to do
>>with the overall "complexity" of the genome or chromatin [although
>>polyploidy does increase its overall amount by duplicating whole
>>chromosome sets]. Is the same amount of stuff in one big jar less
>>complex than if it was packaged in two or more smaller jars?
>
>But, this is not what is taught in schools to kids.
Maybe you weren't paying attention in class. But sure, it's
likely that pre-college biology courses won't contain extensive
sections on processes of chromosomal evolution. So? It's not a
big issue wrt evolutionary theory, despite the previous poster's
evident confusion about it. Whatever _is_ being taught about
evolution won't be in conflict with my comments above.
>{snipped the rest of the post to avoid repeating the above saying}
cheers
tui...@earthlink.net
>
>
> mel turner wrote:
>
> > In article <3ABC6714...@ix.netcom.com>, skto...@ix.netcom.com
[Serenity]
> > wrote...
> > >Dan wrote:
> >
> > >> That's a fair question that I will first ask you this, why are we
being told
> > >> that over millions of millions and billions of years, we the human
race came
> > >> form the pond?
> >
> > What pond? Our last aquatic ancestors were a long time ago.
> > You mean abiogenesis?
>
kids are
> being taught ;-)
>
>
>
> > >> Why are we expected to accept this teaching with out examining
> > >> other possibilities?
> >
> > Such as? There's little or no "science" to "creation science",
> > at least none that could be taught about in a science class.
>
> Nonesense.
>
>
>
> > >> Chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> > >> bits of matter in the known universe,
> >
> > That's rather a silly thing to say.
>
> It is? Our 46 chromosome "threads" linked together would measure more
than six
> feet. Yet the nucleus that contains them is less than four
ten-thousandths of an
> inch in diameter.
>
>
>
> > >> it would seem logical to believe that
> > >> organisms with least number of chromosomes were the first ones to
evolve and
> > >> those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of
years of
> > >> evolutions experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
> >
> > Nope. Chromosome numbers can and do go either up or down during the
> > course of evolution. There's a lot of both. Biologists understand
> > this, and study the processes involved. And this has nothing to do
> > with the overall "complexity" of the genome or chromatin [although
> > polyploidy does increase its overall amount by duplicating whole
> > chromosome sets]. Is the same amount of stuff in one big jar less
> > complex than if it was packaged in two or more smaller jars?
>
> But, this is not what is taught in schools to kids.
Perhaps you were too busy worrying about whether this contradicted your
religious beliefs to pay attention to what was actually being taught.
>
> {snipped the rest of the post to avoid repeating the above saying}
>
> Regards,
> Sherwood
>
>
mel turner
>Adam
>Your new to the discussion and I will welcome you however what you wrote
>needs to be addressed:
>> You're not. We _have_ examined other possibilities, and all have eventually
>> collapsed. Creationism _was_ at one time the default paradigm, but it fell
>> apart when Darwin came along because evolution explained all the evidence so
>> much better. Evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the
>> diversity of life that has consistently been able to explain all the
>> evidence we find.
>Where is your scientific evidence that the biblical account of the beginning
>"fell apart?" Please show us your facts that you are basing this statement on.
It failed to fit with what scientists were learning about the
world in the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries. No young earth,
no global flood, nothing fitting the sequence of the "six days"
of Genesis. The biological evidence also contradicted a special
creation of the different groups of organisms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Of course, there's no reason one could not continue to see Genesis
as having deeper theological meanings about the relationship of God
and his creation, but it clearly doesn't work as a science text.
>You also wrote:
>> And evolution has been observed (both in the form of local variation
>> [microevolution] and speciation [macroevolution]), and is very easy to
>> experiment with.
>OK Adam, I have never heard a creationist say that microevolution can be
>seen and occurs yes it happens.
Really? Creationists in t.o. common admit that "microevolution"
occurs. They commonly do get the biologists' definitions of
"microevolution" and "macroevolution" wrong, however.
>For example we can see the many breads of
>dogs however we do not see a dog kind become a new kind animal.
How can we tell if one did? How are "kinds" and their boundaries
to be recognized objectively, just by studying the organisms? How
can we tell if two organisms are of the same "kind" or different
"kinds"? Creationists never give a good answer to that one.
