Florida: This Year's Antievolution Bill Appears

Critical analysis from people who can't or won't understand the critical analysis of their lame claims.

Ah yes, but they know it sounds all smart and sciency. What more could one want?

Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said: Critical analysis from people who can't or won't understand the critical analysis of their lame claims. Ah yes, but they know it sounds all smart and sciency. What more could one want? Glen Davidson

The proposed law requires (in part):

(a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

(b) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence...

(c)...the Constitution...

It's revealing to see the sequential significance of what's important to the christofascists.

How come they never critically analyze loop quantum gravity or something else that's actually controversial?

No one stands up and says "under certain conditions Newton is flat out wrong, we MUST teach our kids general relativity for them to be educated"

It just shows the religious motivation for their work.

My thanks to OgreMV, Paul, Frank J and Glen Davidson for more of your terse, but right on the mark, comments with respect to this latest lamentable exercise in intellectual stupidity masquerading as "critical analysis". I wonder whether, by their own rules, they would discount Thomas Jefferson's importance in writing the Declaration of Independence simply for not being as religious or "politicaly correct" (in the sense of not being sufficiently Libertarian or Conservative) as some of the other Founding Fathers (whom, I might add, shared much of Jefferson's philosophical outlook).

It's too bad more Florida voters did not "critically analyze" Rick Scott's criminal activities as CEO of a health insurance monster.

At least some variants on the theory of evolution suggest that evolution is more likely to occur in smaller, isolated communities undergoing evolutionary stress, while a large population is much less likely to evolve, as it is more difficult for a favorable mutation to propagate through the entire population.

If that is the case, is the Discovery Institute, the other creationist groups and their captive legislators fostering our evolution? The minority of us who understand that evolution occurs are under environmental stress, while the larger population remains ignorant and unevolved.

Mike Clinch said: At least some variants on the theory of evolution suggest that evolution is more likely to occur in smaller, isolated communities undergoing evolutionary stress, while a large population is much less likely to evolve, as it is more difficult for a favorable mutation to propagate through the entire population. If that is the case, is the Discovery Institute, the other creationist groups and their captive legislators fostering our evolution? The minority of us who understand that evolution occurs are under environmental stress, while the larger population remains ignorant and unevolved.

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

IANAL but many of the members of the Florida state legislature are - they MUST know that previous SCOTUS rulings make it unconstitutional to single out evolution in this manner - yet they put these bills forward anyway. Are they just pandering, knowing that the bill won't go anywhere and planning to claim that they "tried"? Or, do they hope to pass the law and hope it is challenged (all the way up to the SCOTUS - so that the precedent changes?) - either way, for a party that claims they are in favor of eliminating government waste, this seems like a wasteful use of government resources. Way to go Republicans, the more you do this kind of crap, and lie on Fox News, the less likely anyone with 4 neurons in their heads to rub together will take you seriously.

Why do they keep trying? Aren't most these bills pretty much doomed to fail, no matter how they are worded? Even if a bill passes, as in Louisiana, won't there eventually be a court case?

How about critical analysis of high school sports? The rules are arbitrary, and shouldn't be beyond questioning.

But then, football is not my religion.

Well, the bills support critical thinking, which makes one wonder if teachers don't teach critical thinking without government influence. No one will argue that teaching critical thinking is a good thing (although the tendency to emphasize evolution, global wamring, cloning, stem cell research, the Constitution, and the history of the founding fathers does tend to show where these are heading).

As written, most of the bills are perfectly legal. It's the execution of the bills that become problematic.

Someone with standing has to show harm. So I couldn't sue regarding the Florida bill. I don't live in Florida. Even if I lived in Florida, if I didn't have kids in the school system, I still couldn't sue.

Perhaps sending every legislator, teacher, school administrator and school board member a copy of the transcript of the Dover Trial would be helpful. And yes, it would be to frighten them into ignoring this law.

On the other hand, my planned country to move to is Czechosolvakia

OgreMkV said: Let's see FL, do you REALLY, I mean REALLY, want people to learn to criticaly analyze things?

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

JASONMITCHELL said: Are they just pandering, knowing that the bill won't go anywhere and planning to claim that they "tried"? Or, do they hope to pass the law and hope it is challenged...

Paul Burnett said: The proposed law requires (in part): (a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution. (b) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence... (c)...the Constitution... It's revealing to see the sequential significance of what's important to the christofascists.

117 (u)(s) A character-development program in kindergarten 118 through grade 12 the elementary schools, similar to Character 119 First or Character Counts, which is secular in nature. The 120 program must emphasize the core values of honesty, virtue, moral 121 courage, dignity of honest labor, patriotism, self-discipline, 122 self-respect, perseverance, duty, honor, compassion, charity, 123 conflict-resolution management, peer mediation, and other 124 qualities of character that better prepare students to recognize 125 and accept the responsibility for preserving the blessings of 126 liberty inherited from prior generations. The goal is for these 127 core values to be integrated into primary classroom instruction 128 for students in kindergarten through grade 5. Beginning in 129 school year 2004-2005, the character-development program shall 130 be required in kindergarten through grade 12. Each district 131 school board shall develop or adopt a curriculum for the 132 character-development program that shall be submitted to the 133 department for approval. Each school district shall inform its 134 principals, administrators, teachers, and any other appropriate 135 school personnel of this paragraph at the beginning of each 136 school year. The character-development curriculum shall stress 137 the qualities of patriotism; responsibility; citizenship; 138 kindness; respect for authority, life, liberty, and personal 139 property; honesty; charity; self-control; racial, ethnic, and 140 religious tolerance; and cooperation.

The fact that this sentence is uttered AND it is uttered by an elected politician in the US, makes me really fucking sick of the US:

"If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking,"

Oh, and whoops, I misread you there. Obviously you meant that beating down evolution takes precedence over the highest law of the land and the legal philosophy on which it's based to these folks.

Wheels said:

Paul Burnett said: The proposed law requires (in part): (a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution. (b) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence... (c)...the Constitution... It's revealing to see the sequential significance of what's important to the christofascists.

Entry b) is the old a). Passages in green are the proposed amendments to the existing legislation, red marks what's being removed. So the history of those documents was already on the books, and not being "critically analyzed." However, further down in the bill there are sections from the old law concerning character development curriculum where subjects like racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance have been crossed out, and the new curriculum says nothing about them. Also, a clause specifying the secular nature of these values and the curriculum has been struck out. See lines 117-140:

117 (u)(s) A character-development program in kindergarten 118 through grade 12 the elementary schools, similar to Character 119 First or Character Counts, which is secular in nature. The 120 program must emphasize the core values of honesty, virtue, moral 121 courage, dignity of honest labor, patriotism, self-discipline, 122 self-respect, perseverance, duty, honor, compassion, charity, 123 conflict-resolution management, peer mediation, and other 124 qualities of character that better prepare students to recognize 125 and accept the responsibility for preserving the blessings of 126 liberty inherited from prior generations. The goal is for these 127 core values to be integrated into primary classroom instruction 128 for students in kindergarten through grade 5. Beginning in 129 school year 2004-2005, the character-development program shall 130 be required in kindergarten through grade 12. Each district 131 school board shall develop or adopt a curriculum for the 132 character-development program that shall be submitted to the 133 department for approval. Each school district shall inform its 134 principals, administrators, teachers, and any other appropriate 135 school personnel of this paragraph at the beginning of each 136 school year. The character-development curriculum shall stress 137 the qualities of patriotism; responsibility; citizenship; 138 kindness; respect for authority, life, liberty, and personal 139 property; honesty; charity; self-control; racial, ethnic, and 140 religious tolerance; and cooperation.

The original text of the statute seems concerned with civics education, which is more than understandable. However, it makes the inclusion of anti-evolutionism (at the top of the list as Paul said) even more bizarre. The only time "science" is even mentioned is during the lead-in to the education standards in line 1. No specific science or math topics are covered.

"Critical analysis" all too often means rationalizing. To encourage improvement in science education legislation could replace "critical analysis" with "formal reasoning and analytical thinking skills".

Les Lane said: To encourage improvement in science education legislation could replace "critical analysis" with "formal reasoning and analytical thinking skills".

eric said:

Les Lane said: To encourage improvement in science education legislation could replace "critical analysis" with "formal reasoning and analytical thinking skills".

That will be the next iteration, after the current iteration of creationist bills fail. I can see it now: 'Students will learn to apply formal reasoning and analytial thinking skills to subjects including evolution, global warming, and human cloning.'

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

I am stunned that Wise would introduce a bill with so much disingenuous rhetoric. It reveals a small glimps of what lurks behind his true intentions.

This is the problem with electing any creationist to any political office. They may seem normal, and they may say and do apparently normal, perfectly acceptable things -- for a while. But then, suddenly, the crazy pops out. That's when you realize you can never really trust their judgment in anything, ever.

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

Paul Burnett said: May we then safely presume you would similarly support critical analysis in the public schools of claims of creation a few thousand years ago, a genocidal global flood, a talking snake and a talking donkey, stopping and re-starting the rotation of the earth, four-legged insects and a few other clearly mythological events?

It's pandering. There are probably SOME legislators who aren't lawyers, but they work every day surrounded by those who know better, so even submitting such a bill in ignorance doesn't pass the sniff test.

Gestures like this serve two purposes: They appeal to a sizeable base of religion-addled voters, and they tend to polarize voters and thus "lock them in" for many elections to come. And of course, supporters can and will say "we tried, but the godless folks who oppose critical thinking are still out to get us, so we must redouble our efforts."

(And there's always the possibility that if they find just the right judge, a Scalia-type or two at every level, they can get the constitution re-interpreted. Recall that in Edwards, Scalia for the life of him just couldn't understand how anyone could even dream of depriving teachers of the "academic freedom" to preach HIS religion in public school. Because HIS religion isn't religion at all, it's truth. Actual religions now (other peoples'), those aren't allowed in public schools.)

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

The Curmudgeon said: This is the problem with electing any creationist to any political office. They may seem normal, and they may say and do apparently normal, perfectly acceptable things -- for a while. But then, suddenly, the crazy pops out. That's when you realize you can never really trust their judgment in anything, ever.

I questioned the Gov’s sanity regarding the proposed high speed rail program he scuttled

Antievolution bill? Really? Is the theory so weak that you fear any critical analysis of it? What is wrong with teaching the weaknesses, problems, and the like of the theory along with the strengths? If you leave out the weaknesses, and problems of the theory, then it is no more then indoctrination and not real science.

Flint said:

I questioned the Gov’s sanity regarding the proposed high speed rail program he scuttled

In this respect, he struck me as fairly sensible. He points out that Florida does have a special train service between Palm Beach and Miama, a much more densely populated corridor than Orlando to Tampa - and fares pay only 1/6 the cost of running it! There are some good reasons for this. Consider the competition - you hop in your car, drive for 90 minutes (starting immediately), and when you get there, you have a car for getting around. When you're ready to return, you reverse this. Chances are you won't need to fill the tank. Now compare to the bullet train. You STILL hop in your car. Drive to the station, find a place to part, walk to the ticket booth, buy a ticket (which might be rather costly, if the train is to pay for itself), then wait for the next train. Yeah, you save half an hour of travel time getting there. Now what? Well, I guess you rent a car (expensive), do your thing, return the car rental, do lots of paper work, buy another train ticket, wait for the train, save half an hour travel time, and you're back. Walk to your car, pay the parking fee, and head home. This roundabout exercise probably cost you an hour or two despite the faster speed, AND it cost a round trip ticket, AND it cost a rental car. And a bunch of walking, and paperwork. What a deal!

Biggie, you keep coming back here. I mean, don't you realize how much you're missed over on ATBC? Geez, people actually WANT to talk to you over there, but you just don't appreciate the attention. "Boo-hoo, boo-hoo!"

Antievolution bill? Really? Is the theory so weak that you fear any critical analysis of it?

Glen Davidson said:

Antievolution bill? Really? Is the theory so weak that you fear any critical analysis of it?

Why aren't you pushing for critical analysis of thermodynamics in high school and below? Is thermodynamics so we that you fear any critical analysis of it? Thing is, cretin, high school is for learning about the basics. Only after people actually know a theory can they profit from critical analysis--but then you wouldn't know that, since you think your ignorant "analysis" of evolution is relevant. The only reason you bigots want evolution "critically analyzed" is that you want to put questions into young minds where they don't legitimately exist. Pedagogy isn't anything you know or care about, you only want to trash good science so that children will never get to the stage where they can reason through the evidence. Glen Davidson

If the problems with a scientific theory are not critically analyzed, then is it real science?

You can find all the answers to your questions over on ATBC, Biggie.

As far as science goes, I don’t have a problem with critical analysis of any theory. But, it sure sounds like there are those here who fear the critical analysis of the theory of evolution. Evolution taught without any critical analysis of the theory is nothing more then indoctrination, and I think could be argued tantamount to teaching a religion.

The only reason you bigots want evolution “critically analyzed” is that you want to put questions into young minds where they don’t legitimately exist.

I am afraid that IBIG doesn't understand the difference between saying he is going to make an argument and actually making one. IBIG is a prime example of a person who deserved a better science education.

ya know, I used to think this stuff was just political pandering to constituents; just to make sure their hot-button "issues" were superficially being "addressed", and that this stuff rarely even got out of committee (this was the case for most of my lifetime in the US).

now that I see this happening on an annual basis?

It's too hard for me to consider this just pandering any more. I rather think the loonies have officially begun taking over the asylum.

FL said:

The only reason you bigots want evolution “critically analyzed” is that you want to put questions into young minds where they don’t legitimately exist.

Imagine that. Teaching kids to ask considered questions and to think critically, is no longer part of science education, no longer part of the scientific method. (Welcome to Darwinism!) FL

Teaching kids to ask considered questions and to think critically, is no longer part of science education, no longer part of the scientific method.

imagine that, yet another straw-man from a straw-for-brains.

go figure.

Is the theory so weak that you fear any critical analysis of it?

a truer explanation of creationist behavior has never been so succinctly projected.

Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution.

FL said:

The only reason you bigots want evolution “critically analyzed” is that you want to put questions into young minds where they don’t legitimately exist.

Imagine that. Teaching kids to ask considered questions and to think critically, is no longer part of science education, no longer part of the scientific method. (Welcome to Darwinism!) FL

IBelieveInGod said: Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution.

FL said:

The only reason you bigots want evolution “critically analyzed” is that you want to put questions into young minds where they don’t legitimately exist.

Imagine that. Teaching kids to ask considered questions and to think critically, is no longer part of science education, no longer part of the scientific method. (Welcome to Darwinism!) FL

IBelieveInGod said: Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution.

In other words, what this bill, the bill's proponents, FL, and IBelieve are advocating is to permit teachers to deliberately lie to children in order to brainwash them into permanently mistrusting, and misunderstanding science, all in order to somehow bring a whole generation of children closer to Jesus.

If I'm wrong, then how come no a single person has been able to explain how all similarly and identically worded bills have done absolutely nothing to help education, and absolutely everything to harm education?

Wasn't it Chesterton who said that everyone should keep an open mind, but no so far open their brains fall out?

The only "weaknesses" anyone has mentioned with the Theory of Evolution, that I have seen, is just the AiG list of lies, misrepresentations, distortions, and PRATTs. These have in many cases become sophisticated enough that it would take several entire classes just providing the scientific context required to show how dishonest a single lie is.

So when decoded, "critical analysis" really means trotting the Gish Gallop out in high school science classes, to present it (as usual) to an audience incapable of deconstructing it. It's just like the creationist debates, complete with biased moderator and eager audience, except the scientific side isn't presented at all. Reality doesn't stand up to "critical analysis", you know.

Flint said: So when decoded, "critical analysis" really means trotting the Gish Gallop out in high school science classes ...

Dishonest said: "If the problems with a scientific theory are not critically analyzed, then is it real science?"

You want a critical analysis of evolution? Fine read every single one of these papers, then tell us why every single one is wrong. Not "they don't cover x", but a detailed examination of what they did wrong, how the data they collected is incorrect and why their conclusion is not the best possible conclusion.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C44&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Until you do that... shut up about things you don't understand (and that includes religion and theology for both of you).

Of course, what Ohio got was a lesson plan whose specifics were falsehoods about evolutionary science and recycled religious antievolution arguments, including those associated with “intelligent design”, which the “critical analysis” advocates (falsely) swore up and down would not be presented to Ohio’s students. No, people opposed to bills like Florida’s SB1854 are not against “academic freedom” or even actual “critical analysis”; they are opposed to using the power of government to force teachers to tell lies to students, which is all that the ensemble of long-rebutted religious antievolution argumentation is. While the bill doesn’t explicitly mandate that crap like what was delivered in Ohio will have to be used in Florida classrooms, the track record is clear that we can expect only that.

Mike Clinch said: At least some variants on the theory of evolution suggest that evolution is more likely to occur in smaller, isolated communities undergoing evolutionary stress, while a large population is much less likely to evolve, as it is more difficult for a favorable mutation to propagate through the entire population. If that is the case, is the Discovery Institute, the other creationist groups and their captive legislators fostering our evolution? The minority of us who understand that evolution occurs are under environmental stress, while the larger population remains ignorant and unevolved.

Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

It wouldn’t be too hard for a teacher to flunk the kind of “arguments” made by our trolls. These trolls have repeatedly demonstrated how those immersed in ID/creationism are incapable of any type of conceptual understanding. They can’t answer even the most basic conceptual questions about any area of science. Hell, even the functionaries at AiG, the ICR, and the DI can’t do it.

Conceptual questions are not hard to formulate once a teacher gains some skill at detecting misconceptions. These are in fact necessary for diagnostic purposes; and one can be trained in how to use them quite effectively.

Major exams and quizzes can, and should, also have a large percentage of these kinds of questions; and there are many ways they can be asked.

One of the things that happen in doing this, however, is that students who have become used to gaming the system get really pissed off when they encounter these types of question and flunk. They (or their parents) accuse the teacher of being unfair.

It might be interesting to make a battery of such concept testing questions about ID/creation “science.” I can think of lots of questions that could be directed at students attempting to take advantage of a creationist law by passing off glib creationist claims in an attempt to avoid science and get credit for creationism.

In other words, it would be extremely easy to flunk a system-gaming student who thinks he/she has a solid grasp of ID/creationism. And AiG, ICR and the DI would be helpless in trying to stop it; they have made no progress in nearly 50 years.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Technically I’m STRONGLY IN FAVOR of this. Here’s a brief critical analysis of the theory of evolution - initially proposed based on anatomy/observational botany/field biology/nested hierarchy and observation of the strong effects of selection in agriculture. Subsequently strongly supported and expanded by discoveries in basic biochemistry, microbiology, classical genetics, light microscopic histology, electron microscopy, protein biochemistry and molecular biology/genomics. No serious non-magical alternate explanation of the diversity and relatedness of life on earth has been proposed. “Opponents” of the theory of evolution have a strong track record of lying and acting for financial gain. Current “anti-evolution” activity has a strong political correlate that does not square with objective analysis of evidence. However, I’m against the bill. Why? Because I recognize the language as actually being the standard coded language of the anti-evolution movement. Rather than actually encouraging a serious critical analysis such as I just presented, the bill seeks to induce teachers to violate constitutional rights by presenting factually false sectarian religious dogma as “science”.

FL said:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution

Hmm. Doesn't sound too scary to me. But then again, evolution isn't my religion.

Steve P. said:

Mike Clinch said: At least some variants on the theory of evolution suggest that evolution is more likely to occur in smaller, isolated communities undergoing evolutionary stress, while a large population is much less likely to evolve, as it is more difficult for a favorable mutation to propagate through the entire population. If that is the case, is the Discovery Institute, the other creationist groups and their captive legislators fostering our evolution? The minority of us who understand that evolution occurs are under environmental stress, while the larger population remains ignorant and unevolved.

Mike, design proponents don't contest the 'change in allele frequency over time' that accounts for slight changes in organism's characteristics which would allow for its continued optimization of available resources. What Darwin skeptics DO oppose is the mischaracterization of the directly observed limited nature of morphological change having a broader meaning. Science cannot tell us via observation and experimentation that common descent continues to take place at the present moment. What science can tell us in honesty is that, here and now, we DO NOT observe any thing more powerful than slight changes to existing morphologies. But you (pl) know that already. Now if only textbooks would just come right out and say that, we could all go home with a happy heart. But alas, the force of (blind) intention unwittingly keeps a deeper understanding (and an honest approach to education [in the case of biology at any rate])at bay.

Mike Clinch said: Until the Creationists and "cdesign proponetists" can disprove several centuries of theoretical development and provide a testable alternative explanation, they need to shut the hell up.

Disingenuous said: "Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution."

Oh, and we've got to reserve equal time for the "stork theory" in our schools. Just to be fair. Not that schools are real happy about trying to explain where babies come from in the first place ... you want controversial, now there's controversial.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

Dale Husband said: You are good at moving the goalposts, which is all evolution denialists can do. But that is also dishonest.

Florida is right to agitate . The public wants creationism as a option for conclusions on the same terms as any ideas in origins.
yet it all shows again that the whole nation needs to address this issue.
Its not going away. censorship in a free country, especially when your conviction/opinions are censored, is unnatural and against ones whole heritage of taking on establishments, errors, great wrong ideas and so on.
Put yourself in a creationists shoes.
Your asking someone to allow their nation to ban what they see as true about important or interesting matters of common heritage. ORIGINS of everything.
Its an absurdity to him to see such censorship in institutions about discovery and processes for discovery of truth.
In a nation about freedom of conscience and freedom of thought!!
ABSURDITY.
America will overthrow the legal prohibition against creationism in schools.

The scientific community has critically analyzed the Theory of Special Creation and found it completely unacceptable, unsatisfying, unverifiable, without predictions, without merit, and not real science.

— John Vanko

I have a problem with people like FL. What about extending the 'critical analysis' a bit,
like 'critical analysis of both evolution and creationism to determine which of them better fit the facts'?

Maybe he could ease us into the subject by referring to the facts in support of creationism he find outside of Genesis?

John Vanko said:

Disingenuous said: "Any scientific theory taught without critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory is not real science. I find it ironic, that those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers, would appose critical thinking when it comes to the theory of evolution."

Why do you want the Theory of Special Creation taught in high school when it is not real science? Critical thinking by the scientific community has concluded that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the Facts of Evolution continually over the last 150 years. It should be taught in publicly funded schools, not the fake-science of creationism. The critical analysis has already been done. Thank you for your support of mainstream science.

None of the arguments in the religious antievolution ensemble qualify as "critical analysis". Actual critical analysis is not based on falsehoods and long-rebutted fallacies. Actual critical analysis is welcome once the student has a good grounding in the material, but fake "critical analysis" seeks to simply undermine the teaching of the basic material.

We can see the difference.

IBelieveInGod said: So, it is not okay to apply critical thinking to evolution?

Wesley R. Elsberry said: None of the arguments in the religious antievolution ensemble qualify as "critical analysis". Actual critical analysis is not based on falsehoods and long-rebutted fallacies. Actual critical analysis is welcome once the student has a good grounding in the material, but fake "critical analysis" seeks to simply undermine the teaching of the basic material. We can see the difference.

IBelieveInGod said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said: None of the arguments in the religious antievolution ensemble qualify as "critical analysis". Actual critical analysis is not based on falsehoods and long-rebutted fallacies. Actual critical analysis is welcome once the student has a good grounding in the material, but fake "critical analysis" seeks to simply undermine the teaching of the basic material. We can see the difference.

Okay let me ask: Isn't the Burgess Shale a problem for TOE?

D. P. Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said: None of the arguments in the religious antievolution ensemble qualify as "critical analysis". Actual critical analysis is not based on falsehoods and long-rebutted fallacies. Actual critical analysis is welcome once the student has a good grounding in the material, but fake "critical analysis" seeks to simply undermine the teaching of the basic material. We can see the difference.

Okay let me ask: Isn't the Burgess Shale a problem for TOE?

No. (And sorry to feed it).

isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

IBIG:

No, the Burgess Shale is not a "problem" for evolutionary science. It is a place with fossilized soft tissue parts of organisms, providing an extraordinarily well-preserved record of the biota from that period. Getting Florida's students up to speed where they can legitimately take aboard Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris's rather different interpretations of that evidence would be a good thing. Students would do well to learn that science isn't about already knowing everything, scientists often propose competing hypotheses, that there are open questions, and that "{God|The Designer} Did It" can't be tested, doesn't do any useful scientific work, and can't be considered an answer in a science class.

Religious antievolution's "Cambrian Explosion!!!! OMG, whoops, OMD!!!" still isn't "critical analysis".

One of the IDC advocates had a Powerpoint with pictures of modern organisms for his slide about the Cambrian Explosion. I thought it would be a cool thing to put together about a dozen of the actual more-or-less wormy organisms from the early Cambrian and give him a pop quiz: which of these is the early chordate? I doubt he'd be able to pick out the correct one. It would be great if Florida's students got enough real education on the topic to succeed at that quiz.

Robert Byers lying again: Florida is right to agitate . The public wants creationism as a option for conclusions on the same terms as any ideas in origins. yet it all shows again that the whole nation needs to address this issue. Its not going away. censorship in a free country, especially when your conviction/opinions are censored, is unnatural and against ones whole heritage of taking on establishments, errors, great wrong ideas and so on. Put yourself in a creationists shoes. Your asking someone to allow their nation to ban what they see as true about important or interesting matters of common heritage. ORIGINS of everything. Its an absurdity to him to see such censorship in institutions about discovery and processes for discovery of truth. In a nation about freedom of conscience and freedom of thought!! ABSURDITY. America will overthrow the legal prohibition against creationism in schools.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

A problem? Yes. A disproof? No. That you don't know the difference proves you are not capable of actual critical analysis of scientific concepts.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

A problem? Yes. A disproof? No. That you don't know the difference proves you are not capable of actual critical analysis of scientific concepts.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: A problem? Yes. A disproof? No. That you don't know the difference proves you are not capable of actual critical analysis of scientific concepts.

Did I say that it was disproof? All I have said is that the problems with the theory should also be taught, that is what critical analysis is. You just admitted a problem.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

Frank J said: BTW, we have a real treat on this thread, with both the YEC FL and the old-earth-old-life-common-descent Steve P. Maybe they will shock us by critically analyzing each other's "theory."

Appparently Gould got it wrong, while Simon Conway Morris and Derek Briggs had it right. What is also important to note is just how long the Burgess Shale Fauna persisted in geological time, especially since a team that included Briggs unearthed a Lower Ordovician Burgess Shale Fauna from North Africa that was published in Nature about a year ago (I think it was either in late April or early May.).

SWT said:

Frank J said: BTW, we have a real treat on this thread, with both the YEC FL and the old-earth-old-life-common-descent Steve P. Maybe they will shock us by critically analyzing each other's "theory."

Indeed. Perhaps we should go a step farther and avoid any response to Byers, FL, IBiG, and Steve P. until they come to a consensus on what happened when and the mechanisms by which those events occurred.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

A problem? Yes. A disproof? No. That you don't know the difference proves you are not capable of actual critical analysis of scientific concepts.

Did I say that it was disproof? All I have said is that the problems with the theory should also be taught, that is what critical analysis is. You just admitted a problem.

SWT said:

Frank J said: BTW, we have a real treat on this thread, with both the YEC FL and the old-earth-old-life-common-descent Steve P. Maybe they will shock us by critically analyzing each other's "theory."

Indeed. Perhaps we should go a step farther and avoid any response to Byers, FL, IBiG, and Steve P. until they come to a consensus on what happened when and the mechanisms by which those events occurred.

IBelieveInGod said: So, it is not okay to apply critical thinking to evolution?

Robert Byers said: Put yourself in a creationists shoes. Your asking someone to allow their nation to ban what they see as true about important or interesting matters of common heritage. ORIGINS of everything.

SWT said: Indeed. Perhaps we should go a step farther and avoid any response to Byers, FL, IBiG, and Steve P. until they come to a consensus on what happened when and the mechanisms by which those events occurred.

IBelieveInGod said: Did I say that it was disproof? All I have said is that the problems with the theory should also be taught, that is what critical analysis is. You just admitted a problem.

Part of the problem here is another creationist word game--or maybe a real ignorance of the actual meaning of the term "critical analysis." Like with "theory," "entropy," "information," etc., they choose the meaning that best suits their purposes. What they mean by "critical" is NOT the same thing that scientists or even good teachers would mean.

They use "critical" and "criticize" in the colloquial sense of "find things wrong with" or "say bad things about." Like "How dare you criticize my wardrobe?" or "Don't criticize me!"

The real meaning of "criticize" is more like "evaluate." Consider the good points, consider the bad points (if any), and come to a final judgment of the thing as a whole. A literary criticism, for instance, may have nothing but unbounded praise for a book, nothing negative at all, and still be criticism. (It always came as an apotheosis to my English students when they discovered that "literary criticism" didn't mean "trashing books.")

So here's a thumbnail sketch of a "critical analysis" of evolution: X works, obviously. Y has tons of evidence to support it and nothing substantial against it. Z is backed up by solid findings in 7 other scientific disciplines. AA can be observed in daily life. BB is used practically in the field because it works and makes money. CC has gone from a hypothesis to solid fact as evidence has accumulated. [....] MM is a detail we're not sure we understand yet, and NN is a hot area of research which could resolve some fine details with X. In sum, it all works beautifully together, and works way better than any other proposed theory.

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

@Just Bob: You probably meant "epiphany", not "apotheosis". Or do students turn into gods when they realize this? :-)

fnxtr said: @Just Bob: You probably meant "epiphany", not "apotheosis". Or do students turn into gods when they realize this? :-)

And how do you think the problem can be solved?

Only if they are taught all the unknowns about ALL scientific theories. Which of course, is after they are given the basics in all of them. After all, you cannot understand the competing explanations in most theories unless you have a grounding in the basics of all areas of science, including Physics, Geology, Genetics, Embryology, Chemistry, Systematics, Ecology, Bio-Geography: yeah, by age 15 they should be ready, but only if they are taught nothing but science and maths.

Hey, that actually sounds pretty good.

Yes, we really need to make sure the "kiddies" understand the "alternatives" to how babies are made ... no harm with that ... unless refusing to buy the "stork theory" has become your "religion".

IBelieveInGod said:

D. P. Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said: None of the arguments in the religious antievolution ensemble qualify as "critical analysis". Actual critical analysis is not based on falsehoods and long-rebutted fallacies. Actual critical analysis is welcome once the student has a good grounding in the material, but fake "critical analysis" seeks to simply undermine the teaching of the basic material. We can see the difference.

Okay let me ask: Isn't the Burgess Shale a problem for TOE?

No. (And sorry to feed it).

The question wasn't directed at you.

FL said: Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory.

FL said:

And how do you think the problem can be solved?

It may or may not ever get solved. There are many unsolved problems in science. You know how you guys always say it's important for the public school science kids to at least understand the basics of evolutionary theory whether or not they agree with it? Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory. There's nothing wrong with that, unless evolution has become your religion instead of your science.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory.

Would you agree that it's equally important for school children to understand the far greater known problems and blank-spots that accompany intelligent design creationism "theory"?

Would you agree that it’s equally important for school children to understand the far greater known problems and blank-spots that accompany intelligent design creationism “theory”?

Which of course, is after they are given the basics in all of them.

Gotta present the basics first and then present the problem areas, like he suggested. So....are you willing to support science teachers presenting the basics of Intelligent Design and then presenting its problem areas) within the public school science classrooms? FL

FL said:

Would you agree that it’s equally important for school children to understand the far greater known problems and blank-spots that accompany intelligent design creationism “theory”?

Sure. Honestly, no problem with that.

However, remember what KL said:

Which of course, is after they are given the basics in all of them.

Gotta present the basics first and then present the problem areas, like he suggested. So....are you willing to support science teachers presenting the basics of Intelligent Design and then presenting its problem areas) within the public school science classrooms?

I think if a science teacher recommended that the kids get onto YouTube and watch Thunderf00t's WHY PEOPLE LAUGH AT CREATIONISTS -- which, for those not familiar with it, depicts them in extreme detail as ignorant buffoons -- creationists would be the first to complain.

KL said: So, just what are those basics? You know, the science of ID.

BTW, FL, you are avoiding answering my questions into how this bill will help children understand Evolutionary Biology, even though identically worded bills in Ohio, Texas and Louisiana resulted in more children not understanding basic science.

stevaroni said:

IBIG said: "isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?"

Well, the creationist version might be a problem for the TOE, but then again, the creationist version of the Cambrian Explosion is.... “All life appeared suddenly.” Which kind of glosses over the fact that “all life” didn't include any mammals, like us. That all came later. It also didn't include any birds. They wouldn't be around for 350 million years. Or, for that matter, any fishes, amphibians, reptiles, marsupials, cephalopods, trees, flowers, grasses, ferns and even talking snakes. ...

I mean, if these academic freedom laws have been repeatedly introduced and used by Creationists with the expressed purpose to lie to and brainwash children in the past into misunderstanding and mistrustring science, why do we need to listen to FL's pleas that this time will be different?

FL said:

And how do you think the problem can be solved?

It may or may not ever get solved. There are many unsolved problems in science. You know how you guys always say it's important for the public school science kids to at least understand the basics of evolutionary theory whether or not they agree with it? Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory. There's nothing wrong with that, unless evolution has become your religion instead of your science. FL

FL said:

And how do you think the problem can be solved?

You know how you guys always say it's important for the public school science kids to at least understand the basics of evolutionary theory whether or not they agree with it? Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory. There's nothing wrong with that, unless evolution has become your religion instead of your science. FL

I reckon the theory of intelligent falling just doesn't strike him as particularly important?

FL said: Well, all the Florida bill is saying is that it's equally important for the science kiddies to understand the known problems and blank-spots that accompany evolutionary theory.

There's nothing wrong with that, unless evolution has become your religion instead of your science.

FL said:

Which of course, is after they are given the basics in all of them.

Gotta present the basics first and then present the problem areas, like he suggested. So....are you willing to support science teachers presenting the basics of Intelligent Design and then presenting its problem areas) within the public school science classrooms? FL

Evolution is not a religion, and cannot be - Floyd lies again. Lies damn him to eternal perdition. Why do you continue to ignore Christ? Why do you only give obedience to the Father of Lies. Why do you damn yourself merely for your own vanity.

Your ego is not worth your soul, Floyd. I pray for you redemption.

John Vanko said: The so-called Cambrian Explosion is no problem for evolution. It is part of geological history. The fossils of the Cambrian, as the fossils of every Period, are the Facts of evolution that cry out for an explanation. Only the Theory of Evolution provides an adequate, coherent answer.

But the Cambrian is indeed the death knell for Special Creation.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

Well, the creationist version might be a problem for the TOE, but then again, the creationist version of the Cambrian Explosion is.... “All life appeared suddenly.” Which kind of glosses over the fact that “all life” didn't include any mammals, like us. That all came later. It also didn't include any birds. They wouldn't be around for 350 million years. Or, for that matter, any fishes, amphibians, reptiles, marsupials, cephalopods, trees, flowers, grasses, ferns and even talking snakes. In fact, the only life that “suddenly appeared” was pretty much ocean dwelling arthropods. Sea scorpions, centipedes, trilobites, crab-ish kind of things, that sort of stuff. And “suddenly” was more like 50 or 60 million years - more than 20,000 times the length of recorded human history. And “appeared” actually means “left fossils. The Burgess shales were important because at the time (1909) there were simply no known fossils from that long ago. The supply od dead old animals to study just fell off a cliff at 500 million years ago. When Charles Walcott discovered the shales it was a unique revelation. A singular, sudden, glimpse into extreme deep time. Just like, say, the first archeopteryx was a unique, unexpected game-changer. And just like archeopteryx, because there were no known precedents, the organisms of the Burgess shales seemed to magically pop up out of nowhere. But since then we've turned up similar concentrations of fossilized stuff from similar depths in the past. Though fossils this old are still rare, the Burgess shales have now have counterparts in the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, and the Sirius Passet in Greenland. Importantly, we now have fossils from long before Burgess. They were hard to find, because, as expected, they were simpler, soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize nearly as well as the Burgess trilobites but nonetheless, they exist. So is the creationist version of the Cambrian explosion a problem for the TOE? Yes, it certainly is. Then again, the creationist version is “All life appeared suddenly.”, which is an utter fabrication. The honest description of the Cambrian explosion goes more like... “The record shows that once life developed the ability to move, things developed quickly, Over 50 million years (“quick” if perhaps not “explosive” in geological terms) life evolved rapidly. By the time the Cambrian was over, all the major phyla had developed, and the seas were teeming with 36 major families of worms, scorpions, crabs ferns, and sea-slugs - including, importantly, a tube worm with a primitive nerve cord - a chordate - that would one day evolve into fish, reptiles, birds, and us.” So, um, no, Rob. When you describe the Cambrian explosion honestly it's no problem for evolution at all.

Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

I’ll pose the same questions to you, FL, that I posed to IBIG: why are you so bent on singling out evolution and not crying about gravity?

FL said:

Would you agree that it’s equally important for school children to understand the far greater known problems and blank-spots that accompany intelligent design creationism “theory”?

Sure. Honestly, no problem with that. However, remember what KL said:

Which of course, is after they are given the basics in all of them.

Gotta present the basics first and then present the problem areas, like he suggested. So....are you willing to support science teachers presenting the basics of Intelligent Design and then presenting its problem areas) within the public school science classrooms? FL

The Cambrian runs directly counter to YEC beliefs in any number of ways. Its too old. It took too long. Only sea creatures appear. Not even sea creatures you’d recognize.

You guys still letting Biggie yank your chain? Back to the ATBC with him. But as much as he likes to talk, he won't talk over there -- obviously he sees less value in it, though it's hard to see the level of accomplishment as being any different.

What known problems?

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

Even Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

FL said:

What known problems?

Somebody already admitted that the Cambrian-Ex was a problem...

Still waiting on those basics of ID science. Why aren't you producing them?

Well, it's kind of like this ... not everything is known for certain about the US Civil War. This should not be used as a sneaky pretext, however, to try to convince people that large numbers of black folk fought for the Confederacy.

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

Even Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

FL said:

I’ll pose the same questions to you, FL, that I posed to IBIG: why are you so bent on singling out evolution and not crying about gravity?

If that's your objection, then I'm sure you're a clear supporter of the Louisiana Science Education Act since it covers multiple science topics. (Otherwise, your question drops out because of hypocrisy.)

Ideally, Florida would have likewise mentioned multiple topics. But for whatever reason, they didn't.

However, you DO claim that evolution is science. So you'll have no objection to teaching it as science....which means discussing with students some of the problem areas, blank spots, and such. FL

And told you that it wasn’t the kind of “problem” you think it is.

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

nmgirl said: no

FL said:

I’ll pose the same questions to you, FL, that I posed to IBIG: why are you so bent on singling out evolution and not crying about gravity?

If that's your objection, then I'm sure you're a clear supporter of the Louisiana Science Education Act since it covers multiple science topics. (Otherwise, your question drops out because of hypocrisy.)

Ideally, Florida would have likewise mentioned multiple topics. But for whatever reason, they didn't. However, you DO claim that evolution is science. So you'll have no objection to teaching it as science....which means discussing with students some of the problem areas, blank spots, and such. FL

IBIG said:

Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

FL said:

And told you that it wasn’t the kind of “problem” you think it is.

I never said what "kind of problem I think it is." But do you need corroboration that the Cambrian-Ex is still a problem for evolution? FL

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?

A problem? Yes. A disproof? No. That you don't know the difference proves you are not capable of actual critical analysis of scientific concepts.

Did I say that it was disproof? All I have said is that the problems with the theory should also be taught, that is what critical analysis is. You just admitted a problem.

eric said: Comparing what science says with what the bible says is (a) not what most people consider "critical analysis," (b) unconstitutional anyway, and (c) perfectly fine for you to do in an elective, so there is no reason to try and crowbar it into science classes.

biggy, another thing you don't understand about the burgess shale is the unique depositional environment the fossils are found in. the water was very very still, perfect for deposition and preservation. we don't find that environment very often.

Dale Husband said: The exceptions are the echinoderms, which are among the deuterostomes but are radial in symmetry.

Pathetic trolls, sitting in a darkened room, body rocking to and fro, pounding on computer keys until fingers are bloody; mechanically reciting same mantra day after day, year after year; completely oblivious of any sensory input from an external world.

Religion or mental illness?

Mike Elzinga said: Religion or mental illness?

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Religion or mental illness?

"There's a difference?" - paraphrasing Richard Dawkins

FL said: So....are you willing to support science teachers presenting the basics of Intelligent Design and then presenting its problem areas) within the public school science classrooms?

I think that the general population/ scientists/ anyone else (for the sake of this discussion, I'll call this group "us") who has to deal with anti-evolutionist/creationists/IDers ("Them/They")- needs to get a handle on is that to "them" - evolution is not just the principle in biology that explains the diversity of life etc - it is the entire history of the universe as revealed by the human endeavor/ the scientific method roughly between the Renaissance and present day. From the "big bang" to cosmology, to the formation of stars, solar systems, planets, abiogenesis , the history of all life on earth starting from something like a microbe and the diversity/interrelatedness of life on earth. and all of the chemistry, physics, geology that was used to gather evidence for all of the above- that's "evolution" to them. They are not just anti-evolution, they are anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-humanist, anti- rational thought. they are either incapable of comprehending (or intentionally ignoring) that scientific knowledge is the result the efforts of (imperfect) humans. Science is squishy, fluid and dynamic - it changes as we learn more about what we didn't know about before.

So when one of "them" says "isn't the Cambrian explosion a problem for evolution?" what they are really saying is "my straw-man of the Cambrian explosion refutes my straw-man of the entire history of the universe narrative" and therefore you can't believe knowledge from a human source - therefore knowledge from a super-human source (the Bible) is TRUTH and science is a shadow of truth.... sorry I went of on a rant there..

and therefore you can’t believe knowledge from a human source - therefore knowledge from a super-human source (the Bible) is TRUTH and science is a shadow of truth

Paul Burnett said: It would make for an entertaining hour in the science curriculum.

mrg said:

Paul Burnett said: It would make for an entertaining hour in the science curriculum.

Ur. These folks have no problem with the idea that creationism could be included in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM in science education. They would even accept that it be included in a strictly derisive fashion. That is because, and I think they are right, once they got any wedge in at all, they would be able of work it in deeper from there.

Mike Elzinga said: That sounds a bit pornographic ....

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Paul Burnett said: It would make for an entertaining hour in the science curriculum.

Ur. These folks have no problem with the idea that creationism could be included in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM in science education. They would even accept that it be included in a strictly derisive fashion. That is because, and I think they are right, once they got any wedge in at all, they would be able of work it in deeper from there.

That sounds a bit pornographic; but having known a few of these ogling characters, I would not be surprised that this is somewhat the picture they have in their minds. Their female students found them really creepy.

FL said:

And told you that it wasn’t the kind of “problem” you think it is.

I never said what "kind of problem I think it is." But do you need corroboration that the Cambrian-Ex is still a problem for evolution? FL

A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. As a recent BBC news article reports: "We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity," said (evolutionary biologist Martin) Smith. Keep in mind here that "evolution" is a placeholder term for an as-of-yet uncovered mechanism that produces animals like Cephalopods in a "geological blink of an eye." Darwin's Dilemma is not solved by vague appeals (regarding) "how quickly" evolution can operate. All this follows on the heels of recent fossil findings that push phylum Bryozoa back into the Cambrian period, and echinoderms back to the early Cambrian. Isn't "evolution" amazing? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_show_cambrian_exp035191.html

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

IBelieve shows us his willful stupidity yet again. Did you ever try googling them? Oh, wait, you didn't, as then you'd prove yourself a liar.

Even Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

That is because you refuse to look. There are fossils of Precambrian organisms. Simply because you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge their existence does not magically disprove them.

Thanks for giving a link, to a link of an abstract that basically says what we all have been saying this whole time. The Cambrian Explosion is a problem that is still being solved and will add to our understanding of evolution theory. Can you tell me again how the Cambrian Explosion supports YEC again, because I missed that part?

I'd take FL and IBIG more seriously if they didn't keep running away from answering questions themselves. People have answered here that while there are open questions about the Pre-Cambrian, there is nothing that would threaten the theory of evolution.

No creationist has been able to explain the fossil record and why there is no mixing. There is a lame attempt on the AIG website which basically says that the layering is dependant on how fast you run, but there were very fast dinosaurs and very slow mammals but except for some primitive mammals the dinosaurs are always below the mammals. You don't find icthyosaurs with whales. You don't find Pteranodons with sea birds. No Triceratops with Elephants.

Even though I mention the lame AIG website and why it is wrong I just get sent a link the that page. This even happened when I emailed the AIG. It is like FL, when you question him on the Bible he sends you a link to a bad appologetics page that doesn't actually answer the question.

Michael J said: People have answered here that while there are open questions about the Pre-Cambrian, there is nothing that would threaten the theory of evolution.

FL said: Potentially Juicy Examples of Cambrian problems: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 FL

FL said: In fact, if we're all going to be honest about it, the Cambrian Explosion problem is continuing to be a problem. From Darwin's time down to this present day.

A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

Having been raised a Methodist and now being a member of the Church of Christ at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, I know the power of God in people's lives. Also, my scientific training and my career as a practicing scientist show me that nothing in science denies the existence or actions of God. In fact, science can only be mute on these issues, since we cannot empirically test the existence, actions or methods of God. Intelligent Design proposes that complexity in nature is the identifying characteristic of the action of an Intelligent Designer: either irreducible or specified complexity as described by Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. William Dembski, respectively. I interpret this to mean that the truly complex features of nature we do not now understand should be attributed to the direct actions of God or whomever the Intelligent Designer may have been. I have absolutely no quarrel with the direct action of God being a valid hypothesis to explain any feature of nature that we currently do not understand, complex or otherwise. What makes something science is not merely having hypotheses. Science is having hypotheses and then testing them. The Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of God or any other Intelligent Designer. This in no way negates the validity of the hypothesis. It simply means that this hypothesis is outside the purview of science, because science can only support or refute hypotheses that are empirically testable, and this is not one of them. To me, the issue is not about any prohibition against teaching Intelligent Design, God or religion in K-12 public schools. The issue is that the hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer to explain features of nature should not be part of the science curriculum, because it is outside the purview of science.
(...)
Evolution is a body of knowledge that has been and continues to be developed, rigorously tested, and empirically supported. In fact, even most proponents of Intelligent Design agree that evolution is important in nature. Biological evolution results from the interplay of genetic mutations, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection. Surely, we have only begun to understand how these processes work and how they and other processes have shaped the earth's biota - that's why I am a scientist and an evolutionary biologist. All fields of science are ever expanding bases of knowledge that are continually focused on what we do not know - remember that the goal of science is to explore what we do not yet understand. Science's job will be done when we know all that can be known about nature, but until then criticisms that evolutionary biology cannot now explain any particular complex feature of an organism are unjustified. And if God's hand were accepted as the scientific explanation for some complexity of nature, scientific inquiry into that complexity - by definition - stops. If we do this before we are sure we know all we can about it, we may be stopping investigations on something that could potentially be understood with more thought, insight and hard work. The various biological causes of disease are examples of natural phenomena that were once ascribed to the actions of God, but that through continued scientific inquiry were found to be understandable. If science had accepted God's hand as the explanation for disease, modern medicine would not exist. Obviously, science will be wasting its time in its pursuit of understanding for things that truly were the result of God's direct action, but that is the price that science must pay, since science cannot know what is and is not understandable beforehand.

Evolution News and Views: And the fact is, regarding this topic, new scientific discoveries are providing new question-marks.

Also, I was just frustrated by the same thing, Mike. Luskin's article mentions that the researchers on this paper don't seem to support ID. I would have loved to leave a comment with the same link and quotes I've just given FL. Alack, it seems this one won't be part of their experimental "listen to people reading our material" posts.

FL said: In fact, if we're all going to be honest about it, the Cambrian Explosion problem is continuing to be a problem. From Darwin's time down to this present day.

A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

And the fact is, regarding this topic, new scientific discoveries are providing new question-marks.

Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. As a recent BBC news article reports: "We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity," said (evolutionary biologist Martin) Smith. Keep in mind here that "evolution" is a placeholder term for an as-of-yet uncovered mechanism that produces animals like Cephalopods in a "geological blink of an eye."

Darwin's Dilemma is not solved by vague appeals (regarding) "how quickly" evolution can operate.

All this follows on the heels of recent fossil findings that push phylum Bryozoa back into the Cambrian period, and echinoderms back to the early Cambrian.

Isn't "evolution" amazing?

What's wrong with legally allowing public school science teachers to merely discuss some of the Cambrian problems, when the class arrives at the Cambrian chapter in their biology class textbooks? Just keep it simple and short like the textbook does, give a couple examples, offer a few considered questions for class discussion, and move on. No harm done.

Potentially Juicy Examples of Cambrian problems: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 FL

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

IBelieve shows us his willful stupidity yet again. Did you ever try googling them? Oh, wait, you didn't, as then you'd prove yourself a liar.

Even Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

That is because you refuse to look. There are fossils of Precambrian organisms. Simply because you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge their existence does not magically disprove them.

Did I say that there were no fossils at all? According to Darwin the world should have been swarming with life prior to the Cambrian Strata. Remember according to TOE life evolved from common descent over billions of years, it was a gradual modification of previous life that supposedly led to the diversity of life that we see today, therefore it is a very serious problem for the theory, considering the lack of fossils prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

Now the problem with the Burgess Shale is a different problem, a wider range of body plans existed than is present in life today. If evolution from common descent were true there should be much more diverse body plans today, yet there are less diverse body plans. Maybe your explanation would be that certain body plans failed and were eliminated by natural selection, but it is still a problem for TOE

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Potentially Juicy Examples of Cambrian problems: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 FL

And you can’t give a critical analysis of the claims over there. In fact you can’t give a critical analysis of anything; guaranteed.