>As for
>macroevolution I would like to see your examples of this phenomenon
>especially if this is so easy to experiment with.
Speciation is observed to occur, and speciation is macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
Scientists do indeed study processes of speciation. e.g.,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/ComDes/sectionV.html
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/ComDes/Contents.html
http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch17spec.html
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/Notes-1998-Fall/speciation.html
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
http://www.lter.alaska.edu/~jirons/evolution/lecnote/chapter16.htm
http://ostracon.biologie.uni-kl.de/b_online/e12/12c.htm
http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/rsa/grantrefs.html
http://mercy.georgian.edu/~wootton/biogeog7.htm
>Maybe you could explain How, when, where and why did
>a. Single celled plants become multi-celled?
It happened independently in several groups of "plants". [red
algae, brown algae, green algae and green land plants], perhaps
several or many times within some groups like chlorophytes. What
is so difficult about it? Plant cells divide and the daughter
cells just remain together instead of separating completely. There
are plenty of very simple few-celled "plants" as nice living
analogues of the early intermediates.
>b. Two and three-celled intermediates evolve?
Again, why would anyone see this as any problem? Living examples
do exist [but are hardly a necessary stage in plant multicellularity.
One-celled ancestors might give rise to multicelled long chains
simply by cells failing to separate completely. This also happens
today.]
>c. Single-celled animals evolve?
No metazoan animals are single-celled. You mean "protozoa"
[single-celled nonphotosynthetic eukaryotes in general]?
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/life.html
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/eukaryotes.html
A lot more than nothing is known about their origins and
evolution.
>d. Fish become amphibians?
Very nice transitional fossils are known. Panderichthys,
Acanthostega, etc.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1636/sarcopterygii.html
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/sarcopterygii.html
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/terrestrial_vertebrates.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/transit.htm
>e. Amphibians change into reptiles?
Fossils are known.
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/amniota.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
>f. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs,
>heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc., are all very different!)
No, they aren't, when you look at the transitional fossils of birdlike
'reptiles' and reptilelike 'birds'.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm#archie
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
How about "reptile" to mammal? Land mammal to whale? Early
ape to human? We have those intermediates as well as many
others.
>Adam you wrote:
>>No, it doesn't. It teaches that living things become more adapted to their
>> environment as time passes, which may involve either an increase or a
>> decrease in complexity.
>
>> Straw man. Mold did not evolve into fruit flies, fruit flies did not evolve
>> into bees, bees did not evolve into carrots and carrots did not evolve into
>> humans. Rather, mold, fruit flies, bees, carrots and humans are all _modern_
>> species, none of them more or less evolved than any other -- each one is the
>> result of four and a half billion years of evolution.
>Adam, how do you know this? Where you there?
We are here to study the evidence that is also here.
>This is my point you cant explain how something happened
Why not? we can and do explain how it happened/happens, but your
stuff on chromosomes was badly confused.
>so you add the 4.5 millions of years
You thinking of the age of the earth? That's billions
[or thousand millions] of years.
and say
>this is science?
No, we say that this is what is supported by the observed
scientific evidence studied to date, and then correctly say
that that is science.
>No my friend this has become you religion. It takes faith!
No faith. Evidence.
>Please give me the text book your digging this out of because I got my
>example from a Junior high school paper that was sent home with my
>13-year-old boy last year.
If so, someone was confused about chromosomal evolution.
>I have read through the web site that you sighted, the examples of the
>bluegills is a good example of microevolution.
Haven't seen it, but if species-level changes are involved it's
macroevolution.
>This is my observation here
>you have a scientist trying to prove his theory, this is good knowledge by
>observation and experimentation. However with all his education and
>knowledge he has not been able to get his examples to successfully breed or
>reproduce it own kind. He interjects his theory as conclusion of fact never
>proving that macroevolution happens.
Did he show that reproductive isolation of populations
happens? If so, that would be macroevolutionary.
>From that same web site I found this
>definition “In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer
>to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the
>splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek
>meaning "the origin of a branch").”
Exactly. That's the definition. And the branches originate by
reproductive isolation of different populations of a common
ancestral species.
>Adam, You said: “-- but the common ancestor of
>> humans and flies or humans and bees was way back in the Cambrian,
Precambrian, probably.