FL said: In fact, if we're all going to be honest about it, the Cambrian Explosion problem is continuing to be a problem. From Darwin's time down to this present day.

A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

And the fact is, regarding this topic, new scientific discoveries are providing new question-marks.

Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. As a recent BBC news article reports: "We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity," said (evolutionary biologist Martin) Smith. Keep in mind here that "evolution" is a placeholder term for an as-of-yet uncovered mechanism that produces animals like Cephalopods in a "geological blink of an eye." Darwin's Dilemma is not solved by vague appeals (regarding) "how quickly" evolution can operate. All this follows on the heels of recent fossil findings that push phylum Bryozoa back into the Cambrian period, and echinoderms back to the early Cambrian. Isn't "evolution" amazing? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_show_cambrian_exp035191.html

What's wrong with legally allowing public school science teachers to merely discuss some of the Cambrian problems, when the class arrives at the Cambrian chapter in their biology class textbooks? Just keep it simple and short like the textbook does, give a couple examples, offer a few considered questions for class discussion, and move on. No harm done. **** Potentially Juicy Examples of Cambrian problems: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 FL

The fact that Floyd cites them demonstrates Floyd's fundamental ignorance and simultaneous dishonesty. It is sad. We see the fruit of the Father of Lies at work in Floyd.

Floyd, I pray for your salvation, but I fear you are already lost.

Malchus said: But there are no actual problems from an evolutionary theory perspective - at least not problems we cannot supply an answer for. The difficulty is that the current data allows for but fails to clearly distinguish between a variety of explanations. Creationism offers no testable explanations of any kind. Why do you damn yourself by lying about this?

FL said: In fact, if we're all going to be honest about it, the Cambrian Explosion problem is continuing to be a problem. From Darwin's time down to this present day.

A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

And the fact is, regarding this topic, new scientific discoveries are providing new question-marks.

Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils. As a recent BBC news article reports: "We go from very simple pre-Cambrian life-forms to something as complex as a cephalopod in the geological blink of an eye, which illustrates just how quickly evolution can produce complexity," said (evolutionary biologist Martin) Smith. Keep in mind here that "evolution" is a placeholder term for an as-of-yet uncovered mechanism that produces animals like Cephalopods in a "geological blink of an eye." Darwin's Dilemma is not solved by vague appeals (regarding) "how quickly" evolution can operate. All this follows on the heels of recent fossil findings that push phylum Bryozoa back into the Cambrian period, and echinoderms back to the early Cambrian. Isn't "evolution" amazing? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/fossil_finds_show_cambrian_exp035191.html

What's wrong with legally allowing public school science teachers to merely discuss some of the Cambrian problems, when the class arrives at the Cambrian chapter in their biology class textbooks? Just keep it simple and short like the textbook does, give a couple examples, offer a few considered questions for class discussion, and move on. No harm done. **** Potentially Juicy Examples of Cambrian problems: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119 FL

IBelieveInGod said: God created sea life before any other life. Could you please provide the fossils of dinosaur ancestors, trilobite ancestors?

FL said: In fact, if we're all going to be honest about it, the Cambrian Explosion problem is continuing to be a problem. From Darwin's time down to this present day. FL

IBelieveInGod said: So, let's look at evolutionary theory and see if there are problems. According to theory life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, evolution is said to be an extremely long process, yet there are very few fossils prior to the Cambrian Explosion, yet suddenly all of the current body plans are in existence during the Cambrian Explosion. Clearly a contradiction to TOE.

IBelieveInGod said: Even Darwin declared that if his theory of evolution were true “it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.” Yet the fossil record below the Cambrian strata seems to be devoid of such fossils, why is that?

IBIG and FL have exactly the same disease. It is directly traceable to their sectarian religion in which quoting “authorities” substitutes for understanding concepts and the ability to vet “authorities” for their relevance and worth.

It starts in Sunday school with memorizing bible verses, and continues on into adulthood (it’s still questionable that IBIG is an adult; it thinks like a child).

It is directly traceable to their sectarian religion in which quoting “authorities” substitutes for understanding concepts and the ability to vet “authorities” for their relevance and worth.

Flint said: Just wave your bible, and you ARE a worthy and relevant authority.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, let's look at evolutionary theory and see if there are problems. According to theory life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, evolution is said to be an extremely long process, yet there are very few fossils prior to the Cambrian Explosion, yet suddenly all of the current body plans are in existence during the Cambrian Explosion. Clearly a contradiction to TOE.

The main reason why there are comparatively few Precambrian fossils compared to Cambrian fossils is because Precambrian organisms had yet to evolve hard parts. As for the diversity of body plans during the Cambrian, well, contrary to what you're trying to dishonestly imply, IBelieve, that does not mean that scientists are just throwing up their hands and giving up. The diversity of Cambrian body plans is actually inspiring scientists to study Cambrian and Precambrian fossils more.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

“it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited… the world swarmed with living creatures.”

Indeed this is true. And those creatures were, for the most part, without hard parts that fossilize relatively easily. Soft-bodied animals do not fossilize very often. It requires just the right circumstances.

You see, hard shells evolved (you can see this in the fossil record). The first hints at hard parts are, evidently, the Small Shelly Fauna in the very lowest Cambrian. Once shells began to evolve they conveyed an immense survival advantage.

Coupled with the fact that fossiliferous strata become rarer and rarer with increasing geological age because they are more likely reworked by erosion and metamorphosis. It's a wonder we have any Pre-Cambrian fossils at all.

So the Cambrian Explosion, as it is called, is part of the Fact of Evolution and no embarrassment for the Theory of Evolution at all. But it is fatal to the Theory of Special Creation. Likewise fatal to Diluvian Theory.

So IBIG, stop pretending you know anything about geology or paleontology. Tell the truth - you don't know anything about them except what you've read on creationist websites. You have not taken college classes in physical geology or paleontology or stratigraphy or geomorphology or petrology. You have not conducted geological field work. You have no degree in this field.

All your notions about these subjects are erroneous straw-men concepts from flawed creationist websites with an ax to grind. And you have swallowed their lie hook, line, and sinker.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

I mean, seriously, IBelieve, your comments demonstrate that you have no understanding of science, that you have no desire to understand science, that you have no desire to listen to what other people, whom you demonize as evil atheists I might add, say at all, and that you think that you magically know better than all of the scientists in the whole wide world.

There is an enormous difference between a problem in evolution and problem for evolution. The latter exist only in the minds of creationists. The former exist, in droves, but they don't keep "evolutionists" up at night. Their existence is trivially true. Every area of active research has problems. Every chemist doing basic research is investigating a problem in Chemistry; every physicist doing basic research is investigating a problem in Physics etc.. What other reason is there for doing basic research? "What are you researching Professor?" "Oh, something in my field that is thoroughly understood and has no problems left to solve."

As for Darwin and the PreCambrian fossil record, if he said that it ought to be teeming with fossils he was wrong. And that's OK. He was wrong about many things. This may be hard for creationists to understand, but neither Darwin nor his works have any authority in science. Science doesn't work that way.

Mike Elzinga said: On reading IBIG’s posts, it has occurred to me from time to time that, instead of running a Turing test, someone is attempting to design the world’s stupidest computer.

IBelieveInGod said: yet suddenly all of the current body plans are in existence during the Cambrian Explosion.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: The exceptions are the echinoderms, which are among the deuterostomes but are radial in symmetry.

As you likely realize, they start out as bilaterans and then grown into five-point symmetry. Which makes precisely ZERO sense from the point of view of creationism.

by Dr. Hugh Ross Proponents of gradualism often trot out so-called “transitional” whale fossils as evidence supporting their view.1, 2 In my book, The Genesis Question, I explain why no other animal has a higher risk of rapid extinction and a lower chance of natural advancement than the whale.3 My short explanation for the fossil record’s “transitional” whales is simply that God likes whales. He repeatedly made new ones to replace those that went extinct. A new challenge to the claims of naturalists and Darwinists comes from the first-time discovery of some relatively complete ancient whale ankle bones.4 Theorists have insisted that modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates). Thus, expectations ran high that this discovery would settle the question. The surprising answer is that ancient whale ankles do not look anything like artiodactyl ankles or mesonychian ankles—or any other known ankles, for that matter. The Bible’s claim that God specially created the great sea mammals receives further affirmation.

Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle Scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes. This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle. And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have. Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.

Okay it is said that the reason for a lack of fossil in the precambrian explosion is due to a lack of hard body parts, so how many of the organisms in the cambrian explosion were without evolved hard body parts? This is an old argument that is getting a little tiresome. If organisms without hard body parts can be fossilized in the cambrian explosion, then they could have any other time as well.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

Thing is, you say “all the current body plans” to a layman and they think starfish and horses and frogs, where in reality, the representatives of the 36 phyla were three dozen types of crawly things.

IBelieveInGod said: Okay it is said that the reason for a lack of fossil in the precambrian explosion is due to a lack of hard body parts, so how many of the organisms in the cambrian explosion were without evolved hard body parts? This is an old argument that is getting a little tiresome. If organisms without hard body parts can be fossilized in the cambrian explosion, then they could have any other time as well.

IBelieveInGod said: Okay it is said that the reason for a lack of fossil in the precambrian explosion is due to a lack of hard body parts, so how many of the organisms in the cambrian explosion were without evolved hard body parts? This is an old argument that is getting a little tiresome. If organisms without hard body parts can be fossilized in the cambrian explosion, then they could have any other time as well.

Okay it is said that the reason for a lack of fossil in the precambrian explosion is due to a lack of hard body parts,

so how many of the organisms in the cambrian explosion were without evolved hard body parts?

This is an old argument that is getting a little tiresome. If organisms without hard body parts can be fossilized in the cambrian explosion, then they could have any other time as well.

How come you refuse to explain to us how saying “God spoke the laws into existence” is supposed to be a better explanation?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, let's look at evolutionary theory and see if there are problems. According to theory life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, evolution is said to be an extremely long process, yet there are very few fossils prior to the Cambrian Explosion, yet suddenly all of the current body plans are in existence during the Cambrian Explosion. Clearly a contradiction to TOE.

The main reason why there are comparatively few Precambrian fossils compared to Cambrian fossils is because Precambrian organisms had yet to evolve hard parts. As for the diversity of body plans during the Cambrian, well, contrary to what you're trying to dishonestly imply, IBelieve, that does not mean that scientists are just throwing up their hands and giving up. The diversity of Cambrian body plans is actually inspiring scientists to study Cambrian and Precambrian fossils more.

Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

MichaelJ said:

IBelieveInGod said: Okay it is said that the reason for a lack of fossil in the precambrian explosion is due to a lack of hard body parts, so how many of the organisms in the cambrian explosion were without evolved hard body parts? This is an old argument that is getting a little tiresome. If organisms without hard body parts can be fossilized in the cambrian explosion, then they could have any other time as well.

Somebody already told you that the shales were created under a unique set of circumstances in very still water with very fine sediment (Nothing like a flood strangely enough). However, Where are all of the fossils of modern creatures that creation science predicts should also be there?

are all life forms today hard bodied? I mean really, how stupid can one person be. usually it takes a committee of bureaucrats.

Appealing to the Cambrian Explosion is really just appealing to the "sudden appearance without precursors" argument. Funny thing about this argument is that it implicitly assumes Deep Time. Another funny thing is that this argument as a "problem" for naturalistic evolution actually had a wholly naturalistic explanation championed by a pair of scientists that Creationists have constantly appealed to. Eldridge and Gould proposed the non-supernatural Punctuated Equilibrium version of evolution to explain "sudden appearance" or rather "stasis and then sudden diversification" which is basically the same thing in the Creationist usage.

That both conventional explanations for the CE and Eldridge/Gould's idea of PE are fully naturalistic and depend entirely on a conventional date scheme for geology apparently don't get through to anti-evolutionists. For them it's all about surface arguments and shallow, superficial points that miss the deeper realities and nuances, which once acknowledged as necessary to their arguments would make their use of those appeals crumble like a sandcastle in a hurricane.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

Scientists have observed speciation happen, and speciation is an instance in the class macroevolution. This nicely demonstrates how better evolutionary science education is needed.

steve p. said: You know as well as I do that macro-evolution is not taking place. Its finished. There is nothing new. Same-o, same-o. The building contractor locked up the trailer long ago, went home, made some dinner, cracked open a cold one, and stretched out on the couch to watch the daily show. End of story.

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, let's look at evolutionary theory and see if there are problems. According to theory life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, evolution is said to be an extremely long process, yet there are very few fossils prior to the Cambrian Explosion, yet suddenly all of the current body plans are in existence during the Cambrian Explosion. Clearly a contradiction to TOE.

The main reason why there are comparatively few Precambrian fossils compared to Cambrian fossils is because Precambrian organisms had yet to evolve hard parts. As for the diversity of body plans during the Cambrian, well, contrary to what you're trying to dishonestly imply, IBelieve, that does not mean that scientists are just throwing up their hands and giving up. The diversity of Cambrian body plans is actually inspiring scientists to study Cambrian and Precambrian fossils more.

Really? So, are all of the Cambrian fossils hard bodied?

are all life forms today hard bodied? I mean really, how stupid can one person be. usually it takes a committee of bureaucrats.

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: You know as well as I do that macro-evolution is not taking place. Its finished. There is nothing new. Same-o, same-o. The building contractor locked up the trailer long ago, went home, made some dinner, cracked open a cold one, and stretched out on the couch to watch the daily show. End of story.

Fortunately the scientific community continues to do research and gain further insight into the processes of evolution rather than sitting in comfortable offices writing political screeds. Looking at the really stressed populations of bacteria and other organisms with fast reproduction cycles and their responses to drugs may not mean much to you; but you can be damned sure that when the human population comes under the equivalent levels of stress, speciation will show up very quickly. The fact that you can lounge around on your couch and watch TV suggests that you don’t have enough “challenges” in your life. That’s why you are incapable of learning; not enough motivation. Therefore no macroevolution in your understanding. And besides, the Daily Show is far too sophisticated for you.

"Unless of course you have a smoking gun."

John Vanko said:

"Unless of course you have a smoking gun."

Yep. It's called the fossil record.

steve p. said: Bacteria are simply reacting to and maximizing their response to environmental stimuli in order to maintain the integrity of their genome.

steve p. said: They aren't and never will break off from a parent lineage and diverge into something altogether different from their ancestors. Unless of course you have a smoking gun. Ok, forget a smoking gun. Maybe too much to ask. How about a prediction where Lenski's bacteria are headed? They were artificially induced to metabolize citrate.

John Vanko said: And in the marketplace which computers will survive? The smartest ones or the dumbest ones? IBIG and his 'kind' will eventually become extinct. Don't you just love Darwinism?

IBelieveInGod said:

John Vanko said:

"Unless of course you have a smoking gun."

Yep. It's called the fossil record.

LOL Kidding Right???

On experimental timescales we are likely to be around to observe I can confidently say they will still be bacteria, but during your lifetime such experiments will push the arbitrary line you draw between micro-evolution (i.e. evolution that can occur) and macro-evolution (i.e evolution that can’t occur) a little further over, and give the designer/god that little bit less to have done.

steve p. said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Steve P, please be aware that your tired old plea of "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly.

You say that; "macroevolution has never been observed" has been debunked repeatedly Really? So, scientists have actually observed a completely new eye design evolve? or a completely new limb design evolve? or a completely new lung design evolve?

Scientists have observed speciation happen, and speciation is an instance in the class macroevolution. This nicely demonstrates how better evolutionary science education is needed.

Wesley, to your first point. It all depends on what definition of speciation you are using. Do you assert a change in finch beak size as an instance of speciation? If so, you are not supporting a claim of morphological change away from a common ancestor. Neither do cecal valves in lizards support such a claim. Rather, the plasticity of the definition of speciation nicely demonstrates the need for scientist and science textbooks to call out in precise detail what is actually claimed against what evidence, and to resist the temptation to obfuscate the two. Lets do away with the rhetorical shell games of using evidence for variation within a population as supporting evidence for a larger claim of morphological transformation away from a parent lineage. You know as well as I do that macro-evolution is not taking place. Its finished. There is nothing new. Same-o, same-o. The building contractor locked up the trailer long ago, went home, made some dinner, cracked open a cold one, and stretched out on the couch to watch the daily show. End of story.

steve p. said:

On experimental timescales we are likely to be around to observe I can confidently say they will still be bacteria, but during your lifetime such experiments will push the arbitrary line you draw between micro-evolution (i.e. evolution that can occur) and macro-evolution (i.e evolution that can’t occur) a little further over, and give the designer/god that little bit less to have done.

Dave, that could very well be. But the fact remains we do not have empirical backing for the claim that macro-evolution is taking place today. The only thing we can say scientifically is that organisms vary within a population. Anything else is in the realm of speculation, regardless of its sophistication. In the context of the OP, I believe it does a disservice to students if the text of any biology book explicitly or implicitly asserts that there is supporting evidence for macro-evolution taking place today. Clearly, macro-evolution is an historical phenomenon and should be taught as such.

I just came across a post at TT about blind cavefish. Descendants regained the use of their eyes in as little as 1 generation!

This is clear evidence that this function was never lost, but simply suppressed, as it was not needed in the dark environment. There was N/S acting on a RM selected eyesight out. And there was no N/S acting on a RM selecting it back in either.

No macro-evolution here. Just a genome adapting to its needs. No loss of function. Only the smart, energy efficient 'choice' of suppressing a function that was not needed. The environment didn't have the 'power' to erase the lines of code. It simply cued the fish that shutting down eyesight might just be a good idea.

One thing I've learned in currency trading- the trend is your friend. Never fight the trend.

Design, baby. Design.

steve p. said: But the fact remains we do not have empirical backing for the claim that macro-evolution is taking place today. The only thing we can say scientifically is that organisms vary within a population. Anything else is in the realm of speculation, regardless of its sophistication. In the context of the OP, I believe it does a disservice to students if the text of any biology book explicitly or implicitly asserts that there is supporting evidence for macro-evolution taking place today. Clearly, macro-evolution is an historical phenomenon and should be taught as such.

Your a good cheerleader, Stanton. A good cheerleader.

steve p. said: Your a good cheerleader, Stanton. A good cheerleader.

steve p. said: In the context of the OP, I believe it does a disservice to students if the text of any biology book explicitly or implicitly asserts that there is supporting evidence for macro-evolution taking place today. Clearly, macro-evolution is an historical phenomenon and should be taught as such.

OK, let's think about the micro/macro approach.

Imagine that I've gone to one end of the Appalachian Trail to study hiking. Time is limited, so I can only observe for a couple of hours on a few days.

During that time, I will probably observe a few arriving hikers, and would probably clock them at moving something like 2 mph. However, during that time, I will never observe anybody hiking the entire 2,181 miles of the trail during the time that I am able to observe. If I remain stationary, I will only be able to observe a specific hiker in real time for a few minutes.

So Steve P.'s approach would have me conclude that I have only observed "micro-hiking" and have no justification to propose "macro-hiking," in which persons have hiked long distances step by step. Even if I have other evidence apparently corroborating that some of the arriving hikers have hiked the entire trial, this is, by Steve P.'s approach, insufficient for me to believe that any macro-hiking is now in progress or has ever occurred.

John Kwok said:

steve p. said: But the fact remains we do not have empirical backing for the claim that macro-evolution is taking place today. The only thing we can say scientifically is that organisms vary within a population. Anything else is in the realm of speculation, regardless of its sophistication. In the context of the OP, I believe it does a disservice to students if the text of any biology book explicitly or implicitly asserts that there is supporting evidence for macro-evolution taking place today. Clearly, macro-evolution is an historical phenomenon and should be taught as such.

Macroevolution is not a "historical phenomenom", but it is ongoing. For example there is ample evidence showing that in the short span of less than a century, Australian rabbits have been diverging genetically from their European ancestors. Perhaps in another century, they will be a distinct, brand new, species unable to reproduce with their European ancestors. There's also the now classic example of a mosquito population in London's Underground subway systerm diverging from its above ground ancestors; so much so that some biologists think they are separate species. If they are correct, then this has happened in less than one hundred forty years.

Learn some biology for once Steve P. I am quite confident that the Taiwanese textile merchants you know as friends and as colleagues know a lot more about biology and biological evolution than your intellectually-challenged mind is capable of admitting.

steve p. said: But the fact remains we do not have empirical backing for the claim that macro-evolution is taking place today. The only thing we can say scientifically is that organisms vary within a population. Anything else is in the realm of speculation, regardless of its sophistication.

Micro versus macro:

Invest a dollar to make 1% interest in a century. Micro enough? Now let it compound at that rate for a million years. That yields 1.01^10,000 == 1.64E43 dollars.

Assuming conservatively that the money is in the form of $1,000 bills and that 10,000 such bills weigh a kilogram, then the total mass of that money would be
1.64E36 / 1.99E30 or over 800,000 times the mass of the Sun.

The moral of the story: small changes add up over deep time. The microevolution ploy assumes small changes occur AND THEN STOP.

Alas, such reasoning is futile, since the only consequence is for the critics to rummage around in their toybox of ploys and set up new goalposts: "It can't create complexity!" -- and the ever-popular: "You can't prove it!" -- throwing out criticisms to conceal the fact that they can provide about as much positive evidence for creationism as the can for the "stork theory" for where babies come from.

Flint said:

Thing is, you say “all the current body plans” to a layman and they think starfish and horses and frogs, where in reality, the representatives of the 36 phyla were three dozen types of crawly things.

This may be misleading. According to James Valentine, pretty much what we've done is taken today's major body plans, and looked for something sorta kinda maybe similar in the Cambrian fossils. And what we find there is lots and lots of tiny differences. How tiny is too tiny to count as a different body plan? What yardstick should we use?

IBelieveInGod said:

John Vanko said:

"Unless of course you have a smoking gun."

Yep. It's called the fossil record.

LOL Kidding Right???

stevaroni said: It's important to note that this was not the case after all. When honest people inventory the Cambrian it's mutch murkier, and they spend most of their time saying hings like "Hey - lookit this thing over here - there's what looks like a little chip of shell on it's back. I wonder if we shouldn't put it in "molluscs" instead of "segmented worm".

mrg said: Ah, but then they pull out the other hand and say: "Well, there's all this uncertainty, and so you guys don't know anything. You don't know nothing, and we know as much as you do."

stevaroni said: So IBIG, I suppose you'll now enlighten us as to exactly how special creation better explains a long string of slowly changing animals, which exhibit chemical and physical evidence of having been burried 500 million years.

eric said: ... therefore our idea of special creation 6,000 years ago is just as good.'

Is there a real Biology text book that even uses the term macro-evolution at all?

They aren’t and never will break off from a parent lineage and diverge into something altogether different from their ancestors.

What creationists, including IDCreationists, never explain is why there even is an adaptive radiation at the start of the Cambrian, and why all of the animals "just happen" to appear related--nor why genetic studies of extant lines confirm this observation. I mean, why study fruit flies and yeasts? OK, to be fair there is some general study of both for the study of all life. However, we also study both because they share many genes with ourselves, and fruit flies develop using highly similar Hox genes. We are related to organisms whose phyla diverged in the Cambrian explosion, or, quite likely, well before that time. The similarities and differences between ourselves and fruit flies and yeasts assist our understanding of how and why gene families exist and have often proliferated with increasing complexity. The dramatic changes in climate and in oxygen levels makes such an explosion appear to be likely to occur around the Cambrian period. Besides which, why don't we see monkeys and pear trees in the Cambrian, indeed, why did the "explosion" apparently not include plants at all? We aren't so sure ourselves, but then we have no evolutionary reason to think that life should appear in coordination with other forms of life, while the timing and selectivity of the Cambrian "explosion" seems to follow no "design pattern," only an adaptive radiation of life forms that were apparently developmentally labile at that time, while other forms of life were not. My reviw at Amazon

The distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is simply a human construction stemming from the human need to put organisms in definite groups, even if that grouping is not actually based on objective reality. If evolution is true, then we should expect to see groupings of organisms become fuzzy, at least occationally, in both living organisms and the fossil record. And that's exactly what we see. Breeds of dogs are so diverse that if they were seen in the wild (or preserved as fossils), we would assume they were dozens or even hundreds of species, yet they stemmed from one species evolved from wolves. Some biologists say that dogs are actually a sub-species of the gray wolf. Why? Because wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which members of the same species are said to do!

So if idiots like FL, IBIG, and Robert Byers say macroevolution doesn't happen, they shouldn't be owning or breeding dogs or wolves.

steve p. said:

Mike Elzinga said: Fortunately the scientific community continues to do research and gain further insight into the processes of evolution rather than sitting in comfortable offices writing political screeds. Looking at the really stressed populations of bacteria and other organisms with fast reproduction cycles and their responses to drugs may not mean much to you; but you can be damned sure that when the human population comes under the equivalent levels of stress, speciation will show up very quickly. The fact that you can lounge around on your couch and watch TV suggests that you don’t have enough “challenges” in your life. That’s why you are incapable of learning; not enough motivation. Therefore no macroevolution in your understanding. And besides, the Daily Show is far too sophisticated for you.

Elzinga, notice how you fall right in to the shell game without a hitch. Variation happens in bacterial populations. So what? Its not macro-evolution and you know it. Bacteria are simply reacting to and maximizing their response to environmental stimuli in order to maintain the integrity of their genome. They aren't and never will break off from a parent lineage and diverge into something altogether different from their ancestors. Unless of course you have a smoking gun. Ok, forget a smoking gun. Maybe too much to ask. How about a prediction where Lenski's bacteria are headed? They were artificially induced to metabolize citrate. What's next? How will this transform their morphology? Has a split from the parent lineage taken place already? If not, when will it take place? Oh, and your assertion that human stress will trigger macro-evolutionary change in humans is well... how can I put it politely...a bit hyperbolic. Having said that, in the words of Paul Harvey, "Have a good day". :)

Dale Husband said: The distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is simply a human construction stemming from the human need to put organisms in definite groups, even if that grouping is not actually based on objective reality. If evolution is true, then we should expect to see groupings of organisms become fuzzy, at least occationally, in both living organisms and the fossil record. And that's exactly what we see. Breeds of dogs are so diverse that if they were seen in the wild (or preserved as fossils), we would assume they were dozens or even hundreds of species, yet they stemmed from one species evolved from wolves. Some biologists say that dogs are actually a sub-species of the gray wolf. Why? Because wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which members of the same species are said to do! So if idiots like FL, IBIG, and Robert Byers say macroevolution doesn't happen, they shouldn't be owning or breeding dogs or wolves.

If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

steve p. said: Wesley, to your first point. It all depends on what definition of speciation you are using. Do you assert a change in finch beak size as an instance of speciation? If so, you are not supporting a claim of morphological change away from a common ancestor. Neither do cecal valves in lizards support such a claim.

Socrates via Plato: You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, I replied, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, `for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,'--then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you. But suppose that he were to retort, `Thrasymachus, what do you mean? If one of these numbers which you interdict be the true answer to the question, am I falsely to say some other number which is not the right one?--is that your meaning?' --How would you answer him?

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Evolution is a change in the genetic composition of populations. The study of mechanisms of evolution falls within the province of population genetics. Of course, changes observed in populations may be of different orders of magnitude ranging from those induced in a herd of domestic animals by the introduction of a new sire to phylogenetic changes leading to the origin of new classes of organisms. The former are obviously trifling in scale compared with the latter. Experience shows, however, that there is no way toward understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on geological scales, other than through understanding of microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime, often controlled by man's will, and sometimes reproducible in laboratory experiments. Many authors believe that microevolutionary changes are different in principle from macroevolutionary ones, and that while the former can be understood in terms of the known genetic agents (mutation, selection, genetic drift), the latter involve forces that are experimentally unknown or only dimly discerned. Views of this kind have been entertained by few geneticists (among whom there is, however, so eminent a man as Goldschmidt, 1940), but they have been popular among those who approach evolutionary problems on the basis of data of paleontology and comparative anatomy. Well-known writers have supposed macroevolutionary changes to be engendered by some directing forces either inherent in the organism itself or acting on it by some inscrutable means from the outside. These guiding forces received a variety of names, including orthogenesis, nomogenesis, aristogenesis, hologenesis, and finalism, but they escaped precise definition which would make them subject to experimental test or to any kind of rigorous proof or disproof (see Simpson 1949). Methods of experimental genetics apply directly only to forms which can be crossed and which produce hybrids. Genetic analysis is, accordingly, limited to differences on the individual, racial, specific, and at most the generic levels, which are usually regarded the province of microevolution. A geneticist can approach macroevolutionary phenomena only by inference from the known microevolutionary ones. It is obviously impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of, for example, the horse tribe, or for that matter of the genus Drosophila. All that is possible is to examine the evidence bearing on macroevolution which has been accumulated by paleontologists and morphologists, and to attempt to decide whether it agrees with the hypothesis that all evolutionary changes are compounded of microevolutionary ones. This difficult but important task has been brilliantly accomplished in recent years by Simpson (1940) for paleontological and by Schmalhausen (1949) and Rensch (1947) for comparative anatomical and embryological evidence. The three authors find nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena that would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation. The words "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are relative terms, and have only descriptive meaning; they imply no difference in the underlying causal agencies.

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Wheels said: Otherwise, nobody should take you seriously.

mrg said:

Wheels said: Otherwise, nobody should take you seriously.

But, as long as anyone answers him, he's being taken as seriously as he wants. Not really complaining here ... just an observation, people are going to answer him, guaranteed. I don't even bother to read Biggie's postings anymore. I mean, expressions of verbal flatulence get boring fast.

Dale Husband said: IBIG still provides great entertainment. Clearly, more people get turned off Christianity and/or Creationism because of him than are attracted. He serves us well in that regard.

mrg said: Alas, such reasoning is futile, since the only consequence is for the critics to rummage around in their toybox of ploys and set up new goalposts: "It can't create complexity!" -- and the ever-popular: "You can't prove it!" -- throwing out criticisms to conceal the fact that they can provide about as much positive evidence for creationism as the can for the "stork theory" for where babies come from.

Mike Elzinga said: However one cuts it, the inability to understand such basic concepts is pathological; and it may not be reparable.

mrg said: Alas, it always will be, and so the script we are seeing now is the one to be played for the indefinite future: simply trying to screw things up, with no concept or even interest in any considered goal.

macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species

Macroevolution: "Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology; typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa." -- Freeman-Herron

FL said:

macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species

For both Campbell-Reece (Biology) and Freeman-Herron (Evolutionary Analysis 4-ed), macroevolution is ABOVE, not AT, the level of species. Mere speciation is not enough.

Macroevolution: "Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology; typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa." -- Freeman-Herron

FL

FL said:

macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species

For both Campbell-Reece (Biology) and Freeman-Herron (Evolutionary Analysis 4-ed), macroevolution is ABOVE, not AT, the level of species. Mere speciation is not enough.

So what is needed is generalization (genus level), familiarization (family level), and classification (class level)?

We interrupt this fascinating slugfest to point out that the Next Generation Florida Sunshine State Standards already contain language supporting critical thinking for all areas of science teaching. The writers wanted to highlight the nature of scientific inquiry and encourage students to think for themselves when presented with valid scientific evidence.
Florida Standard SC.912.N.1.3 - Recognize that the strength or usefulness of a scientific claim is evaluated through scientific argumentation, which depends on critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.
Florida Standard SC.912.N.2.2 - Identify which questions can be answered through science and which questions are outside the boundaries of scientific investigation, such as questions addressed by other ways of knowing, such as art, philosophy, and religion.
Florida Standard SC.912.N.3.1 - Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concer4ning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
Florida Standard SC.912.L.15.1 - Explain how evolution is supported by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, and observed evolutionary change.
The language in Wise's bill is superfluous at best and opens the door to pseudoscientific BS at worst. I live in Wise's district and this bill is not pandering. The man honestly believes this stuff and is trying to introduce his religious-based view of civics, morals, and "science" into the public schools. He has been doing this as long as he has been in the legislature. Those of us who wrote the standards worked damn hard to make them "world class" to ensure Florida students received a superior science education. We unanimously rejected attempts by a citizen member of the Framer's committee to insert Disco sponsored language on weaknesses of evolution. Political meddling began soon after the standards were adopted and this is just the latest incarnation. Nothing will change the minds(?) of the politicians pushing this just like nothing changes the closed minds of the various trolls in this thread. This will be an ideological issue decided on fixed ideological paradigms. Reason, logic, and common sense are all trumped by belief regarded as truth with these people. As Barney Frank so eloquently phrased it, trying to persuade these people to see reason is like having a discussion with your dining room table.
We return you now to the previously scheduled troll bashing.

Henry J said: So what is needed is generalization (genus level), familiarization (family level), and classification (class level)?

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said: The distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is simply a human construction stemming from the human need to put organisms in definite groups, even if that grouping is not actually based on objective reality. If evolution is true, then we should expect to see groupings of organisms become fuzzy, at least occationally, in both living organisms and the fossil record. And that's exactly what we see. Breeds of dogs are so diverse that if they were seen in the wild (or preserved as fossils), we would assume they were dozens or even hundreds of species, yet they stemmed from one species evolved from wolves. Some biologists say that dogs are actually a sub-species of the gray wolf. Why? Because wolves and dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which members of the same species are said to do! So if idiots like FL, IBIG, and Robert Byers say macroevolution doesn't happen, they shouldn't be owning or breeding dogs or wolves.

Are you making a claim that dog breeding is macroevolution?

SWT said: So speciation is the result of microevolution, not macroevolution. Got it.

IBIG said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

FL said: For both Campbell-Reece (Biology) and Freeman-Herron (Evolutionary Analysis 4-ed), macroevolution is ABOVE, not AT, the level of species. Mere speciation is not enough. FL

I just want to jump in here and remind you guys that the point is not to defend evolution from these cowardly idiots. You are playing their game.

Just stop answering questions until the cowards answer some of their own.

This is NOT about evolution. Evolution has 150 years of supporting research and observation. Even if we had a video of the entire sequence, it wouldn't be enough.

No, ths point is that the cowards (FL, IBIG, Steve P, Rob) refuse to submit their own ideas to the same scrutiny that they demand of evolution.

Can any of you distinguish a non-designed thing from a designed thing of the same type and size?

No, you cannot. Therefore ID is, even if 100%, totally useless in the real world.

Tell us cowards, why you don't demand that we only teach Einstein's relativity, since WE KNOW THAT NEWTON IS WRONG in many cases? Why don't you DEMAND that we teach the controversy between loop quantum gravity and string theory? Now that's a freaking controvesry.

Cowards, why don't you stand up for your own notions? You want something else taught? Then show us what it is.

You don't want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

Be sure to include in your lesson plan at least a two-day laboratory procedure that shows, unambiguously, intelligent design in action so that teachers can meet Texas law requirements. Also, be sure to describe, in detail, how calculate complexity or information in anything so that it can be taught to students.

Comon cowards, stand up for your beliefs.

I would encourage all other participants to DEMAND the things from these cowards that they demand from science. And not to discuss anything further with any of them until they support their side instead of attacking the other side.

Comon FL, give us a complete sequence of all life forms from the beginning of time to present. hmmm... which version of Genesis will you use? Chapter 1 or the contradictory Chapter 2?

Answer all of my questions cowards.

But, Ogre, attacking the other side real science is all they have.

IBelieveInGod said:

John Vanko said:

"Unless of course you have a smoking gun."

Yep. It's called the fossil record.

LOL Kidding Right???

OgreMkVYou don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What I would like to see is an explanation for diversity from a Design standpoint. We know that certain life forms, when taken out of their native habitat and placed in hospitable climes elsewhere, are more than capable of out-competing native species and even driving them to extinction. If these organisms are so well-suited for exploiting those environments, why are there different species filling those niches in different areas? Shouldn't Gambusia holbrooki (the Easter Mosquitofish) be the globally-dominant species of tiny freshwater fish in subtropical areas if it's so well-Designed for the task that local alternatives just can't compete, and no other factors can reduce its numbers? This is an important question, for not only the Easter Mosquitofish but in fact hundreds of introduced species create ecological problems, and many have a real economic cost associated with them. Why is X limited in geographic distribution without human introduction? A from-the-ground-up Design proposal seems to offer no reason why invasive species were never native in the first place, since they could conceivably have been Designed and placed any and everywhere they currently take over.

Wheels, very nice. You can check on your state's laws regarding distribution of conversational records (if you want to) and see what the law is regarding that in both states (yours and Luskin's). On the other hand, my predictive powers can probably fill in the details just fine.

So, for FL, IBIG, Byers, and Steve P., I have collected my questions regarding ID here: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/questions-for-intelligent-designers/

Feel free to answer them there. The rest of you, feel free to add your own. I think it's a pretty good start and almost the absolute minimum the pro-ID side must answer to even be talked about without derision.

I predict that none of the pro-ID people will answer my questions posed above or at the blog.

I'm not that concerned about the legal aspect of it so much as it wouldn't sit right with me.

Also, where the text says "Easter" it should obviously be "Eastern." Don't know why Gmail changed it.

Can any of you distinguish a non-designed thing from a designed thing of the same type and size? No, you cannot.

FL said: Actually, I believe I answered this one already. FL

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

FL said:

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. Just do that. What you teach him at home, counts the most, more than school even. And the Bible DOES offer a clear, unmistakable answer to that specific question (the origin of biodiversity in Earth history). Just read it to him at bedtime, preferably from a children's Picture Bible. The Origin of Biodiversity: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.1&version=NIV FL

Chapter 1 or the contradictory Chapter 2?

FL said:

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. Just do that. What you teach him at home, counts the most, more than school even. And the Bible DOES offer a clear, unmistakable answer to that specific question (the origin of biodiversity in Earth history). Just read it to him at bedtime, preferably from a children's Picture Bible. The Origin of Biodiversity: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.1&version=NIV FL

FL said:

Chapter 1 or the contradictory Chapter 2?

That, too, has been answered previously. Two articles should suffice as a reminder. No contradiction exists between Gen 1 and Gen 2. CARM http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/dont-genesis-1-and-2-present-contradictory-creation-accounts AP https://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1131 FL

FL said: What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. FL

"If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings..."

FL said:

Chapter 1 or the contradictory Chapter 2?

That, too, has been answered previously. Two articles should suffice as a reminder. No contradiction exists between Gen 1 and Gen 2. CARM http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/dont-genesis-1-and-2-present-contradictory-creation-accounts AP https://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1131 FL

Dave Lovell said: Alas John I think your are an optimist, and falling into the trap of assuming evolution is about upward progress. Lots of small brains working together can easily out compete a large one working on its own, so an Army of creobots may triumph, especially with the world's religions fighting to out-breed each other in an already overcrowded world. Survival of the Thickest is a distinct possibility. Perhaps we should commission something akin to Douglas Adams B-ark? (http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Adams.htm)

John Vanko said: There is no micro-Calculus, nor macro-Calculus, just Calculus ("the whole is the sum of the infinitesimally small parts"). Why do you tell us you believe in micro-Calculus but not macro-Calculus. You embarrass Newton, the preeminent creationist.

John Vanko said: PS - thanks for the B-ark. Didn't know about it.

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that there are people who are not capable of assimilating this concept.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It appears that there are people who are not capable of assimilating this concept.

Possibly it may be more a case of obstinate refusal: "That would be inconvenient."

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

mrg said: Possibly it may be more a case of obstinate refusal: "That would be inconvenient."

Well, infinitesimals are a tricky concept: "Imagine the smallest you can think something can be. Now imagine something EVEN SMALLER THAN THAT!"

It's the sort of idea that layfolk like me get comfortable enough to take for granted and think they understand. Mathematicians know better.

Sigh, Sal Cordova. No matter how long one deals with such folks, there still remains some small dumbfounded inability to accept that they cannot, will not ever, get a clue.

Not the same as people like Biggie, who are just playing meaningless word games on the face of it, but folks who honestly believe they are geniuses while ignoring blatantly broken logic, even after it's repeatedly pointed out to them.

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

In the previous post, in order to be more correct, limbs evolved into wings.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

Re "Smoking gun":

Smoking gun? That concept only applies to proving what happened at a particular event; it doesn't apply to establishing general principles.

The reason scientists accept any particular general principle isn't from individual data points; rather, it is due to noting consistently observable patterns across all the relevant evidence, and then noting that those patterns are logical consequences of the hypothesized principle.

For evolution, the relevant patterns are (1) nested hierarchies followed by multiple traits (esp. complex internal ones), (2) geographic clustering of close relatives, (3) change over time indicated by fossils, and probably a few others I haven't thought of. (Yeah, I know people have a habit of describing evolution as the explanation for diversity, but IMO it's really those patterns that it explains, rather than the mere fact of there being lots of variety.)

As I understand it, the nested hierarchy thing is more important than those other two points, even if the geographic clustering may have been what brought it to Darwin's attention in the first place. Fossils are merely the most dramatic of those types of evidence, and I suppose easier to understand.

Evolution theory explains those patterns because they follow logically from it. I.D. doesn't explain them (or any other patterns that I've heard of), because they don't follow from it. On the other hand, in the absence of ad-hoc assumptions not actually required for "life was deliberately engineered", I.D. isn't necessarily inconsistent with the current theory.

Henry J

OgreMkV said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

Well, you know what our answer to that is. You do realize that even if a dog evolved wing-like structures and feather-like structures, they wouldn't ever be bird wings (or even bat wings) and they wouldn't be feathers, you understand that simple concept don't you? Think of it this way, once you buy a car, you have forsaken all the other cars and are now stuck with that one. You could put a trailer hitch on it, but it'll never be as good as a truck for pulling trailers. You have given up the chance to own the truck by buying that car. Finally, you do understand (and since you're the expert in evolution, I'd like you to explain) what evolutionary pressure would be need to get a dog to grow wings. Oh BTW: You have cowardly refused to support intelligent design or special creation again. You are a true coward... running away from the ONLY things that could show you are correct. Run little wimp run.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

You still are the stupid one. For one thing, scientists have come to the conclusion that birds are modified dinosaurs due to how bird anatomy is most similar to dinosaur anatomy, as well as due to fossils of feathered dinosaurs. To deny a profound fact by pretending the mountains of supporting evidence do not exist, simply because it offends your personal bigotries, is the depths of stupidity. As for your demand that we prove evolution by breeding dogs that have feathers: it is a patently ridiculous, impossible demand. It would be like demanding that we prove the Pope exist by magically bringing a paper mache sculpture to life. And there is the obvious fact that, even if someone were to take the time to breed dogs with feathers, you're still going to disqualify it solely because it offends your personal bigotries. If you're not the stupid one, then how come you've already forgotten that you've already tried to pull this particular gotcha game on us?

IBelieveInGod said: Selective breeding would be much more effective for the selection of mutations that would lead to new morphological structures, considering a breeder could breed for the future fitness of mutations, where as natural selection only selects for the current fitness of mutations. Therefore, if evolution were true there should be virtually no limits to what breeding could accomplish. I do understand that there would be limitations that would have to be overcome, but if evolution were true then anything would be possible.

IBelieveInGod said: Why is it an impossible demand. You are the ones who claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor, that all morphological structures came about by evolution. It is you that states that there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, so I want to know if you really believe that. It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor. I mean according to many here dogs could never be bred to have wings or feathers. Are you now saying that there are actually limits to evolution?

Furthermore, isn't IBelieve supposed to be banished to the Bathroom Wall, what with the fact that he is a troll who disrupts every single thread he infests?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Selective breeding would be much more effective for the selection of mutations that would lead to new morphological structures, considering a breeder could breed for the future fitness of mutations, where as natural selection only selects for the current fitness of mutations. Therefore, if evolution were true there should be virtually no limits to what breeding could accomplish. I do understand that there would be limitations that would have to be overcome, but if evolution were true then anything would be possible.

No, moron. Biological constraints limit what can and can not evolve. It's why we don't have mass-changing shapeshifters, levitating magic people or laser-vision superheroes. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how "God spoke the laws into existence," aka "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic" is supposed to be an explanation, let alone a superior explanation worth teaching in science classrooms in place of actual science. Then again, your babbling is typical of someone who thinks that science education is tantamount to mass murder.

FL said:

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. Just do that. What you teach him at home, counts the most, more than school even. And the Bible DOES offer a clear, unmistakable answer to that specific question (the origin of biodiversity in Earth history). Just read it to him at bedtime, preferably from a children's Picture Bible. The Origin of Biodiversity: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.1&version=NIV FL

I see you're ignoring my question of why "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science.

That and why do you refuse to explain to us why we are obligated to take your so-called complaints seriously when you've also made it clear that you do not want to educate yourself, to the point where you equate education with mass murder?

John Kwok said:

FL said:

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. Just do that. What you teach him at home, counts the most, more than school even. And the Bible DOES offer a clear, unmistakable answer to that specific question (the origin of biodiversity in Earth history). Just read it to him at bedtime, preferably from a children's Picture Bible. The Origin of Biodiversity: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.1&version=NIV FL

The Bible doesn't explain the origin of biodiversity, you mentally-challenged fool. No religious text does. Instead, modern evolutionary theory has done a fine job - if admittedly incomplete - in accounting for the history, structure and current composition of our planet's biodiversity.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Selective breeding would be much more effective for the selection of mutations that would lead to new morphological structures, considering a breeder could breed for the future fitness of mutations, where as natural selection only selects for the current fitness of mutations. Therefore, if evolution were true there should be virtually no limits to what breeding could accomplish. I do understand that there would be limitations that would have to be overcome, but if evolution were true then anything would be possible.

No, moron. Biological constraints limit what can and can not evolve. It's why we don't have mass-changing shapeshifters, levitating magic people or laser-vision superheroes. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how "God spoke the laws into existence," aka "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic" is supposed to be an explanation, let alone a superior explanation worth teaching in science classrooms in place of actual science. Then again, your babbling is typical of someone who thinks that science education is tantamount to mass murder.

Biological constraints? It sure sounds like a copout to me. Why would there be biological constraints? If evolution is the modification by mutation and natural selection over generations within populations, then anything can be modified, somethings may require much more modification, but if evolution is true, then it could surely happen. If evolution from common ancestor were true, then there would be no limits as to what would be possible. You are starting to sound like a Creationist, you see because we do believe that there are biological restraints that prevent any organism from evolving into a completely different one. It is you that says to the contrary that there are no constraints that prevents all organisms from evolving from a common ancestor, yet now you are stating that there are biological constraints that prevents the breeding of dogs with wings or feathers. So, which is it? Do you really believe evolution from common descent?

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

stevaroni said: If you want to see that...

Stanton said: Furthermore, isn't IBelieve supposed to be banished to the Bathroom Wall, what with the fact that he is a troll who disrupts every single thread he infests?

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: Furthermore, isn't IBelieve supposed to be banished to the Bathroom Wall, what with the fact that he is a troll who disrupts every single thread he infests?

Let’s hope his baby sitter is looking in on this and can be persuaded to sneak in a really good biology textbook for her next sitting session.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: Furthermore, isn't IBelieve supposed to be banished to the Bathroom Wall, what with the fact that he is a troll who disrupts every single thread he infests?

Let’s hope his baby sitter is looking in on this and can be persuaded to sneak in a really good biology textbook for her next sitting session.

Why? Do you want him to burst into flames?

Today's reptiles could probably evolve either hair or feathers from their scales, much as past lineages of "reptiles" (depending on how you understand taxonomy they were reptiles or they weren't) actually did. However, for various reasons, it's unlikely that hair would evolve into feathers, or feathers into hair. Islands of fitness would likely be one reason, while the dedicated nature of development programs would likely be another.

Creationists projecting their idiotic magic onto evolution simply don't care about the truth. They have always only been interested in reacting against any threats to their religious presuppositions.

Glen Davidson

Stanton said:

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said: Furthermore, isn't IBelieve supposed to be banished to the Bathroom Wall, what with the fact that he is a troll who disrupts every single thread he infests?

Let’s hope his baby sitter is looking in on this and can be persuaded to sneak in a really good biology textbook for her next sitting session.

Why? Do you want him to burst into flames?

If that is what will take IBelieve to stop posting here, then yes.

Glen Davidson said: Today's reptiles could probably evolve either hair or feathers from their scales, much as past lineages of "reptiles" (depending on how you understand taxonomy they were reptiles or they weren't) actually did. However, for various reasons, it's unlikely that hair would evolve into feathers, or feathers into hair. Islands of fitness would likely be one reason, while the dedicated nature of development programs would likely be another. Creationists projecting their idiotic magic onto evolution simply don't care about the truth. They have always only been interested in reacting against any threats to their religious presuppositions. Glen Davidson

FL said:

Chapter 1 or the contradictory Chapter 2?

That, too, has been answered previously. Two articles should suffice as a reminder. No contradiction exists between Gen 1 and Gen 2. CARM http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/dont-genesis-1-and-2-present-contradictory-creation-accounts AP https://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1131 FL

Stanton said: No, moron. Biological constraints limit what can and can not evolve. It's why we don't have mass-changing shapeshifters, levitating magic people or laser-vision superheroes. Furthermore, you still haven't explained how "God spoke the laws into existence," aka "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic" is supposed to be an explanation, let alone a superior explanation worth teaching in science classrooms in place of actual science. Then again, your babbling is typical of someone who thinks that science education is tantamount to mass murder.