>when
>> animal life was just beginning to emerge, and the common ancestor of
>humans
>> and carrots or humans and mold was likely not even multicellular.
Certainly not multicellular.
>Adam Please show me where in the world does the geological column occurs?
Mostly it's underground. Is this the old false claim that nowhere
is the entire column found all in one place? There were posts here
a while back that cited several locations where all the major
geological layers are indeed represented. Some cited:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
see also
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/yungerth.htm
cheers
mel turner
>> > The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the "fantasy" of
>> > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the One who
>> > created us.
>>
>> I guess you are unwilling to address why these links are fantasy?
>>
>> Well?
>
>I guess you are unwilling to address why the root of the evolutionist blind faith
>is to concoct the "fantasy" of so-called transitional links, so as to evade
>responsibility to the One who created us?
Two blatant falsehoods in that one sentence [or three? "Amongst your
falsehoods...". 1] Transitional links aren't any fantasy, as much
as you might wish them to be. They do exist. 2] It's another lie
[or charitably, a very reckless mistake] to claim that evolutionary
biology is all about atheism and "evading responsibility". Lots of
"evolutionists" are theists and devout Christians. You insult them.
(3] Evolutionary science has plenty of evidence. It's not any
kind of "blind faith".)
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/person.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/kevino.html
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers97/millerl.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/index.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html/
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/main_sci.html
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.html
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-cp/evolution.html
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html
cheers
tui...@earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > > seaotter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the
"fantasy"
> > of
> > > > > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to the
One
> > who
> > > > > created us.
> > > >
pretty
> > much
> > > > takes out of the faith category. It certainly could be wrong,
although
> > all the
> > > > evidence so far supports the concept, but it isn't based on faith. I
can
> > > > assure you that I have no such motive for my acceptance of
evolution. I
> > base
> > > > all my beliefs on evidence. I don't see any evidence that this "One"
> > exists
> > > > much less created me.
> > >
> > > Ah, so that gives you the go ahead to blindly accept the fantasy of
> > transitional
> > > links.
> >
> > desperate creationist. Did you ever answer my challenge to present even
one
> > scrap of positive evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o.
FAQ
> > on transitional fossils, pick out an example or two and explain why it's
not
> > transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain what you _would_ accept as a
> > transitional fossil. Any answer containing something more substantive
than
> > your usual content-free rhetoric will do.
>
> Notice the usual content-free rhetoric of Adam Marczyk. (works both ways,
don't
> it). Nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
> transitional links. A prime example of his blind faith in evolution.
>
Merely closing your eyes, sticking your finger in your ears and shouting "Is
not! Is not! Is not!" doesn' t constitute much of a debate. You state that
transitionals are a fantasy. You are going to have to show how they are a
fantasy, or you will be relegated to the ash heap as another creationist
talking out of your ass.
> Regards,
> Sherwood
>
>
tui...@earthlink.net
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:99jled$1je8$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
I am sure that you are not holding your breath. If you are I hope that you
have provided well in your Will for those that depend on your estate. There
will be no answer forthcoming that addresses these points.
He doesn't feel the need to answer these questions because he believes
evolution to be false. It is counter-intuitive to that which he has been
taught since childhood, and by definition is false.
Consider this, Adam, and this is my perception of his viewpoint based on his
faith in the Bible as literal fact:
Evolution can't be true because the Bible's seven day account contradicts
it. Anything that contradicts the Bible must by definition be untrue.
Since transitionals are evidence that contradicts the Bible, they must be
fantastical. The mere fact that there are web pages from TO's faqs site that
describe transitionals proves nothing because anyone can make up whatever
they want and type it into Notepad and add the tags to make it a webpage,
just as anyone can make up a science book and foist it on innocent children
in order to advance an atheistic belief system.
The arguments about the fact that Christians understand and accept the TOE
hold no weight with him because they are not true Christians, they are
merely "professed" Christians that have allowed themselves to be deceived by
Satan into believing in the Atheistic Religion of Evolution. Using the
words of the Pope to assure him that one can be a Christian and accept
evolution is silly because fundamentalists do not believe that Catholics are
really Christian but Papists and idolators that worship the pope and the
saints.