Just for amusement, I invite everyone to read this blog entry:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/insulting-and-libeling-unbelievers/

So when I call defenders of Biblical infallibility and/or Creationism con artists, that is not just some flippant insult from out of nowhere. I mean it, I can prove it, and we shouldn't put up with their blasphemous lies any more!

FL said:

You don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

What should you, as his parent, teach him? Teach him the truth. Just do that. What you teach him at home, counts the most, more than school even. And the Bible DOES offer a clear, unmistakable answer to that specific question (the origin of biodiversity in Earth history). Just read it to him at bedtime, preferably from a children's Picture Bible. The Origin of Biodiversity: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.1&version=NIV FL

Hey IBIG, I've asked 3 times about why there are no modern fossils in the cambrian layers. So critical analysis is fine for evolution but not for creationism.

He's just "throwing stones at the Devil," and has no intention of giving genuine answers or engaging in genuine discussion. It's been like this for more than a year.

The only response to lack of modern fossils in the Cambrian is links to AiG webpages about 'Intelligent Running' of 'higher' species to higher ground, as if such a foolish thing could be true. What utter foolishness. What utter desperation.

MichaelJ said: Hey IBIG, I've asked 3 times about why there are no modern fossils in the cambrian layers. So critical analysis is fine for evolution but not for creationism.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

MichaelJ said: Hey IBIG, I've asked 3 times about why there are no modern fossils in the cambrian layers. So critical analysis is fine for evolution but not for creationism.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Bobsie said:

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings:) Let me know when someone does that:)

Actually, artificial selection can't violate the nested hierarchy constraint that evolution imposes on natural selection. Once feathers and wings split from dog ancestors on the tree of life, you can't get them back. You weren't being serious with such a sophomoric question, I must presume. Just making a joke, right?

No, IBelieve is really being stupid, I mean serious.

Really? Birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, scales evolved into feathers, legs evolved into wings, reptilian lungs evolved into avian lungs, etc... if you can believe that, then why is it a problem or stupid for me to ask why dogs can't evolve feathers and wings. So, who is stupid?

Mike Elzinga said: And the terror and anger over PNP and NPN transistors was a wonder to behold.

IBelieveInGod said: Why is it an impossible demand. You are the ones who claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor, that all morphological structures came about by evolution. It is you that states that there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, so I want to know if you really believe that. It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor. I mean according to many here dogs could never be bred to have wings or feathers. Are you now saying that there are actually limits to evolution?

John Vanko said: He's just "throwing stones at the Devil," and has no intention of giving genuine answers or engaging in genuine discussion. It's been like this for more than a year.

The only response to lack of modern fossils in the Cambrian is links to AiG webpages about 'Intelligent Running' of 'higher' species to higher ground, as if such a foolish thing could be true. What utter foolishness. What utter desperation.

I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

MichaelJ said: Hey IBIG, I've asked 3 times about why there are no modern fossils in the cambrian layers. So critical analysis is fine for evolution but not for creationism.

stevaroni said: No matter how long a "day" was, plants, apparently in their modern form, are clearly created on day 3 (oddly, they don't get light till day 4).

Now that's a "just so" story calling out for "critical analysis".

The Cambrian remains a problem in evolution. It is not a problem for evolution.

The reason for this is that by far the best explanation for the relatedness of phyla, shared genes across phyla, subsequent evolution (and later appearance of many (or all?) plant phyla, as well as some others), and the broad outlines of life's history involving first the appearance of prokaryotes, then eukaryotes, and finally in the Ediacaran, the metazoa, is evolution by known means. Nothing else comes close to explaining what we see at all.

The Cambrian is not, of course, to what I would point to exemplify how evolution works. Nevertheless, the appearance of metazoa (again, subsequent to the Ediacarans) after eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is almost certainly what would have to be the evolutionary sequence, while the proliferation of forms after the Cambrian is also generally expected. The rapid Cambrian radiations are not fully understood, but yes, they also make sense only in the light of evolution.

This is a big problem with these ignorant types demanding "critical analysis." They are so pathetic at critical analysis themselves that they honestly don't know the difference between a problem in evolution and a problem for evolution. To be sure, they also don't want to know the difference, because they desperately wish all problems to be "problems for evolution," even when they are not.

Glen Davidson

TomS said:

MichaelJ said: Hey IBIG, I've asked 3 times about why there are no modern fossils in the cambrian layers. So critical analysis is fine for evolution but not for creationism.

Note that the correlation of fossils with geological formations represents complex specified information. One simple example being that Cambrian formations do not contain mammalian fossils. If this is not the result of some physical process (such as descent with modification), then it must have been purposefully designed that way.

Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why is it an impossible demand. You are the ones who claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor, that all morphological structures came about by evolution. It is you that states that there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, so I want to know if you really believe that. It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor. I mean according to many here dogs could never be bred to have wings or feathers. Are you now saying that there are actually limits to evolution?

Do you really not understand what evolutionary theory indicates about this subject? Do you really not understand that although crabs and rabbits share a common ancestor that existed some 550 million years ago, the changes between the two groups of organisms NOW makes it impossible for one to evolve directly into the other at this point? Do you really not get that?

eric said: A day between plant creation and light kinda puts a crimp in any gap creation idea, doesn't it? I can see them going 24 hours without sunlight, but if a day is 'as a thousand years to the lord,' those plants are screwed.

Malchus said: He really, honestly, completely doesn't understand it.

Glen Davidson said: The Cambrian remains a problem in evolution. It is not a problem for evolution. The reason for this is that by far the best explanation for the relatedness of phyla, shared genes across phyla, subsequent evolution (and later appearance of many (or all?) plant phyla, as well as some others), and the broad outlines of life's history involving first the appearance of prokaryotes, then eukaryotes, and finally in the Ediacaran, the metazoa, is evolution by known means. Nothing else comes close to explaining what we see at all. The Cambrian is not, of course, to what I would point to exemplify how evolution works. Nevertheless, the appearance of metazoa (again, subsequent to the Ediacarans) after eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is almost certainly what would have to be the evolutionary sequence, while the proliferation of forms after the Cambrian is also generally expected. The rapid Cambrian radiations are not fully understood, but yes, they also make sense only in the light of evolution. This is a big problem with these ignorant types demanding "critical analysis." They are so pathetic at critical analysis themselves that they honestly don't know the difference between a problem in evolution and a problem for evolution. To be sure, they also don't want to know the difference, because they desperately wish all problems to be "problems for evolution," even when they are not. Glen Davidson

eric said:

stevaroni said: No matter how long a "day" was, plants, apparently in their modern form, are clearly created on day 3 (oddly, they don't get light till day 4).

A day between plant creation and light kinda puts a crimp in any gap creation idea, doesn't it? I can see them going 24 hours without sunglight, but if a day is 'as a thousand years to the lord,' those plants are screwed.

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

Mike Elzinga said:

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

No legitiamte biology book ever gets it that wrong.

John Kwok said:

Glen Davidson said: The Cambrian remains a problem in evolution. It is not a problem for evolution. The reason for this is that by far the best explanation for the relatedness of phyla, shared genes across phyla, subsequent evolution (and later appearance of many (or all?) plant phyla, as well as some others), and the broad outlines of life's history involving first the appearance of prokaryotes, then eukaryotes, and finally in the Ediacaran, the metazoa, is evolution by known means. Nothing else comes close to explaining what we see at all. The Cambrian is not, of course, to what I would point to exemplify how evolution works. Nevertheless, the appearance of metazoa (again, subsequent to the Ediacarans) after eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is almost certainly what would have to be the evolutionary sequence, while the proliferation of forms after the Cambrian is also generally expected. The rapid Cambrian radiations are not fully understood, but yes, they also make sense only in the light of evolution. This is a big problem with these ignorant types demanding "critical analysis." They are so pathetic at critical analysis themselves that they honestly don't know the difference between a problem in evolution and a problem for evolution. To be sure, they also don't want to know the difference, because they desperately wish all problems to be "problems for evolution," even when they are not. Glen Davidson

I respectfully disagree that the "Cambrian remains a problem". I think we know enough to realize, as the distinguished vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero has noted in his book "Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters", the Cambrian record of metazoan diversification should be seen more aptly as a "Slow Fuse" than as an "Explosion". Moreover, approximately a year ago in Nature, a team which included one of our leading experts on that diversification, invertebrate paleobiologist Derek Briggs, reported the discovery of a Burgess Shale fauna persisting into the lower Ordovician of North America, tens of millions of years after they made their first occurrence in the Middle Cambrian rocks of British Columbia and elsewhere.

While the study provides strong evidence toward the gradual increase hypothesis, Moore said the Cambrian period still has areas for exploration. “We certainly haven’t solved the ‘problem’ of the Cambrian Explosion, but we’re helping to clarify the pattern,” Moore said.

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

Glen Davidson said: I certainly wouldn't expend much effort on arguing whether or not the Cambrian explosion is a problem ...

stevaroni said: In fact, where we can try to verify the Biblical story, we can clearly see that it's wrong ( for example, there is no evidence of a Noachian flood, possibly the biggest geological event to ever hit the Earth ).

And yet none of the pro-ID people here have even acknowledged a single question posed about their pet notion... much less even attempted to answer a single one of the questions posed of them.

Come on guys, stand up for God... I mean, the designer... why don't you give us a definitive overview of the history of life on Earth as explained by intelligent design. When did the designer start? How do you know? When did the designer last act? How do you know? What did the designer do?

IBIG, since you like the Cambrian so much, please expalin what changes to those organisms resulted in... oh let's say... mammals. What designed attributes are available for study in an organism (you pick the organism)? Why is it designed? how do you know?

Can any of you tell the difference between a designed thing and non-designed thing of the same class and size? No, of course you can't.

Cowards.

please expalin what changes to those organisms resulted in… oh let’s say… mammals.

Glen Davidson said: ... I only see it as a problem "in evolution" and not one "for evolution."

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

News stations worldwide are reeling at the devastation in Japan due to a massive earthquake—unequaled in the country’s recorded history—and the huge tsunami it produced, which has swept across cities and farmland leaving a trail of rubble and ruin in its wake. The death toll is still uncertain, but is expected to exceed 1,000. In the face of such destruction, suffering, and death, many people question how a good and loving God could allow such evil to happen. However, this is just another painful reminder of how the curse of sin has affected our world.

IBelieveInGod said: If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings.

M.W. said: I have never been in an evolutionary class so don't know what is actually taught in one. Is there a book written by evolutionists that explains the development of life from the beginning, quite like the bible that explains all the relevant eras in the history of Earth.

AIG babbled... The death toll is still uncertain, but is expected to exceed 1,000. In the face of such destruction, suffering, and death, many people question how a good and loving God could allow such evil to happen. However, this is just another painful reminder of how the curse of sin has affected our world.

"However, this is just another painful reminder of how the curse of sin has affected our world."

In other words, it's their own damned fault. They deserved it. Even the baby girls.

Sick bastards.

stevaroni said:

AIG babbled... The death toll is still uncertain, but is expected to exceed 1,000. In the face of such destruction, suffering, and death, many people question how a good and loving God could allow such evil to happen. However, this is just another painful reminder of how the curse of sin has affected our world.

Yeah. Because it makes sense for the Almighty to kill a thousand Buddhists and Shintoists for allowing their ancient ancestor to eat the wrong fruit in defiance of the Hebrew God. Sure. That makes sense.

If dog breeding is macroevolution, then one should be able to breed a dog with feathers and wings.

Stanton said: It makes even more sense when the "sin" in question that these people all committed was not worshiping God in an identical manner to a particular naturalized American citizen none of them ever knew existed.{/snark}

IBIG, How are you coming with the problem of a loving god and an inerrant bible?

Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

SWT said: OK, let's think about the micro/macro approach. Imagine that I've gone to one end of the Appalachian Trail to study hiking. Time is limited, so I can only observe for a couple of hours on a few days. During that time, I will probably observe a few arriving hikers, and would probably clock them at moving something like 2 mph. However, during that time, I will never observe anybody hiking the entire 2,181 miles of the trail during the time that I am able to observe. If I remain stationary, I will only be able to observe a specific hiker in real time for a few minutes. So Steve P.'s approach would have me conclude that I have only observed "micro-hiking" and have no justification to propose "macro-hiking," in which persons have hiked long distances step by step. Even if I have other evidence apparently corroborating that some of the arriving hikers have hiked the entire trial, this is, by Steve P.'s approach, insufficient for me to believe that any macro-hiking is now in progress or has ever occurred.

I thought the “sin” was that Eve ate an apple instead of a pomegranate or something.… I’m so confused.

The idea of macroevolution meaning the gradual change into something new, different from anything that has ever lived before, just isn’t seeable.

And sadly, there are numerous Americans who think that Answers In Genesis is a reputable, unbiased source of information.

Hey Steve P.

Can you or can you not distinguish a designed thing from a non-designed thing of the same class and size.

Any answer other than "yes and here's how to do it" means that ID, even if correct, is utterly useless in the real world.

Quit playing word games with analogies and start defending your position (whatever that is).

Remember, even if singlehandedly defeat evolution, right here, right now, it still doesn't mean ID is correct.

So how about it? You gonna man up or chicken out like every other pro-ID person?

steve p. said: But once all niches were filled, there is nothing left for life to accomplish. Hence, the mountain climbers got rid of their gear, thanked their Sherpa helpers because both were no longer needed and retired to a life of trail walking. All life needs now is a good pair of shoes, a day pack, a walking stick and a bottle of water.

So heres an ID prediction: The genetic program used to get life so where it is now is shut down but is still present in the genome (if ever a calaclysm occurred that wiped out 99% of lifeforms, the program switch(es) would be activated) and one day the genetic markers providing supporting evidence of its existence will be discovered.

mrg said: Micro versus macro: Invest a dollar to make 1% interest in a century. Micro enough? Now let it compound at that rate for a million years. That yields 1.01^10,000 == 1.64E43 dollars. Assuming conservatively that the money is in the form of $1,000 bills and that 10,000 such bills weigh a kilogram, then the total mass of that money would be 1.64E36 / 1.99E30 or over 800,000 times the mass of the Sun. The moral of the story: small changes add up over deep time. The microevolution ploy assumes small changes occur AND THEN STOP. Alas, such reasoning is futile, since the only consequence is for the critics to rummage around in their toybox of ploys and set up new goalposts: "It can't create complexity!" -- and the ever-popular: "You can't prove it!" -- throwing out criticisms to conceal the fact that they can provide about as much positive evidence for creationism as the can for the "stork theory" for where babies come from.

steve p. said: Let me revise your analogy SWT. It is not a question of micro vs. macro-hiking. The discontinuity lies in that we only observe hiking, whereas in the past, life was climbing mountains.

So, Steve P, what experiments do you suggest to do to verify your claim that there is no more macro-evolution occurring, and why is it that current research suggests you're dead wrong?

So here's an ID prediction: The genetic program used to get life so where it is now is shut down but is still present in the genome (if ever a cataclysm occurred that wiped out 99% of lifeforms, the program switch(es) would be activated) and one day the genetic markers providing supporting evidence of its existence will be discovered.

steve p. said: Let me revise your analogy SWT. It is not a question of micro vs. macro-hiking. The discontinuity lies in that we only observe hiking, whereas in the past, life was climbing mountains. If you know anything about mountain climbing, you will understand there is a world of difference between mountain climbing and trekking. Day and night. When trekking, you get out your favorite Patagonia, TNF, Columbia trekking boots out, grab a day pack with fresh water, and if you wanna splurge go for one of those carbon, telescopic, walking sticks. But with mountain climbing, you need some serious gear. Rope, spikes, coleman stove, tent, on and on. And if you do Everest you get hold of Nepalese Sherpas to help you haul everything up. Why is this analogy apt? Historically, all niches were open. Life filled it by mountain climbing. But once all niches were filled, there is nothing left for life to accomplish. Hence, the mountain climbers got rid of their gear, thanked their Sherpa helpers because both were no longer needed and retired to a life of trail walking. All life needs now is a good pair of shoes, a day pack, a walking stick and a bottle of water. So heres an ID prediction: The genetic program used to get life so where it is now is shut down but is still present in the genome (if ever a calaclysm occurred that wiped out 99% of lifeforms, the program switch(es) would be activated) and one day the genetic markers providing supporting evidence of its existence will be discovered. Let me modify your analogy as well MRG. Life is more like the financial markets than an investment plan. Organisms operate within a limited range. If you know anything about technical analysis, you will note such things as support and resistance, tops and bottoms, sideways channels, convergence/divergence, relative strength, etc. Life seems to follow the same patterns, adapting within a limited range, living in a 'trading range' so to speak. There are both incremental changes as well as spikes. When resistance is experienced, change sideways occurs. When enough pressure builds up, a breakout occurs and makes a move to another level. But these breakouts whether up or down are observed in a relatively well defined range. There is no open ended system, the sky is the limit, type scenario. It is closed and cyclical. Macro-evolution was not cyclical and closed loop. It was open-ended until the biosphere was filled. That triggered a transformation to a cyclical, close-ended, maintenence program. So there is a world of difference between macro and micro-evolution. The former a building plan, already executed and complete. The latter an active closed-loop, stabilizing, maintenance program.

With a number of these IDiot trolls on one thread, there appears to be a common glitch in their ability to think about limits, compound interest, dendritic growth, and emergent phenomena. The sheer stubbornness and persistence of this inability to grasp continuity is either a deliberate taunt (and that is sick in itself) or a distinct marker of stunted emotional and intellectual development.

It would be so easy to flunk an entire class full of creationists taking physics; and they would never know why they flunked.

steve p. said:

With a number of these IDiot trolls on one thread, there appears to be a common glitch in their ability to think about limits, compound interest, dendritic growth, and emergent phenomena. The sheer stubbornness and persistence of this inability to grasp continuity is either a deliberate taunt (and that is sick in itself) or a distinct marker of stunted emotional and intellectual development.

Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon. It is an adult like you that plays word games, trying to convince students that a rock is essential the same as a rabbit, only that the rock is hard matter but the rabbit is soft matter; two ends of a spectrum. But in fact, this is not what we observe in life. We see discontinuities in all things. You do a great disservice to young minds by calling into question their mental faculties because they can readily grasp the discontinuity between a rock as non-life and a rabbit as life. Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills.

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

steve p. said:

With a number of these IDiot trolls on one thread, there appears to be a common glitch in their ability to think about limits, compound interest, dendritic growth, and emergent phenomena. The sheer stubbornness and persistence of this inability to grasp continuity is either a deliberate taunt (and that is sick in itself) or a distinct marker of stunted emotional and intellectual development.

Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

It is an adult like you that plays word games, trying to convince students that a rock is essential the same as a rabbit, only that the rock is hard matter but the rabbit is soft matter; two ends of a spectrum. But in fact, this is not what we observe in life. We see discontinuities in all things.

You do a great disservice to young minds by calling into question their mental faculties because they can readily grasp the discontinuity between a rock as non-life and a rabbit as life.

Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills.

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Scott F said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Bullshit, steve. A child can tell you the difference between the state of Maine and the state of Georgia, between Vermont and North Carolina. There is a large discontinuity between Maine and Georgia. Yet they are connected by the Appalachian Trail.

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Not to mention that his "argument" for lack of continuity was made by picking objects at a large distance from the boundary.

Figuring out whether there is a discontinuity or not requires looking at the boundary, not at the things farthest from it.

(And as others pointed out, the boundary he referenced wasn't relevant to the argument he claimed to be addressing anyway.)

Elan vital, again?

That didn't work out so well the first time.

fnxtr said: Elan vital, again? That didn't work out so well the first time.

John Kwok said: Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

OgreMkV said: what changes to those organisms resulted in... oh let's say... mammals.

http://live.psu.edu/story/51023

Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

There is clearly a lot of bottled up anger in there. Something about science really pisses him off.

IBIG and Steve P. have both made multiple posts and both have, like the cowards they are, refused to even comment on the challenges I have posted to their preferred notions.

FL has run away and appears to no longer be present. So much for the faith of Christians.

Now, how about it children? Can you or can you not defend WHAT YOU THINK IS CORRECT... instead of attacking what you think is wrong?

You do remember that even if you show evolution to be wrong, it doesn't mean that ID (or the Bible) is correct, right?

BTW: Nice goal post shift there Steve, your debating skills are stunning... to my 4-year-old. Me, I'm not so impressed.

Now, are either you gonna man up and provide any evidence that supports what you think is correct?

How does that evidence significantly differ from what the REAL theory of evolution says (not your strawman version)?

OgreMkV said: IBIG and Steve P. have both made multiple posts and both have, like the cowards they are, refused to even comment on the challenges I have posted to their preferred notions. FL has run away and appears to no longer be present. So much for the faith of Christians. Now, how about it children? Can you or can you not defend WHAT YOU THINK IS CORRECT... instead of attacking what you think is wrong? You do remember that even if you show evolution to be wrong, it doesn't mean that ID (or the Bible) is correct, right? BTW: Nice goal post shift there Steve, your debating skills are stunning... to my 4-year-old. Me, I'm not so impressed. Now, are either you gonna man up and provide any evidence that supports what you think is correct? How does that evidence significantly differ from what the REAL theory of evolution says (not your strawman version)?

TomS said:

OgreMkV said: what changes to those organisms resulted in... oh let's say... mammals.

How about the organisms that got the designs to become mammals? Were those pre-mammals designed? If so, what was wrong with their design that had to be re-designed? If not, doesn't that mean that "life itself" was not designed? Those pre-mammals were examples of living organisms that weren't designed? And then ... When I think of the sudden transition of a design, I think of what a tremendous advantage the design must have given. Here there were organisms that were surviving, and then they got those wonderful designs added on. They must have overwhelmed the pre-design environment. For example, animals that could survive bacterial infections suddenly got an adaptive immune system. On, on the other side, bacteria that could survive suddenly got a flagellum. Unless, of course, the two designs took place simultaneously.

steve p. said: Let me revise your analogy SWT. It is not a question of micro vs. macro-hiking. The discontinuity lies in that we only observe hiking, whereas in the past, life was climbing mountains.

IBelieveInGod said: Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

How does your lie-filled spam link magically disprove the century and a half's worth of evidence for Evolution, and why haven't the authors of your lie-filled spam link received a Nobel Prize in Biology for magically disproving Evolution, and how does his magically prove that saying GODDIDIT is magically more scientific than actual science?

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

And if you actually bothered to read those links, IBelieve, they're actually talking about how education about Evolution is so poor in the US specifically because teachers are either too intimidated by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents threatening them, or are being complacent in the institutionalized Lying to Children For Jesus.

In other words, Moron, they're talking about how people being Bigots and Liars for Jesus are causing immense harm to children.

I also noticed that you also ignored my question of why GODDIDIT (i.e., "God spoke the laws into existence") deserves to be taught in place of science in science classrooms.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

How does your lie-filled spam link magically disprove the century and a half's worth of evidence for Evolution, and why haven't the authors of your lie-filled spam link received a Nobel Prize in Biology for magically disproving Evolution, and how does his magically prove that saying GODDIDIT is magically more scientific than actual science?

You mean my link from Penn State University? http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 http://www.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/01/evolution-teaching-poor-/1 http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/evolution-vs-creationism-_n_815664.html

OgreMkV said: BTW: You still haven't answered a single question. Can you or can you not defend your position... whatever that is?

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

Nothing in science ever settled, IBIGasamoron. Science is, by its very nature, a tentative, self-correcting, process. If it wasn't then it would be a dogmatic belief system like most religions we see today, including your twisted and tormented version of "Christianity".

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Stanton said: And if you actually bothered to read those links, IBelieve, they're actually talking about how education about Evolution is so poor in the US specifically because teachers are either too intimidated by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents threatening them, or are being complacent in the institutionalized Lying to Children For Jesus. In other words, Moron, they're talking about how people being Bigots and Liars for Jesus are causing immense harm to children. I also noticed that you also ignored my question of why GODDIDIT (i.e., "God spoke the laws into existence") deserves to be taught in place of science in science classrooms.

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

Dear IBIG, Evolution is settled. Creationism can't touch it. The teaching of evolution (and science in general) is in serious trouble. The article you reference says that creationists are destroying the scientific literacy of American school children; that creationism is a bad thing that is making American children more ignorant, which, incidentally, is making America less competitive in the world market, thereby reducing our standard of living. I conclude that that's what you want to happen, isn't it. When people are ignorant, they are easier to control. After all, this isn't about science, or truth, or education, or faith, is it. It's about political power, the power to control other people's lives, thoughts, and actions; the power to tell other people what they can do, what they are allowed to think.

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

Dear IBIG, Evolution is settled. Creationism can't touch it. The teaching of evolution (and science in general) is in serious trouble. The article you reference says that creationists are destroying the scientific literacy of American school children; that creationism is a bad thing that is making American children more ignorant, which, incidentally, is making America less competitive in the world market, thereby reducing our standard of living. I conclude that that's what you want to happen, isn't it. When people are ignorant, they are easier to control. After all, this isn't about science, or truth, or education, or faith, is it. It's about political power, the power to control other people's lives, thoughts, and actions; the power to tell other people what they can do, what they are allowed to think.

steve p. said: Let me revise your analogy SWT. It is not a question of micro vs. macro-hiking. The discontinuity lies in that we only observe hiking, whereas in the past, life was climbing mountains.

steve p. said: "It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon."

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: And if you actually bothered to read those links, IBelieve, they're actually talking about how education about Evolution is so poor in the US specifically because teachers are either too intimidated by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents threatening them, or are being complacent in the institutionalized Lying to Children For Jesus. In other words, Moron, they're talking about how people being Bigots and Liars for Jesus are causing immense harm to children. I also noticed that you also ignored my question of why GODDIDIT (i.e., "God spoke the laws into existence") deserves to be taught in place of science in science classrooms.

I did read the links. Truth is that you folks are in the minority when it comes to acceptance of evolution. Any claim that we who don't accept evolution from common descent are delusional would be also making the claim that the majority of Americans are also delusional as 67% of Americans believe that God created life, and only about 15% actually believe that evolution is true.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? According to John Kwok nothing in science is ever settled? Which is it?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: And if you actually bothered to read those links, IBelieve, they're actually talking about how education about Evolution is so poor in the US specifically because teachers are either too intimidated by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents threatening them, or are being complacent in the institutionalized Lying to Children For Jesus. In other words, Moron, they're talking about how people being Bigots and Liars for Jesus are causing immense harm to children. I also noticed that you also ignored my question of why GODDIDIT (i.e., "God spoke the laws into existence") deserves to be taught in place of science in science classrooms.

I did read the links. Truth is that you folks are in the minority when it comes to acceptance of evolution. Any claim that we who don't accept evolution from common descent are delusional would be also making the claim that the majority of Americans are also delusional as 67% of Americans believe that God created life, and only about 15% actually believe that evolution is true.

No you didn't read those articles at all, lying moron. The articles are about how Americans don't understand Evolution specifically because Creationists are destroying science literacy in schools for Jesus. Furthermore, you're using the logical fallacy of "appealing to the majority," on top of lying about what those articles are saying.

IBelieveInGod lied: The other percentages that I posted did not come from the other links, and yes I did read the links that I posted. Do your own research and you will see that my percentages are correct.

About 60% of high school biology teachers don't take a stance on evolution, only 30% are adamant that evolution is true. Not very promising for TOE!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28

I would suggest that anyone here read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

Or, at least can you explain how destroying science literacy in America will improve science education in America, IBelieve?

Or are you too stupid and too cowardly to answer that question that you have to resort to changing the topic and lying about it?

Stanton said: Or, at least can you explain how destroying science literacy in America will improve science education in America, IBelieve? Or are you too stupid and too cowardly to answer that question that you have to resort to changing the topic and lying about it?

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28 I would suggest that anyone here read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Or, at least can you explain how destroying science literacy in America will improve science education in America, IBelieve? Or are you too stupid and too cowardly to answer that question that you have to resort to changing the topic and lying about it?

Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with, that they themselves don't accept. Maybe many don't feel that there is enough time to actually present the subject for a fair and balanced education of the subject. Maybe some feel that classroom time would be better spent with other aspects of science being taught. The point is that evolution from common descent is not as widely accepted as many here would want everyone to believe.

For creationists, at least for those who post here, science is not about "the best, most meritorious, explanation for the natural world we see around us" nor "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". Science for them is more like "winning souls to Jesus", like a popularity contest. It's more like "come join us, we're right, we love you, and here are the one thousand and one reasons ... those over there, they're wrong, and here are one thousand and two reasons."

And never the twain shall meet.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28 I would suggest that anyone here read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

So how does these explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is more scientific than actual science, that "GODDIDIT" deserves to be taught in science classrooms in place of actual science, and why Evolution is disproven because Americans are science illiterate due to the underhanded and illegal shenanigans of science-hating religious bigots?

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with

IBelieveInGod said: l

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

Do you really think it's a coincidence?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28 I would suggest that anyone here read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

So how does these explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is more scientific than actual science, that "GODDIDIT" deserves to be taught in science classrooms in place of actual science, and why Evolution is disproven because Americans are science illiterate due to the underhanded and illegal shenanigans of science-hating religious bigots?

Again you don't know what you are talking about, the so-call shenanigans have nothing to do with why high school biology teachers aren't fully teaching evolution, they aren't because they don't fully accept evolution. Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Considering the above definition, would you consider yourself a bigot? I mean if you are going to call others that, maybe you should examine yourself first and how you treat others.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with

It's actually more likely that teachers aren't particularly interested in getting into the politics of dealing with little Johnny's parents and their minister complaining to the (elected) board of education and giving them endless crap for doing nothing more than teaching the simple, easily demonstrated laws of biology. At some point even the most dedicated teacher has to think "Screw this. I don't need this crap."

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said:

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

Do you really think it's a coincidence?

Nevermind the fact that Taiwan isn't Communist China.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28 I would suggest that anyone here read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

So how does these explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is more scientific than actual science, that "GODDIDIT" deserves to be taught in science classrooms in place of actual science, and why Evolution is disproven because Americans are science illiterate due to the underhanded and illegal shenanigans of science-hating religious bigots?

Again you don't know what you are talking about, the so-call shenanigans have nothing to do with why high school biology teachers aren't fully teaching evolution, they aren't because they don't fully accept evolution. Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Considering the above definition, would you consider yourself a bigot? I mean if you are going to call others that, maybe you should examine yourself first and how you treat others.

No, I do not consider myself a bigot, IBelieve. Deriding and scorning teachers who are too timid or too wrapped in their own religious bigotries to do what they are paid to do is not bigotry. You, on the other hand, are a bigot, given as how you label everyone who disagrees with your lies and inane claims as being an atheist, not to mention you also consider Catholics to be worse atheists, too. So stop projecting your obvious bigotry onto me: it makes you look like a dishonest idiot when you falsely accuse me of being a bigot. (I see you've also forgotten how you accused me of wanting to round up and mass murder theists in gas chambers, too) Like I said before, the validity of Evolution was already determined in the scientific community, not in high school. That, and you're still lying about having read the papers. Otherwise, you would have been able to quote where and how Evolution is supposed to have been disproven by Americans being science illiterate due to education-hating Creationists deliberately sabotaging everyone's science education.

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with

It's actually more likely that teachers aren't particularly interested in getting into the politics of dealing with little Johnny's parents and their minister complaining to the (elected) board of education and giving them endless crap for doing nothing more than teaching the simple, easily demonstrated laws of biology. At some point even the most dedicated teacher has to think "Screw this. I don't need this crap."

Really? So, there isn't political pressure coming from your side?

Stanton said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said:

henry said:

John Kwok said:

Mike Elzinga said:

steve p. said: Bullshit Elzinga. It is you that willfully misrepresents concepts. There is no continuity between life and non-life. A child can tell you the difference between a rock and a rabbit, a waterfall, and a watermelon.

Taunting doesn’t hide your ignorance and stupidity; it highlights it instead. You have absolutely no clue.

Agreed, Mike. The one spouting bullshit is the ever delusional Steve P. Too bad being surrounded by wise Taiwanese textile merchant colleagues didn't teach him anything about showing some wisdom about what is - and what isn't - valid science.

It's amazing that managers in Communist China prefer Christian employees because they are better and honest workers.

Do you really think it's a coincidence?

Nevermind the fact that Taiwan isn't Communist China.

Remember we are dealing with an idiot who conflates deliberately induced Science Illiteracy in America with Evolution somehow being magically disproven, and who thinks that opposing and denouncing teachers complacent with Creationists sabotaging American science education is intolerance and bigotry.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with

It's actually more likely that teachers aren't particularly interested in getting into the politics of dealing with little Johnny's parents and their minister complaining to the (elected) board of education and giving them endless crap for doing nothing more than teaching the simple, easily demonstrated laws of biology. At some point even the most dedicated teacher has to think "Screw this. I don't need this crap."

Really? So, there isn't political pressure coming from your side?

There are people who oppose science-hating Creationists' constant attempts to sabotage and destroy American science education. Furthermore, how come you refuse to quote where in those articles it says that because most Americans are science illiterate due to Creationists sabotaging science education (with the help of timid and complacent teachers), Evolution has been magically disproven? If you read those articles like you claimed, it would be an easy task for you. Then again, if you really were right, you have already truthfully explained how and why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and you have already truthfully explained how destroying science education is somehow "academic freedom."

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you should go back and read all of your posts you have directed me and others who hold my views on origins. Do a self examination and you will be enlightened!

IBelieveInGod said: Where did I say that evolution was magically disproven? It is impossible to disprove evolution, that's why I don't consider it to be a valid theory, because it can't be falsified. How would you go about falsifying any theory of origins?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with

It's actually more likely that teachers aren't particularly interested in getting into the politics of dealing with little Johnny's parents and their minister complaining to the (elected) board of education and giving them endless crap for doing nothing more than teaching the simple, easily demonstrated laws of biology. At some point even the most dedicated teacher has to think "Screw this. I don't need this crap."

Really? So, there isn't political pressure coming from your side?

There are people who oppose science-hating Creationists' constant attempts to sabotage and destroy American science education. Furthermore, how come you refuse to quote where in those articles it says that because most Americans are science illiterate due to Creationists sabotaging science education (with the help of timid and complacent teachers), Evolution has been magically disproven? If you read those articles like you claimed, it would be an easy task for you. Then again, if you really were right, you have already truthfully explained how and why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and you have already truthfully explained how destroying science education is somehow "academic freedom."

Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?

Can't answer huh? I just ask you a question that would be a way of critically analyzing evolution, and evidently you can't answer. Why is that?

"Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?"

IBelieveInGod said: Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?

Mike Elzinga said: Do you really believe you are asking legitimate questions instead of constantly revealing your profound ignorance with your childish questioning game?

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?

It has been pointed out to you many many times that you are incapable of articulating a single concept in either science or in the pseudo-science of ID/creationism? Do you really believe you are asking legitimate questions instead of constantly revealing your profound ignorance with your childish questioning game? Every question you ask reveals at least one more concept you are unable to grasp. And most of your questions reveal your sassy smugness in remaining forever ignorant.

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

Dear IBIG, Evolution is settled. Creationism can't touch it. The teaching of evolution (and science in general) is in serious trouble. The article you reference says that creationists are destroying the scientific literacy of American school children; that creationism is a bad thing that is making American children more ignorant, which, incidentally, is making America less competitive in the world market, thereby reducing our standard of living. I conclude that that's what you want to happen, isn't it. When people are ignorant, they are easier to control. After all, this isn't about science, or truth, or education, or faith, is it. It's about political power, the power to control other people's lives, thoughts, and actions; the power to tell other people what they can do, what they are allowed to think.

Really? According to John Kwok nothing in science is ever settled? Which is it?

"How would you go about falsifying any theory of origins?"

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Do you really believe you are asking legitimate questions instead of constantly revealing your profound ignorance with your childish questioning game?

He doesn't care, he just likes to bark. And people like to bark back -- sort of a mutually agreeable entertainment.

Mike Elzinga said: If these characters are anything like similar characters I have met over the years (every community seems to be infested with them), it’s not just barking to get other people to bark back.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: Or, at least can you explain how destroying science literacy in America will improve science education in America, IBelieve? Or are you too stupid and too cowardly to answer that question that you have to resort to changing the topic and lying about it?

Maybe you are missing the point that many teachers have a problem with teaching anything that there is uncertainty with, that they themselves don't accept. Maybe many don't feel that there is enough time to actually present the subject for a fair and balanced education of the subject. Maybe some feel that classroom time would be better spent with other aspects of science being taught. The point is that evolution from common descent is not as widely accepted as many here would want everyone to believe.

I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up.

Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian.

So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

IBelieveInMovingTheGoalposts said:

Mike Elzinga said: It has been pointed out to you many many times that you are incapable of articulating a single concept in either science or in the pseudo-science of ID/creationism? Do you really believe you are asking legitimate questions instead of constantly revealing your profound ignorance with your childish questioning game? Every question you ask reveals at least one more concept you are unable to grasp. And most of your questions reveal your sassy smugness in remaining forever ignorant.

Really? So, you can't answer either? I asked a very simple question, and if we did evolve from a common ancestor, then there would have to be many hominid intermediates. I asked how many and I will make it easier APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY hominid intermediates would have been necessary for us to evolve to our current evolutionary state?

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

IBelieveInGod said: Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: If these characters are anything like similar characters I have met over the years (every community seems to be infested with them), it’s not just barking to get other people to bark back.

I don't know what Biggie's motives are, mostly because I wouldn't consider asking that question either interesting or a good use of time. That being the case, it's a useful judgement just to categorize it as barking, with no content except nihilism (if that can be regarded as "content"), and to be regarded much the same as one does the noise made by an exciteable chihuahua. To assume anything more of it, I would think, would be giving the chihuahua more credit than it deserves.

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: Let me ask you this; if evolution were true and we evolved from a common ancestor, how many intermediate hominids would be necessary us to evolve to our current state?

It has been pointed out to you many many times that you are incapable of articulating a single concept in either science or in the pseudo-science of ID/creationism? Do you really believe you are asking legitimate questions instead of constantly revealing your profound ignorance with your childish questioning game? Every question you ask reveals at least one more concept you are unable to grasp. And most of your questions reveal your sassy smugness in remaining forever ignorant.

Really? So, you can't answer either? I asked a very simple question, and if we did evolve from a common ancestor, then there would have to be many hominid intermediates. I asked how many and I will make it easier APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY hominid intermediates would have been necessary for us to evolve to our current evolutionary state?

IBelieveInGod said: http://live.psu.edu/story/51023 Yet you all act like evolution is settled. Evolution is in trouble:)

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28 I would suggest that anyone here read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414

So how does these explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is more scientific than actual science, that "GODDIDIT" deserves to be taught in science classrooms in place of actual science, and why Evolution is disproven because Americans are science illiterate due to the underhanded and illegal shenanigans of science-hating religious bigots?

Again you don't know what you are talking about, the so-call shenanigans have nothing to do with why high school biology teachers aren't fully teaching evolution, they aren't because they don't fully accept evolution. Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Considering the above definition, would you consider yourself a bigot? I mean if you are going to call others that, maybe you should examine yourself first and how you treat others.

IBIG said: "It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor."

John Vanko said: Many? You could have fooled me. I can only think of three - you, FL, and Byers. Is that many? Or are you deluding yourself?

John Vanko said: I can only think of three - you, FL, and Byers. Is that many?

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I'm still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

IBelieveInGod said: I'm still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Clearly, if you can't answer that question, there is no god.

Just thought I'd play your game for a second there, biggy.

Jesus wept, you're stupid.

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

the truth of evolution has been mine for more than 40 years. the examples of christianity that you and fl representative have been mine for a couple of years. believe me, the scientists are much more truthful than you two idiots.

Glen Davidson said:

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CANINE INTERMEDIATES would be necessary between a wolf and a poodle, could someone please give an answer? Answer that, moron, or quit with the mendacious questions (like you'll ever be honest). Glen Davidson

Any time IBIGOT gets an answer he doesn't like, he pretends that no one ever answered him. Great strategy that. That's why I stopped responding to any of his nonsense long ago. Except maybe on the bathroom wall where his nonsense belongs.

My God IBIG, I've been asking you for evidence... any evidence... for you ID/Creationism position for over 13 YEARS.

Still no answers or even acknowledgements that I've even asked. Why don't you answer coward?

Do you think you're winning? Do you really think you're cute little word games and total ignorance of science and theology mean jack shit to anyone here?

We let you stay because you are hillarious. Your idiocy is stunning and funny to us.

That's all. So please keep up with, just know that you are wasting your time here and we think it's funny.

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

the truth of evolution has been mine for more than 40 years. the examples of christianity that you and fl representative have been mine for a couple of years. believe me, the scientists are much more truthful than you two idiots.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? Can you provide a link to one of my lies?

Weird.

This thread is starting to hang up just like the Bathroom Wall did when all the toilets and drains got clogged over there.

"I'm still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?"

Is there any particular reason why ImaBigIdiotGodbotherer is allowed to continued crapping on our chess board? He's not bothering to fly off, just tracking his excreta all over the place. Same as it ever was. His flagrant stupidity ceased being a source of amusement long ago. I'm thinking he needs to be confined to the loft.

Just sayin'.

Wolfhound said: Is there any particular reason why ImaBigIdiotGodbotherer is allowed to continued crapping on our chess board? He's not bothering to fly off, just tracking his excreta all over the place. Same as it ever was. His flagrant stupidity ceased being a source of amusement long ago. I'm thinking he needs to be confined to the loft. Just sayin'.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wolfhound said: Is there any particular reason why ImaBigIdiotGodbotherer is allowed to continued crapping on our chess board? He's not bothering to fly off, just tracking his excreta all over the place. Same as it ever was. His flagrant stupidity ceased being a source of amusement long ago. I'm thinking he needs to be confined to the loft. Just sayin'.

A permanent ban would be appropriate for this one. Its passive/aggressive behavior is just about as disruptive as that character we had a couple of months ago who was threatening physical violence.

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: Really? Can you provide a link to one of my lies?

Just look at every damned thing you have posted. Every damned “question” you have posted post, including the one above, is a lie “disguised” in the form of a question. And you keep cycling through them over and over.

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy ..."

Wolfhound said: Is there any particular reason why ImaBigIdiotGodbotherer is allowed to continued crapping on our chess board?

I have a response related to nmgirl's comments posted in an area of PT where it's not off-topic.

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

How about this one, which you might remember from a few years back:

"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

biggie, you lie everytime you ask a stupid question like how many hominid species it took for humans to evolve. If you had really read and understood even one of the links on evolution you have been given, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. so you lie if you ever ever say you have read and understood the literature. and don't feel sorry for me, save your pity for the poor stupid people who believe your lies.

IBIG,

Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant.

Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

Rob said: IBIG, Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant. Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

No, IBIG, you are changing the subject. You'd rather argue about ANY little detail other than your complete refusal to defend you own notions.

Why is that? Oh yeah, your ideas have no merit. Every single idea in your head (with the possible exception of which pizza place to call this evening) is utterly without value or use in the real world. Even your theological ideas are ridiculous.

It's really no wonder we all laugh at you on your ATBC thread.

BTW: Are you even interested in defending your idea... or learning what science really is? No? Then go away, coward.**

** I further notice you don't try to refute my statements calling you a coward. You must know, in your heart of hearts that it is true. You are a moral and intellectual coward.

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

the truth of evolution has been mine for more than 40 years. the examples of christianity that you and fl representative have been mine for a couple of years. believe me, the scientists are much more truthful than you two idiots.

Really? Can you provide a link to one of my lies?

SWT said in a link at BW: something well thought, carefully considered, and deeply profound

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

How about this one, which you might remember from a few years back:

"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

????? Although I don't understand the point of the question, how is your question a lie? In order for your question to be a lie it would have to be worded to state that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, would you vote for him if you knew that? But the way that is worded in your question it would not be a lie. So your post is just plain stupid.

IBelieveInGod said: Because you know that the answer to my question poses a big problem for evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

OgreMkV said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Wolfhound said: Is there any particular reason why ImaBigIdiotGodbotherer is allowed to continued crapping on our chess board? He's not bothering to fly off, just tracking his excreta all over the place. Same as it ever was. His flagrant stupidity ceased being a source of amusement long ago. I'm thinking he needs to be confined to the loft. Just sayin'.

A permanent ban would be appropriate for this one. Its passive/aggressive behavior is just about as disruptive as that character we had a couple of months ago who was threatening physical violence.

Agreed. He can't even defend his crazy views of religion... much less his absolutely insane views of science. Not to mention that he can't read.

IBelieveInGod said: I'm still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

Do you think you’re winning? Do you really think you’re cute little word games and

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

exactly as many as licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop.

you should go ask Mr. Owl. I hear he's got some good math on the subject.

I'm stating the obvious to those who are enlightened already, but....

You can be a Christian and not blaspheme against God by claiming the Bible is His Word. It cannot be His Word because God is supposed to be superior to any man who ever lived (since no man can create an entire universe, obviously), yet the Bible is of such shoddy construction that only an idiot could have written and edited such a work if he expected others to take it literally as His Word. And the God I can beleive in is no idiot.

The ONLY Word of God that can possibly exist is the universe itself and the physical and chemical laws that government it and everything within it. It is the duty of science to discover and apply those laws. Apply them to deep time and you get natural history. Apply them to human creativity and you get advances in technology. You DON'T get those things from religion.

You cannot honor God with dogmatic religion. What you honor instead with it is MEN claiming to speak for God. And when these various men contradict each other, or contradict what science reveals, the only conclusion one must reach is that at least some of them are deluded liars.

Stop the blaspheming, NOW, you hypocrites! Or continue to lose the respect of sincere people like nmgirl. Either way, your spiritual path is already discredited. It has been discredited since 1859 and there is not anything that can be done about it now!

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

Henry J said:

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

Forty-two.

Dale Husband said: The ONLY Word of God that can possibly exist is the universe itself and the physical and chemical laws that government it and everything within it. It is the duty of science to discover and apply those laws.

Mike Elzinga said: My understanding is that the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is also an even number; otherwise angels dancing on the head of a pin might seem a bit odd.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: My understanding is that the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is also an even number; otherwise angels dancing on the head of a pin might seem a bit odd.

I thought it had to be an even number, because they came in pairs with opposing spins. That's how they can move through the world without resistance. Otherwise, we'd be able to detect the heat of their passage. Some kind of quantum holiness, or something.

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

You are not familiar with the Gospels, I take it. Try Matthew 22:16-40; John 18:33-38; and others.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: My understanding is that the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is also an even number; otherwise angels dancing on the head of a pin might seem a bit odd.

I thought it had to be an even number, because they came in pairs with opposing spins. That's how they can move through the world without resistance. Otherwise, we'd be able to detect the heat of their passage. Some kind of quantum holiness, or something.

OgreMkV said:

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

You are not familiar with the Gospels, I take it. Try Matthew 22:16-40; John 18:33-38; and others.

I think we're previously established, IBIG has no idea what's in the Bible.

IBIG said on March 9th:

IBIG asked: "isn't the Cambrian Explosion a problem for TOE?" stevaroni responded: "Well, the creationist version might be a problem for the TOE, but then again, the creationist version of the Cambrian Explosion is.... “All life appeared suddenly.” ... (snip)"

God created sea life before any other life." ... (snip)

John Vanko said: I think land plants came on the third day, and all water creatures came on the fifth day.

verse 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. verse 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Michael J said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

the truth of evolution has been mine for more than 40 years. the examples of christianity that you and fl representative have been mine for a couple of years. believe me, the scientists are much more truthful than you two idiots.

Really? Can you provide a link to one of my lies?

On the same page you said: "I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?" When you told why it was a bad question. Also you lie by infering that creationism is a viable alternative when you can't or wont defend it. Basically your life is a lie.

IBelieveInBlaspheming said:

Michael J said: On the same page you said: "I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?" When you told why it was a bad question. Also you lie by infering that creationism is a viable alternative when you can't or wont defend it. Basically your life is a lie.

It's a bad question? Why would that be? I'm confused, if evolution is about change with populations over time, then I'm asking how many changes were necessary among hominid for homo sapiens to evolve, now tell me why that is a bad question? Did homo sapiens not evolve from other hominids? If man did evolve from a hominid ancestor over time, then how many different species of hominid would be necessary before homo sapiens first appeared?

It's a bad question, IBelieve, because you asked with the intent to deliberately ignore, unfairly disqualify, and dishonestly twist any and all answers you get.

Like you always do.

I mean, if you really wanted to know, you could always use Google or Wikipedia. But, you don't want to know, and the very thought of other people knowing offends your religious bigotry.

The only reason why you ask these profoundly childish questions is to play your stupid gotcha games for Jesus, to prove to your ego that you're smarter than all of the evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating atheist scientists in the world.

I'm stating the obvious AGAIN to those who are enlightened already, but....

You can learn to be a Christian and not blaspheme against the real God (if there is one) by claiming the Bible is His Word. It cannot be His Word because God is supposed to be superior to any man who ever lived (since no man can create an entire universe, obviously), yet the Bible is of such shoddy construction that only an idiot could have written and edited such a work if he expected others to take it literally as His Word. And the God I can beleive in is no idiot.

The ONLY Word of God that can possibly exist is the universe itself and the physical and chemical laws that govern everything within it. It is the duty of science to discover and apply those laws. Apply them to deep time and you get natural history. Apply them to human creativity and you get advances in technology. You DON'T get those things from religion.

You cannot honor God with dogmatic religion. What you honor instead with it is MEN claiming to speak for God. And when these various men contradict each other, or contradict what science reveals, the only conclusion one must reach is that at least some of them are deluded liars.