Sherwood isn't really interested in debate, he wants to save our souls and
is frustrated that we aren't getting it, but instead are throwing out our
fantastical arguments against the True Religion of Literal Biblical
Christianity (which would also include living by the rules spelled out in
Leviticus.)
Any science which contradicts the Bible cannot be science because it can't
be true.
tui...@earthlink.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > seaotter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > The root of the evolutionist blind faith is to concoct the
> "fantasy"
> > > of
> > > > > > so-called transitional links, so as to evade responsibility to
the
> One
> > > who
> > > > > > created us.
> > > > >
>
> Did you ever answer my challenge to present even one scrap of positive
> evidence for creationism? How about you go to the t.o. FAQ on transitional
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html), pick out an example or
> two and explain why it's not transitional. Or simpler yet, just explain
what
> you _would_ accept as a transitional fossil.
I'll help - here is the evidence of transitions from amphibians to amniotes.
Tell us, Serenity, where specifically is the fantasy in this and how has it
been disproven?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1
John M. Wendt
Serenity wrote:
> Science textbooks
> nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if
> ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against Religion of
> Evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks
Because they've all been refuted a long time ago.
John M. Wendt
Serenity wrote:
>
> Your content free rhetoric provided nothing of substance to "prove" regarding the so-called evidence of
> transitional links.
The problem with transitional forms is that there are _too many_ to
capsulize in a brief note. There are very few transitional forms
between _species_ (but not "none"!) There are _lots_ of transitional
forms between higher taxa, e.g. reptiles to mammals.
John M. Wendt
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> You've
> certainly pointed out the gaps where they exist. Now tell us why the fossils
> we do have aren't transitional.
Or why God created them if they aren't.
seaotter
> religious beliefs to pay attention to what was actually being taught.
More likely his parents religious beliefs. <sarcasm on>Isn't it amazing how
children overwhelmingly often choose the same religion as their parents.
<sarcasm off>
seaotter
David Jensen
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<3ABD7411...@bellsouth.net>:
Not in my universe, but certain fundamentalists find that understanding
the dictionary is even more difficult than understanding the Bible. I'm
guessing that to them it takes blind faith to accept reality.
Tom
stated..."
I'd just like to clarify something which might be misunderstood
in John's comment. Transitional forms are not, strictly speaking,
*between* species, not in the sense of "not belonging to any
species". John, you may think that I am nit-picking on this, but a
lot of people think that that's what a transitional form is supposed
to be. We get that kind of response a lot ... point to an ancestral
hominid, and we get "but that's just another ape", or "but that's
a human" ... in either case, it's "not a transitional between apes
and humans". (Likewise with a fossil like Archaeopteryx, that "it's
a reptile" or "it's a bird", but "it's not a transitional between
reptiles and birds".)
As long as people do not understand what it means for a new
species to arise, it is impossible for them to understand what a
transitional form is. Their understanding of "transitional form"
requires something which would be contrary to evolutionary biology.
Tom
Adam Marczyk
news:Sujv6.9552$ue1.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sigh. Ain't it the truth.
Timsn274
>For example we can see the many breads of
>dogs ...
At least this should be easier than the recent poster who talked about breading
wolves.
Tim Norfolk
Boikat
Breaded wolves, breaded dogs, what's the
difference? With ketchup and a side order of
fries, all breeds taste pretty much he same.
Boikat
"Poodles, the other white meat." Sherman's Lagoon.
ReidRover
Sherwood you keep on about the transitional type fossils being a "fantasy" yet
you cannot even explain why..except for some religious reason about evading
responsibility.
Now could you please explain why these are a fantasy? And why if they are
not transitional of any type ,what do they show?
You have evaded every sensible question asked of you..
The transitional fossils are in no way fantasy..no one pretends all the pieces
are there..but some are and what they suggest is evolution of some type
Now i take it you are creationist then ,explain why all these creatures
appear in the fossil record but are not alive today? if God is the perfect
designer..
And how can anything be "blind faith" if we have the evidence right in front
of us....
creationism is the epitomy of blind faith...you have no evidence whatsoever.
FNCI
>"God had nothing to do with it" therefore, I am not accountable to such a
>unscientific God.
It encouraged me to see more of God's creativity. And the Pope agrees with me.