Stop the blaspheming, NOW, you hypocrites! Or continue to lose the respect of sincere people that are seeking truth. Either way, your spiritual path is already discredited. It has been discredited since 1859 and there is not anything that can be done about it now!

Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

Why do you keep asking questions while ignoring ones directed at you IBIG?

Why do you refuse to even state what your position is?

Why do you refuse to realize that even if you prove evolution to be wrong, it still won't mean that you, your bible, or creationism is right?

Why are you still here when your cowardly friends have already run away?

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

You are not familiar with the Gospels, I take it. Try Matthew 22:16-40; John 18:33-38; and others.

IBelieveInGod said:

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

You are not familiar with the Gospels, I take it. Try Matthew 22:16-40; John 18:33-38; and others.

Go back and read my response demonstrating what would be a lie as part of a question. You obviously either missed that, or you have purposefully left that out. My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve is a legitimate question and is not a lie in the form of a question. Man is said to have evolved from an earlier hominid ancestor, and if that is true, and there would have been many hominid intermediate species prior to the emergence of homo sapiens (man), my question is how many hominid intermediate species would be necessary before the emergence of man. Did homo sapiens not evolve from an earlier hominid ancestor? Were there not intermediate species of hominid between the earliest hominid and homo sapiens?

IBelieveInArrogance said: My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve is a legitimate question and is not a lie in the form of a question. Man is said to have evolved from an earlier hominid ancestor, and if that is true, and there would have been many hominid intermediate species prior to the emergence of homo sapiens (man), my question is how many hominid intermediate species would be necessary before the emergence of man. Did homo sapiens not evolve from an earlier hominid ancestor? Were there not intermediate species of hominid between the earliest hominid and homo sapiens?

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens. The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down. The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless. Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species. The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs. I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

Pious Moron insincerely asked: Did homo sapiens not evolve from an earlier hominid ancestor?

Were there not intermediate species of hominid between the earliest hominid and homo sapiens?

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInArrogance said: My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve is a legitimate question and is not a lie in the form of a question. Man is said to have evolved from an earlier hominid ancestor, and if that is true, and there would have been many hominid intermediate species prior to the emergence of homo sapiens (man), my question is how many hominid intermediate species would be necessary before the emergence of man. Did homo sapiens not evolve from an earlier hominid ancestor? Were there not intermediate species of hominid between the earliest hominid and homo sapiens?

Here is exactly why your question is meaningless, @$$hole! http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/why-the-term-species-should-be-abolished/

The term “species” has a clear definition in biology: a group of organisms that breed only among themselves and do not breed with members of any other group. Thus, as far as we can tell, humans are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens. The lesser black backed gull and the herring gull of Britain, however, act like separate species, yet are connected to each other by a ring of subspecies that extend all around the Northern Hemisphere and can interbreed with their neighbors. So in the sense I stated above, the definition of species breaks down. The issue of species also fails when asexual life forms are considered, including bacteria, most protists, a few populations of beetles, a population of lizards, and an entire class of rotifers called Bdelloidea. The lizards, beetles and rotifers in question are all females, while among the single celled organisms the issue of gender identity is meaningless. Suppose we have a population of 400 asexually reproducing lizards which are genetically and physically almost identical. One at a glance would assume they are members of the same species. But because the lizards do not swap genes via sexual reproduction, they would just as well be considered 400 separate species. The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs. I would therefore argue that the term “species” is really useless and should be abolished completely, because it is a source of unnecessary confusion.

You can play word games all you want, and we can laugh at you all we want too.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant. Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

Not really! You will never understand God's love for you as long as you are determined to hate Him! Still changing the subject aren't you? Because you know that the answer to my question poses a big problem for evolution.

Dale Husband said: (IBelieveInGod) can play word games all you want, and we can laugh at (him) all we want too.

IBelieveInGod said: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:)

Stanton said: What is the point of showing you evidence that you demand if the only reason why you're demanding it is to ignore it, then mock us because you refuse to look at anything that contradicts your own stupidity and bigotry?

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

Now, Senator, in the unlikely event that you ever decide to announce that you will consider no longer beating your wife, what thin tissue of lies do you plan to attempt to fob off on the public as an excuse?

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: A lie in the form of a question? I have never heard that one before!

How about this one, which you might remember from a few years back:

"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

????? Although I don't understand the point of the question, how is your question a lie? In order for your question to be a lie it would have to be worded to state that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, would you vote for him if you knew that? But the way that is worded in your question it would not be a lie. So your post is just plain stupid.

Henry J said:

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

Forty-two.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:)

What is the point of showing you evidence that you demand if the only reason why you're demanding it is to ignore it, then mock us because you refuse to look at anything that contradicts your own stupidity and bigotry?

Answer everyone except the only questions that would support your notions... keep wasting time.

IBelieveInGod said: "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution"

IBelieveInGod said: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:) “The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs.” The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)

Shebardigan said: I preemptively hate myself for this, but after all this crud, what's one more?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:)

What is the point of showing you evidence that you demand if the only reason why you're demanding it is to ignore it, then mock us because you refuse to look at anything that contradicts your own stupidity and bigotry?

"The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs." The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)

John Vanko said:

IBelieveInGod said: "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution"

You are being dishonest, and you know it. Shame on you. How does your dishonesty bring glory to Jesus?

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:) “The issue of “species” becomes meaningless when one considers extinct organisms that are dug up as fossils. Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary, based on the structure of the fossils and nothing more. The same is true of all other organisms in the fossil record, including dinosaurs.” The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)

Once more, you prove that you are a pathological liar and bigot who comes here to spit crap uselessly simply because you think you can get away with it. The fossil record is indeed supremely useful as evidence for evolution, simply by showing many transitional forms between various forms. Your being in denial about it and twisting my own words to justify your false claims just makes you look worse. We cannot identify species with any certainty among fossils, true. But we can still make inferences based on their forms and see patterns among fossil hominids, fossil horses, fossil dinosaurs, fossil trilobites, fossil fish, fossil insects, etc.

Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant. Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

Not really! You will never understand God's love for you as long as you are determined to hate Him! Still changing the subject aren't you? Because you know that the answer to my question poses a big problem for evolution.

IBelieveInGod said:

Henry J said:

I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?

Forty-two.

How do you know that it is 42?

IBelieveInMisrepresentation said: Wasn't this in your post?

Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary

IBelieveInGod said:

Michael J said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

I find this hard to believe. What I have done? Your Christianity should never be based on man, but rather on your relationship with Jesus Christ. So, because of what I or others have done you are going to stop following Jesus Christ? I feel sorry for you, I really do. I hope you find the truth, but you will not find it in evolution.

the truth of evolution has been mine for more than 40 years. the examples of christianity that you and fl representative have been mine for a couple of years. believe me, the scientists are much more truthful than you two idiots.

Really? Can you provide a link to one of my lies?

On the same page you said: "I’m still waiting on APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOMINID INTERMEDIATES would be necessary, could someone please give an answer?" When you told why it was a bad question. Also you lie by infering that creationism is a viable alternative when you can't or wont defend it. Basically your life is a lie.

It's a bad question? Why would that be? I'm confused, if evolution is about change with populations over time, then I'm asking how many changes were necessary among hominid for homo sapiens to evolve, now tell me why that is a bad question? Did homo sapiens not evolve from other hominids? If man did evolve from a hominid ancestor over time, then how many different species of hominid would be necessary before homo sapiens first appeared?

IBelieveInGod babbled: So, then the entire fossil record is useless scientifically as far as evidence for or against evolution. Thank you for posting, that clears it up very well:)

IBIG said: "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution"

rob said: IBIG, Having trouble with this one? Is this loving guidance from god? Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." ' I believe you have a problem. Either the bible is inerrant or god is not loving. Well?

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant. Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

Not really! You will never understand God's love for you as long as you are determined to hate Him! Still changing the subject aren't you? Because you know that the answer to my question poses a big problem for evolution.

He said to the others [verse five] in my hearing, Go after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, and neither have pity (9:5). As the Lord said in eight, verse eighteen in the previous chapter, “I will not have pity, and though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them”. They’ve gone too far, they’ve crossed over the line. So God says, “Go through”… Slay utterly the old and young, both the girls, and the little children, and the women: but come not near any man upon whom is the tau, the cross; [They are to be spared this judgment of God, and God said,] begin at my sanctuary (9:6). It was there in the sanctuary that He saw the abominations. It was in the sanctuary where the women were weeping for Tammuz. It was in the sanctuary where the twenty men were facing towards the east, away from the Holy of Holies, and worshiping the sun. So the judgment was to begin there in the sanctuary. As Peter said, “The time is come that judgment must begin in the house of God.” If it begins in the house of God, then where shall the ungodly stand? If God starts judgment in His house, by the time you get out into the corruption of the world, there will be that fierce judgment that shall come. So they… Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. [Those that were worshiping towards the east.] And God said to them, Defile the house (9:6-7), Now under the law, a dead body was considered unclean, and if you touched a dead body, you could not go into the temple of God for seven days, and only then, after you’d gone through purification rituals. So God is, so here is the temple of God, which a person could not enter if he had touched a dead body, because he was defiled spiritually, by the touching of the dead body. But now the Lord is saying, “Fill the house with carcases, with dead bodies”. So, “Defile the house with these dead bodies”… fill the courts with the slain: [And then the command to] go forth. And they went forth, and they slew in the city. And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell on my face, and cried (9:7-8), Here’s Ezekiel, he’s watching this carnage as the judgment of God is now being poured out, and they’re going through and slaying, and not sparing, no pity. He sees this, but then he makes the statement, “And I was left”. That is, the judgment did not come upon him, and that wonderful, “I was left”. “Though God’s judgment fell upon the whole city, I was one of those distinguished by God, and discriminated by God to escape the judgment, I was left. And I fell upon my face, and I cried”… and said, Ah Lord God! will you destroy all the residue of Israel in your pouring out of your fury upon Jerusalem (9:8)? “Is this the end of the nation, are you gonna wipe out all of them?” His cry unto the Lord, as he, as he saw this horrible, horrible destruction of the city, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then the Lord answered him, and said, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city is full of perverseness: and they say, The Lord has forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not (9:8-9). A philosophy that was developed, because of the patience of God, and the longsuffering of God, who the scripture said, “is slow to anger, and is plenteous in mercy”. Over, and over again through the history of these people, they had turned their backs upon God. They had begun to worship other gods, and as the judgment would begin to come, then they would cry unto the Lord, they would repent, they would turn back to God. And, God would deliver them! They would come into a period of prosperity, and all as they put God again at the center of their national life. But then, before long, in their prosperity, they would begin to forget God and turn to these other things, and be drawn away. Then, again judgment would begin to come, and God would be merciful, and He’d forgive them. This was a repeated practice. It was a cycle that went on throughout their entire history! But now the time has come when they, they’ve crossed the line, they’ve gone too far. God now is, is just going to forsake them, and to forsake the nation, and He’s going to leave them desolate. There’s an interesting prophecy in Deuteronomy, chapter thirty one. As Moses came to the time when he was dying, or getting ready to die, and in verse fourteen of Deuteronomy thirty one, “The Lord said unto Moses, Behold, the days approach that you must die. So call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I might give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation. And the Lord appeared in the tabernacle, in the pillar of a cloud, and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle. And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, you will sleep with your fathers, and this people will rise up and go awhoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them. And will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day for all of the evils that they shall have wrought, in that they have turned unto other gods. Now therefore, write this song for you, and teach it to the children of Israel, put it in their mouths that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.” So this song is a prophecy of the failure of the people, and of their turning to the other gods, and the judgment that follows. It became sort of a folk song, so that it was just you know, they sang it but they didn’t really realize what they are singing, until the time that they were forsaken of God, and in captivity. Then, as they sang the song, the words struck home. “It’s because we have forsaken God that this calamity has befallen us.” But God predicted that this would happen! He declared that He would not hear their cries. So that day has now come in which the city is being destroyed. It’s too late, they cry now, but it’s too late. There does come that time when, when the cries to God are too late. You’ve, you’ve gone too far. In the days of Noah, “And God brought Noah into the ark, and God shut the door.” It was too late for those that were outside of the ark, though they cried out to God, and, and though they fell down before God it was too late. The judgment had begun. Now the judgment of God had begun, and though they cry, God’s not gonna have any pity. It’s too late. There is a day coming, a day of God’s wrath upon the earth. It is told of in the scriptures. Jesus speaks of it, and the book of Revelation details it. “And when that day comes, though men call it will be too late.” They have crossed the line, and God’s judgment will be visited. Now the philosophy was, “God doesn’t see, and God doesn’t care. It doesn’t really matter to God what we do.” That, “God is so far removed that He really doesn’t pay any attention to what man is doing. He has forsaken the earth, and He cannot see, or does not see.” That is a bad philosophy, and it leads to all kinds of evil. In the next chapter, as he sees the vision of the cherubim they have eyes all over the place, on all sides, and that is symbolic of the omniscience of God who sees everything! The psalmist in Psalm one thirty nine said, “Oh Lord, thou knowest me. You know my down sittings, and my uprisings. You understand my thoughts afar off.” He realized that there was nothing hid from Him. Paul the apostle said, “In Him we live, we move, we have our being”. It is so important for us to come into that consciousness of God’s presence! When I was a little kid in the church that I attended, one of the things that we pledged not to do was to go to movies. I don’t know that that’s such a bad thing. In our case, it was sort of a legalistic thing, and I had a problem with that in my spiritual walk, because I was basing my righteousness upon the fact that I didn’t go to shows, or dances, or smoke cigarettes. But yet, I can remember the Sunday school teacher saying you know that, “If you went to the theater, you really couldn’t ask Jesus to go in with you. So He would remain outside.” The idea was, if the Lord should come while you were there, you’d be left. That was a rather awesome thought! I’ll never forget when I was in high school, and under peer pressure, I went to the first movie. I remember the name of it, but I don’t remember anything of the movie. But it’s “Stars and Stripes”. I was so worried that the Lord was gonna come while I was sitting there, that I had the most miserable night of my life sitting in that theater! I prayed the whole time, “Lord don’t come tonight! Wait till I get out of this place you know!” I felt miserable! Yet, in watching the junk that is being given as entertainment, could you sit down comfortably in your living room and watch those programs on television that you are prone to be watching? If the Lord was sitting there with you, could you turn and say, “Oh Lord wasn’t that cute?”, or, “Wasn’t that funny! Did you see that? Man! He really wiped him out didn’t he! Did you see the way he…? Man that guy’s great!” I mean, could the Lord really enjoy these things with you?” Or, could you enjoy them knowing that the Lord is sitting there with you? Say, “Oops, sorry Lord, wow!” You know, think about it! You see, this attitude that, “the Lord doesn’t see”, was a dangerous attitude. Because it led them into all kinds of abominable practices. It allowed them to become perverted, “and the city was filled with perversion, and the city was filled with blood”. That is, the shedding of innocent blood. They had begun to destroy the unwanted babies by throwing them in the fires that they built in the valley of Hinnom, to their god Molech, their god of pleasure. These babies were born as a result of their seeking pleasure through the sexual experiences. The unwanted babies were then destroyed. Innocent blood. “The city was filled with blood, and abominations, and perverseness.” Because this philosophy was prevailing, “God doesn’t see. God doesn’t know. It doesn’t really matter what you do.” But it does. God is answering the prayer of Ezekiel. He said, “Lord are you gonna wipe em’ all off the face of the earth?” God says… As for me also, my eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their ways upon their head. [The day of judgment is come, and there is no slacking of the judgment, and there is no turning from the judgment.] And, behold, the man who was clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as you have commanded me (9:10- 11). So the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInMisrepresentation said: Wasn't this in your post?

Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary

Yes, and I posted that to show why your earlier question was meaningless. We can see forms in the fossils even if we cannot identify species according to the traditional definition. And from that, you said, "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)" That was indeed a lie on your part. You are certainly a fraud, like nearly all Creationist bigots.

IBelieveInGenocide said: You seem to think that rebellion against God is a minor thing. In the Old Testament man had to deal with the wrath of God. Jesus propitiated that wrath by paying the price for our redemption. Here is a commentary on the scripture you posted:

[A lot of bullcrap to justify mass murder and bigotry.]

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGenocide said: You seem to think that rebellion against God is a minor thing. In the Old Testament man had to deal with the wrath of God. Jesus propitiated that wrath by paying the price for our redemption. Here is a commentary on the scripture you posted:

[A lot of bullcrap to justify mass murder and bigotry.]

You can take your murderous God and shove him up your @$$! Such a monster should be rebelled against as a matter of principle. And there is no reason to think that the death of Jesus did anything to end his wrath. A truly merciful God would simply have chosen to forgive sinners without such a bloody offering. We need to outgrow such nonsense.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInMisrepresentation said: Wasn't this in your post?

Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary

Yes, and I posted that to show why your earlier question was meaningless. We can see forms in the fossils even if we cannot identify species according to the traditional definition. And from that, you said, "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)" That was indeed a lie on your part. You are certainly a fraud, like nearly all Creationist bigots.

If you can't identify the species of these fossils, then how do you know that any fossils are truly hominid if they also have ape features? It has been said in earlier discussions that there are intermediates in whale evolution, but if it is unknown what species these fossils really are, and if the determination of species is arbitrary, then that brings into question the entire theory of whale evolution. Dale Husband thank you for posting, I believe that was the first time I have seen such a post by a regular here.

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you will, but you will meet God someday. I would not want to be in your shoes.

Do you think abortion is acceptable to end an unwanted pregnancy?

Do you think that murderers should be just forgiven and set free?

Do you believe that we should eliminate all laws, and allow anything to be acceptable?

Dale Husband said: What a bunch of dumb questions!

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said: What a bunch of dumb questions!

The projections of a cult member; no question about it. Narrows it down considerably.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you will, but you will meet God someday. I would not want to be in your shoes.

Stop lying. The Gospel of John says no one has ever seen God (John 1:18). If that's true, then no one has ever met him either. There is no reason to think anyone ever will. Your assertions count for nothing.

Do you think abortion is acceptable to end an unwanted pregnancy?

Irrelevant issue.

Do you think that murderers should be just forgiven and set free?

Irrelevant issue.

Do you believe that we should eliminate all laws, and allow anything to be acceptable?

What a bunch of dumb questions!

The ONLY Word of God that can possibly exist is the universe itself and the physical and chemical laws that government it and everything within it.

Either way, your spiritual path is already discredited. It has been discredited since 1859

Dale Husband said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said: What a bunch of dumb questions!

The projections of a cult member; no question about it. Narrows it down considerably.

I wonder if he is a Moron or a Jehovah's Witless? LOL!

IBelieveInGod said: The apostle John was referring to man on earth, and not those who died and went to Heaven, or those who will one day face God in the final Judgement.

Now why are my questions irrelevant? They are dealing the killing of innocent life (abortion), and justice. If you accept abortion as a way to end an unwanted pregnancy, then you are condoning the killing of innocent life.

If God is to forgive those who have broken His laws, then why wouldn't you agree that we should forgive anyone who breaks our laws, even if it is murder? Don't you see the stupidity of your posts.

FL comes to help IBIG, and fails miserably: Hmm. 18 pages and counting? Interesting.... Permit me to respond to Dale:

The ONLY Word of God that can possibly exist is the universe itself and the physical and chemical laws that government it and everything within it.

This position, quite honestly, places you in a clear opposition (not merely disagreement, but opposition) to multiple Old Testament and New Testament texts, including Jesus's own statements in such places as John 10:35, John 17:14, and John 17:17. As Dr. David Livingston wrote a few years back, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ, he or she must, in turn, yield to Christ’s view of the Scripture itself. Anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ) must hold to the same view He did. But you clearly don't. Your god turns out to be pure USDA-Prime-Cut Materialism. You're in open rebellion against the biblical God, against the biblical Jesus. Hey, I know you often think I'm a "blasphemer" and such, but can we take a look at this thing? If this is where evolution has brought you to, then it's clear (once again) that evolution is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity. ***

Either way, your spiritual path is already discredited. It has been discredited since 1859

Ah, there it is. That little reference there reveals your true religion, which is Evolution. You are correct to label yourself as a "Honorable Skeptic", because while you may indeed be an honorable guy on many things, an anti-Christian skepticism is the ONLY religion that your evolutionary beliefs will allow for at this time. No wonder Daniel Dennett calls evolution "The Universal Acid." *** But it's not just you. Like a "Zombie Virus" often popularized in today's movies, evolutionary beliefs continue to wreck people's faith and disfigure them spiritually, turning them into lethal carriers of spiritual corrosion and apostacy. Last month I had an opportunity to sit in on a lecture by "America's Evolutionary Evangelist", the Rev. Michael Dowd. (He's the author of the book "Thank God For Evolution.") Now THAT guy is a pure tragedy in progress. That guy started out as a Christian minister--a real Bible believer, at one time--but thanks to evolutionary beliefs and other influences that he picked up over the years, now he's TOTALLY blown it and is effectively a flat-out atheist/pantheist/whatnot pretending to be a clergyman. Dowd looks good, he sounds good, you can tell a mile away that he was called to preachin', but Lord what a viral-bomb mess that man has become. His god-concept is not too far from yours, btw: he believes that God is nothing but the total collection of the physical universe. When he "prays", he's NOT praying to an actual Person, but instead trying to establish some kind of mental connection or unity with the Universe, much as a drop of rainwater, falling into the ocean, reconnects itself with the ocean and becomes one with it. That's not the Christian belief at all. (We pray to an actual Person named God, and we don't go hoppin' in the sack with pantheism.) So whatever Dowd used to be, he sure ain't no Christian now. Evolution and other influences have messed him up...and through him, Old Scratch is getting plenty of mileage on messing other people up. *** Anyway, enough of the soapbox for now. But what do you think, Dale? Obviously you would disagree with my conclusions, but are there any portions that you MIGHT would possibly consider as true? FL

nmgirl said: I want to share something else with fl, biggy etc. I have posting on these boards for about 18 months. Many of the discussions have made me look hard and my beliefs and question who i want to be now that i am all grown up. Well, i am no longer a christian. i will not associate my self with any group of people who behave like fl and biggy. I can no longer tolerate their lies and deceit. Their behavior is not only an insult to God, its an insult to everyone in the world who uses their God given brain. From now on, I will call myself a Deist, but never again a Christian. So congratulations fl and biggie. You've created at least one convert (to what you consider the other side)

IBelieveInGod said:

rob said: IBIG, Having trouble with this one? Is this loving guidance from god? Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." ' I believe you have a problem. Either the bible is inerrant or god is not loving. Well?

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Hypothesis: God is loving and the bible is inerrant. Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

Not really! You will never understand God's love for you as long as you are determined to hate Him! Still changing the subject aren't you? Because you know that the answer to my question poses a big problem for evolution.

You seem to think that rebellion against God is a minor thing. In the Old Testament man had to deal with the wrath of God. Jesus propitiated that wrath by paying the price for our redemption. Here is a commentary on the scripture you posted:

He said to the others [verse five] in my hearing, Go after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, and neither have pity (9:5). ... So the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Hmm. 18 pages and counting? Interesting.…

permit me to retort:

you really aren't interesting.

So, are you bastards EVER going to STFU?!

Uh, Dale, given that you just cited a convert to partial sanity based on the lies of people like FL...

do you really want them to?

I've been saying it for years:

give em their own podium! People will flock to see them shoot themselves in the head repeatedly.

just keep them out of any area where there is a need to discuss things seriously.

then how do you know that any fossils are truly hominid if they also have ape features?

Ichthyic said: Uh, Dale, given that you just cited a convert to partial sanity Deism based on the lies of people like FL...

Dale Husband said: If a person decides on his own to beleive in a god that is NOT the God of the Bible, is that also a reason to despise someone? Even as an agnostic non-theist, I find worshipping a solar deity to be highly commendable. At least we can see the Sun and know it is the source of energy for most of life on Earth. That's not the case with the Biblical God. He does nothing for us.

Ichthyic said: Hmm. 18 pages and counting? Interesting.… permit me to retort: you really aren't interesting.

Sorry, but I don’t equate atheism with sanity.

*yawn*

sorry I bothered to disturb your little world, Dale.

Mike Elzinga said:

Ichthyic said: Hmm. 18 pages and counting? Interesting.… permit me to retort: you really aren't interesting.

Some of us remember the 1970s when attempts to deprogram cult members led into all kinds of psychological and legal messes. You can get some feel for the history of it by Googling “deprogramming from cults” or “exit-counseling from cults.” It’s a messy history precisely because of the viciousness of cults attempting to play mind games and hide behind the US Constitution. They have learned what they can get away with and have become quite smug about it; as we can see from our current trolls. But I’m all in favor of keeping the spotlight on them. When they go underground, younger people tend not to be exposed to their tactics and history and can be caught off guard. So Panda’s Thumb is sort of providing a service in exposing their tactics; as annoying as that can be. As mgirl has already pointed out, there is nothing better than to see the horrors of their internal states of mind and to contrast their thinking with a scientific and sane picture of reality. These two trolls alone have done more to destroy interest in their cults in just the last couple of years than could ever be done before the Internet and the resources it provides for individuals to compare and contrast their sick, medieval minds with everything that has happened since the Enlightenment. I’d call that a good thing.

Well, sincere thanks to Dale for the heads-up about Nmgirl's post; I had missed it. And of course, thanks to Nmgirl for being willing to honestly share where she's currently at.

Having said that, though, let's take another look.

***

There are professing Christians that I don't associate myself with, such as the infamous hate-picketing clan headed by the Rev. Fred Phelps (who recently won a Supreme Court decision in his favor.)

But would my severe disagreement with Rev. Phelps' hate-filled theology and tactics, rationally justify ME no longer accepting and trusting Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord?

The rational answer is a big "No." Phelp's theological errors and cruel picketing tactics are CLEARLY opposed by the Scriptures. Therefore Jesus should not be blamed for Phelps' words and deeds of hate.

So one would (and should) "disassociate" themselves from Phelps, but not from Jesus. Likewise, even if a person disagrees with MY alleged "lies and deceit", they shouldn't cut themselves off from Jesus Christ. That's not rational.

(After all, Jesus ain't lied to you, he's never deceived you, he's always loved you and he died for you. Remember?)

***

Here's another issue:

How will a God who (according to Deism) is gone on permanent vacation, be able to help you out, or even care about you at all, when you need him?

You say you've been taking "a hard look" at your Christian beliefs, so now it's time to take "a hard look" at your Deism beliefs too.

Deism will never dry your tears, never calm your fears, never heal your hurts, never give you deep-down, abiding peace and joy. What good does it do to pray to a God who's always on vacation?

Finally, Deism will NEVER set your science on fire and give you the fullest joy and meaning in its pursuit, but Jesus Christ can do it. If you EVER want to reach such heights like Dr. George Washington Carver did, go back and talk things over with the living Lord Jesus Christ, the incomparable Creator of the Universe (Col. 1:16).

But it's up to you. The issues are not going to go away. Your evolution beliefs will NEVER be compatible with Christianity, Nmgirl. And Deism won't rescue you on that score. If you and I want a resolution of the issues, only Christ can produce it. We must go to Him.

FL

FL said: Well, sincere thanks to Dale for the heads-up about Nmgirl's post; I had missed it.

FL said: Likewise, even if a person disagrees with MY alleged "lies and deceit", they shouldn't cut themselves off from Jesus Christ. That's not rational. FL

FL said: Well, sincere thanks to Dale for the heads-up about Nmgirl's post; I had missed it. And of course, thanks to Nmgirl for being willing to honestly share where she's currently at. Having said that, though, let's take another look. *** There are professing Christians that I don't associate myself with, such as the infamous hate-picketing clan headed by the Rev. Fred Phelps (who recently won a Supreme Court decision in his favor.) But would my severe disagreement with Rev. Phelps' hate-filled theology and tactics, rationally justify ME no longer accepting and trusting Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord? The rational answer is a big "No." Phelp's theological errors and cruel picketing tactics are CLEARLY opposed by the Scriptures. Therefore Jesus should not be blamed for Phelps' words and deeds of hate. So one would (and should) "disassociate" themselves from Phelps, but not from Jesus. Likewise, even if a person disagrees with MY alleged "lies and deceit", they shouldn't cut themselves off from Jesus Christ. That's not rational. (After all, Jesus ain't lied to you, he's never deceived you, he's always loved you and he died for you. Remember?)

*** Here's another issue: How will a God who (according to Deism) is gone on permanent vacation, be able to help you out, or even care about you at all, when you need him? You say you've been taking "a hard look" at your Christian beliefs, so now it's time to take "a hard look" at your Deism beliefs too. Deism will never dry your tears, never calm your fears, never heal your hurts, never give you deep-down, abiding peace and joy. What good does it do to pray to a God who's always on vacation? Finally, Deism will NEVER set your science on fire and give you the fullest joy and meaning in its pursuit, but Jesus Christ can do it. If you EVER want to reach such heights like Dr. George Washington Carver did, go back and talk things over with the living Lord Jesus Christ, the incomparable Creator of the Universe (Col. 1:16). But it's up to you. The issues are not going to go away. Your evolution beliefs will NEVER be compatible with Christianity, Nmgirl. And Deism won't rescue you on that score. If you and I want a resolution of the issues, only Christ can produce it. We must go to Him. FL

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you will, but you will meet God someday. I would not want to be in your shoes. Do you think abortion is acceptable to end an unwanted pregnancy? Do you think that murderers should be just forgiven and set free? Do you believe that we should eliminate all laws, and allow anything to be acceptable?

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Likewise, even if a person disagrees with MY alleged "lies and deceit", they shouldn't cut themselves off from Jesus Christ. That's not rational. FL

There is absolutely nothing ALLEGED about it; and you will never learn how we know. And forget about trying to put on that moth-eaten sheepskin; we already know what you are. Reality works; but you wouldn’t know that.

Ichthyic said: Sorry, but I don’t equate atheism with sanity. *yawn* sorry I bothered to disturb your little world, Dale.

Hey, there is one more question on the table, and I'd respectfully like to ask it because it's pretty important.

(Ideally I'd want to ask it of Nmgirl, but if she goes silent on me, I'd like Dale to address it since he used to be Christian or at least a member of a Christian denomination. Also there may be other posters who come from similar situations; they may want to respond.)

Do y'all remember the main argument that the ATBC folks tried to preach at me when I was debating there? "Millions of Christians have no problem with evolution."

So if that statement is true, and if Nmgirl as a Christian didn't want to "be associated" with creationist Christians anymore, (or if Dale as a Southern Baptist didn't want to be associated with creationist SB's anymore), why not simply become a Christian theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins or Karl Giberson or Keith Miller? Why take those EXTRA steps of leaving Christianity altogether and adopting deism, agnosticism, or atheism?

Read it again. I asked this question of other evolutionists in another forum, and they ALL went silent, both the seculars and the theistics. Go figure.

***

But let's be clear about it. If you're going to openly suggest things like "I turned my back on Jesus Christ and his salvation because of FL and IBIG", then you need to be willing to answer one or two rational questions from the guys you're accusing.

Disassociating yourself from Christian creationists or ID supporters is as simple and easy as switching over to the Christian Theistic Evolutionist gang. Switch over to BioLogos and join them. If you attend a church, just switch over to the Methodist Church or the Catholics, or the Presbyterians or Congregationalists. You clearly do NOT have to abandon Christianity itself in order to disassociate yourself from a creationist like myself.

And yet, from Dale and Nmgirl and maybe some others, we got folks dropping Christianity altogether and adopting Deism or Agnosticism. Spitting in Jesus's face and turning your back on Him. (what? you think I'm gonna sugarcoat what you've done?) Taking all those EXTRA, unnecessary steps.

So, given all the tragic evolution-based backsliding on the table, please answer the highlighted question above. Be honest and upfront. Why did you take those EXTRA steps? If it's possible to be a Christian and have no problem with evolution, why didn't you just become a Christian TE and stop there?

Thanks in advance for your answer. But if you are unable or unwilling to answer, you better ask why. Give it some thought.

FL

FL said: Phelp's theological errors and cruel picketing tactics are CLEARLY opposed by the Scriptures.

Scott F said:

Ichthyic said: Sorry, but I don’t equate atheism with sanity. *yawn* sorry I bothered to disturb your little world, Dale.

Now, now, let's not get all snooty and unholier-than-thou. Dale's position may not be yours or mine, but his is a far more reasoned and reasonable position than that of our trolls here. I don't see him denying reality, or trying to convert the atheists in the crowd, or calling them names. I may or may not agree with him, but at least I can respect his position. "You go", Dale. :-)

FL said: Hey, there is one more question on the table, and I'd respectfully like to ask it because it's pretty important. (Ideally I'd want to ask it of Nmgirl, but if she goes silent on me, I'd like Dale to address it since he used to be Christian or at least a member of a Christian denomination. Also there may be other posters who come from similar situations; they may want to respond.) Do y'all remember the main argument that the ATBC folks tried to preach at me when I was debating there? "Millions of Christians have no problem with evolution." So if that statement is true, and if Nmgirl as a Christian didn't want to "be associated" with creationist Christians anymore, (or if Dale as a Southern Baptist didn't want to be associated with creationist SB's anymore), why not simply become a Christian theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins or Karl Giberson or Keith Miller? Why take those EXTRA steps of leaving Christianity altogether and adopting deism, agnosticism, or atheism? Read it again. I asked this question of other evolutionists in another forum, and they ALL went silent, both the seculars and the theistics. Go figure. *** But let's be clear about it. If you're going to openly suggest things like "I turned my back on Jesus Christ and his salvation because of FL and IBIG", then you need to be willing to answer one or two rational questions from the guys you're accusing. Disassociating yourself from Christian creationists or ID supporters is as simple and easy as switching over to the Christian Theistic Evolutionist gang. Switch over to BioLogos and join them. If you attend a church, just switch over to the Methodist Church or the Catholics, or the Presbyterians or Congregationalists. You clearly do NOT have to abandon Christianity itself in order to disassociate yourself from a creationist like myself. And yet, from Dale and Nmgirl and maybe some others, we got folks dropping Christianity altogether and adopting Deism or Agnosticism. Spitting in Jesus's face and turning your back on Him. (what? you think I'm gonna sugarcoat what you've done?) Taking all those EXTRA, unnecessary steps. So, given all the tragic evolution-based backsliding on the table, please answer the highlighted question above. Be honest and upfront. Why did you take those EXTRA steps? If it's possible to be a Christian and have no problem with evolution, why didn't you just become a Christian TE and stop there? Thanks in advance for your answer. But if you are unable or unwilling to answer, you better ask why. Give it some thought. FL

FL said: So if that statement is true, and if Nmgirl as a Christian didn't want to "be associated" with creationist Christians anymore, (or if Dale as a Southern Baptist didn't want to be associated with creationist SB's anymore), why not simply become a Christian theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins or Karl Giberson or Keith Miller? Why take those EXTRA steps of leaving Christianity altogether and adopting deism, agnosticism, or atheism?

FL said: If it's possible to be a Christian and have no problem with evolution, why didn't you just become a Christian TE and stop there?

Now Dale, don't go yelling at FL. Don't let him push your buttons like that. That's what he does. It's what he wants. Don't give it to him. You were doing much better with your rational arguments.

It's late. Let's all get some sleep.

Cheers!

When I was first considering leaving Christianity, the UU minister who counseled me about my spiritual journey actually suggested I visit other Christian churches first before deciding to commit to her own UU church. So, yes, I could have remained a Christian by joining a Methodist church, because the United Methodists were one of the denominations I respect deeply even today. I ultimately identified myself as an agnostic humanist instead because of the influence of my scientific hero Carl Sagan....and then made the final leap to be a Unitarian Universalist (even though Sagan was NOT a UU; he was of Jewish background and I was never attracted to Judaism of any kind). It was about finding a path for me, not following another.

Still later, I fell into the false trap of looking for objective truth in religion once more and converted to another theistic religion known as the Baha'i Faith, which I followed for several years. But eventually I saw its cultlike denialist mentality and broke from it and went right back to being a UU. I gave up looking for truth in religion from then on. I have learned from my past mistakes and created my own philosophy of Honorable Skepticism to guide me so I would never be tempted by dogmatic religion again. I don't even think there is objective truth in atheism either, to be honest. Those who assert atheism the loudest need to look at their own assumptions. Unless you can KNOW there is no God, atheists are being dogmatic too! I have ALWAYS understood that, and I don't condone attempts by many today to clean up atheism's image by recasting it as a more "tolerant" position, breaking from its actual historical position of outright denial of God's existence. The behavior of some actual atheists right here over the past year or so, which I have witnessed, prove it is not a path of tolerance at all!

Scott F said: Now Dale, don't go yelling at FL. Don't let him push your buttons like that. That's what he does. It's what he wants. Don't give it to him. You were doing much better with your rational arguments. It's late. Let's all get some sleep. Cheers!

Odd, that. Rev. Phelps seems to believe that his tactics are just as clearly required by the scriptures. See, there’s the problem. You say that a literal reading of the Bible opposes Phelps’ actions. He says that a literal reading of the Bible requires his actions. You both point to the same Bible to justify your diametric positions. You both say that you have the Truth on your side. Yet, you can’t both be right.

Anyway, I'm tired too. (But I do appreciate the comments that were offered. Very clearly, they were quite instructive...all of them.)

The Question hasn't really been answered--and certainly not by the lady who wishes to specifically blame me for her apostasy--but Dale's (later) attempt was sincerely interesting and informative. However, The Question can always be brought up later at an appropriate time.

I'd love to question Scott F a little more about his definition of "reality." I strongly suspect that it's merely a euphemism for "materialistic evolution" and rejection of the Bible's historical claims, but no need to bother about all that right now. Good night.

FL

FL said: Anyway, I'm tired too.

Scott F said: You both point to the same Bible to justify your diametric positions.

FL said: I'd love to question Scott F a little more about his definition of "reality." I strongly suspect that it's merely a euphemism for "materialistic evolution" and rejection of the Bible's historical claims...

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: I'd love to question Scott F a little more about his definition of "reality." I strongly suspect that it's merely a euphemism for "materialistic evolution" and rejection of the Bible's historical claims...

What "historical claims"? Creation 6,000 year ago? A world-wide genocidal flood? An impossibly large wooden boat grounded on top of a mountain in Turkey? Jonah's story about stopping and re-starting the rotation of the earth? Belshazzar (Bel-shar-utsur) as king of Babylon because he was the son of Nebuchadnezzar? Jesus being born in Judea during the rain of Herod the Great (Matthew) and also being born during the major tax census of Quirinius, governor of Syria (Luke)? C'mon, Floyd - the Bible's documented misunderstanding of history is as erroneous as its utter misunderstanding of science - and has very little to do with reality.

Luke has not made an error. There are reasonable solutions to this difficulty. First, Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was disastrously demonstrated in A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter. It has also been proposed that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Quirinius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions. It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria." In this case, the Greek word translated "first" (prwtos) is translated as a comparative, "before." Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading. Regardless of which solution is accepted, it is not necessary to conclude that Luke had made an error in recording the historical events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian even in the details. Sir William Ramsay has shown that in making reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!" http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Jesus_birthdate.htm

FL said: I'd love to question Scott F a little more about his definition of "reality." I strongly suspect that it's merely a euphemism for "materialistic evolution" and rejection of the Bible's historical claims, but no need to bother about all that right now. Good night.

Congratulations guys, y'all have allowed the cowardly IBIG and FL to turn this to a discussion on religion.

Hey FL and IBIG, how come you answer others, but not me? Oh that's right, you have no evidence, you have no notions beyond "Goddidit" and refuse to apply the same standards to your own ideas that you do to science.

Intellectual cowards, refusing to stand up for their own notions.

Tell me guys, since I'm really curious, what is the evidence that any part of Genesis is literaly true? In your detailed explanation, you may not refer to the Bible as it is not self authenticating. Feel free to use peer-reviewed work, other work will be examined and probably thrown out, but we'll at least take a look.

Can you guys distinguish between a Godly designed thing and a non-designed thing of the same type and class? Remember, for the sake of statistical accuracy, you will have to perform this many, many times to be sure you aren't just guessing. If you don't want to, then why not describe how to do it so that we may conduct our own experiment?

This is a science forum, you won't you talk about science? (Real science, not what you think it science.)

IBelieveInGod said: (Quoting some Biblical apologetics) It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria." In this case, the Greek word translated "first" (prwtos) is translated as a comparative, "before." Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading.

IBelieve, where is the physical evidence that God magically poofed the world into existence ten-thousand years ago, using magic? Why is it that you, FL and all of the other Creationist trolls here constantly state that this must be believed as literally true, under pain of eternal damnation, yet, refuse to show us any proof of it, or even where in the Bible it states this?

Then again, both you and FL are shameless and incompetent liars.

OgreMkV said: Congratulations guys, y'all have allowed the cowardly IBIG and FL to turn this to a discussion on religion.

This is a science forum, you won't you talk about science? (Real science, not what you think it science.)

Stanton said: Then again, both you and FL are shameless and incompetent liars.

Stanton said:

OgreMkV said: Congratulations guys, y'all have allowed the cowardly IBIG and FL to turn this to a discussion on religion.

It helps immensely that they absolutely refuse to explain how these "academic freedom" bills would help promote fairness in science education even though all of these bills have lead to people causing irreparable harm to science education, namely by teaching non-science to children in place of actual science.

This is a science forum, you won't you talk about science? (Real science, not what you think it science.)

They can not, as it is against their religion.

Stanton replied to comment from IBelieveInGod | March 14, 2011 8:13 AM | Reply IBelieve, where is the physical evidence that God magically poofed the world into existence ten-thousand years ago, using magic? Why is it that you, FL and all of the other Creationist trolls here constantly state that this must be believed as literally true, under pain of eternal damnation, yet, refuse to show us any proof of it, or even where in the Bible it states this? Then again, both you and FL are shameless and incompetent liars.

IBelieveInIgnorance babbled malaciously:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInMisrepresentation said: Wasn't this in your post?

Fossils cannot breed among themselves and so the designation of certain fossils as Homo hablis, Homo egaster, and Homo sapiens is entirely arbitrary

Yes, and I posted that to show why your earlier question was meaningless. We can see forms in the fossils even if we cannot identify species according to the traditional definition. And from that, you said, "The above admission posted by Dale Husband clearly demonstrates that fossils really are worthless as evidence for or against evolution:)" That was indeed a lie on your part. You are certainly a fraud, like nearly all Creationist bigots.

If you can't identify the species of these fossils, then how do you know that any fossils are truly hominid if they also have ape features? It has been said in earlier discussions that there are intermediates in whale evolution, but if it is unknown what species these fossils really are, and if the determination of species is arbitrary, then that brings into question the entire theory of whale evolution. Dale Husband thank you for posting, I believe that was the first time I have seen such a post by a regular here.

FL the malacious mendicat said: How will a God who (according to Deism) is gone on permanent vacation, be able to help you out, or even care about you at all, when you need him? You say you've been taking "a hard look" at your Christian beliefs, so now it's time to take "a hard look" at your Deism beliefs too. Deism will never dry your tears, never calm your fears, never heal your hurts, never give you deep-down, abiding peace and joy. What good does it do to pray to a God who's always on vacation? Finally, Deism will NEVER set your science on fire and give you the fullest joy and meaning in its pursuit, but Jesus Christ can do it. If you EVER want to reach such heights like Dr. George Washington Carver did, go back and talk things over with the living Lord Jesus Christ, the incomparable Creator of the Universe (Col. 1:16). FL

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

OgreMkV said: Congratulations guys, y'all have allowed the cowardly IBIG and FL to turn this to a discussion on religion.

It helps immensely that they absolutely refuse to explain how these "academic freedom" bills would help promote fairness in science education even though all of these bills have lead to people causing irreparable harm to science education, namely by teaching non-science to children in place of actual science.

This is a science forum, you won't you talk about science? (Real science, not what you think it science.)

They can not, as it is against their religion.

We have not turned this to a discussion on religion! At least in my case the questions about the Bible was directed at me first. If we don't answer any questions about the Bible, then we are called cowards, and other names, and if we do answer questions then we are guilty of turning the discussion into a discussion on religion. How many questions have you posed to me about God, the Bible, etc??? I fact check your previous post March 14, 2011 8:13 AM

Stanton replied to comment from IBelieveInGod | March 14, 2011 8:13 AM | Reply IBelieve, where is the physical evidence that God magically poofed the world into existence ten-thousand years ago, using magic? Why is it that you, FL and all of the other Creationist trolls here constantly state that this must be believed as literally true, under pain of eternal damnation, yet, refuse to show us any proof of it, or even where in the Bible it states this? Then again, both you and FL are shameless and incompetent liars.

FL said: So, given all the tragic evolution-based backsliding on the table, please answer the highlighted question above. Be honest and upfront. Why did you take those EXTRA steps? If it's possible to be a Christian and have no problem with evolution, why didn't you just become a Christian TE and stop there? Thanks in advance for your answer. But if you are unable or unwilling to answer, you better ask why. Give it some thought. FL

IBelievInIgnorance -

If the fossil record is so "useless", then explain how Nick Matzke and his colleagues reported just a few weeks ago that they have been able to compare and contrast extinction rates during the great mass extinctions like the terminal Permian and the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or Paleogene) bounday ones?

In case you've forgotten, here's the link:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/03/extinctions-pap.html#more

And here's the abstract, for you to read, malacious, mendacious moron:

"Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures."

Mike Elzinga said:

FL the malacious mendicat decreed: So, given all the tragic evolution-based backsliding on the table, please answer the highlighted question above. Be honest and upfront. Why did you take those EXTRA steps? If it's possible to be a Christian and have no problem with evolution, why didn't you just become a Christian TE and stop there? Thanks in advance for your answer. But if you are unable or unwilling to answer, you better ask why. Give it some thought. FL

How other people deal with the concept of a deity or deities in their lives, or whether they choose not to be connected to any religion is none of your damned business. What part of “none of your damned business” are you unable to comprehend? Your sectarian projections of your motives onto others are totally unjustified. Your notion “rightness or “wrongness” with deities belongs to you. The pining for retribution at the hands of your deity is your pining. The pending harsh “justice” and “eternal punishment” you attribute to your deity are your own yearnings for what should come down upon those who don’t subscribe to your sectarian dogma and your own self-proclaimed “authority.” Your profile here is extensive and clear; you can no longer take it back. Back-peddling simply reveals and reaffirms your dissembling psychological habits. You belong to a cult. You fake knowledge and authority you don’t have. You relish the thought of being able to call down pain and punishment at the hands of your deity. You pump yourself up to look like a fearsome, intimidating authority figure. You have studied and practiced an entire set of fake behaviors in order to pass yourself off as a leader and counselor to the timid and fearful. You seek obedient and dependent followers. You get an enormous and creepy sectarian erection at the very thought of “taking down” a high school student in a debate. The erection remains evident in your pursuit of nmgirl and in your pretentious probing of the personal life journeys of others; journeys that are none of your damned business and that don’t welcome your constant attempts at meddling. We know what you are.

IBelieveInGod said: It's a bad question? Why would that be?

I'm confused,...

if evolution is about change with populations over time, then I'm asking how many changes were necessary among hominid for homo sapiens to evolve, now tell me why that is a bad question?

My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve...

Did homo sapiens not evolve from other hominids

If man did evolve from a hominid ancestor over time, then how many different species of hominid would be necessary before homo sapiens first appeared?

IBelieveInGod said:My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve...

"ybe, unlike you, nmgirl is willing to stop acting like a moronic toddler who needs a God that is without any proof of his existence and has bigoted jerks like you for followers. Standing on your own two feet is the essence of maturity. Only an abusive cult wants to keep its followers dependent on it for everything."

I still believe in God. There may even be Christians out there that I agree with, but for now, I will not call myself one. FL and biggie are not the only a$$holes for christ out there. While Phelps may be the extreme, plenty of the other "good christians" are more hate than love.

My God is a god of love,not hate. I have found it interesting that so many of these"good christians" concentrate on the vengeful god of the old testament instead of the message of love in the new. Shouldn't Christians emphasize the New testament instead of the old?

FL said: There are professing Christians that I don't associate myself with, such as the infamous hate-picketing clan headed by the Rev. Fred Phelps (who recently won a Supreme Court decision in his favor.) But would my severe disagreement with Rev. Phelps' hate-filled theology and tactics, rationally justify ME no longer accepting and trusting Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord? The rational answer is a big "No." Phelp's theological errors and cruel picketing tactics are CLEARLY opposed by the Scriptures. Therefore Jesus should not be blamed for Phelps' words and deeds of hate.

So one would (and should) "disassociate" themselves from Phelps, but not from Jesus. Likewise, even if a person disagrees with MY alleged "lies and deceit", they shouldn't cut themselves off from Jesus Christ. That's not rational.

(After all, Jesus ain't lied to you, he's never deceived you, he's always loved you and he died for you. Remember?)

Here's another issue: How will a God who (according to Deism) is gone on permanent vacation, be able to help you out, or even care about you at all, when you need him?

You say you've been taking "a hard look" at your Christian beliefs, so now it's time to take "a hard look" at your Deism beliefs too. Deism will never dry your tears, never calm your fears, never heal your hurts, never give you deep-down, abiding peace and joy. What good does it do to pray to a God who's always on vacation?

Finally, Deism will NEVER set your science on fire and give you the fullest joy and meaning in its pursuit, but Jesus Christ can do it. If you EVER want to reach such heights like Dr. George Washington Carver did, go back and talk things over with the living Lord Jesus Christ, the incomparable Creator of the Universe (Col. 1:16).

But it's up to you. The issues are not going to go away. Your evolution beliefs will NEVER be compatible with Christianity, Nmgirl. And Deism won't rescue you on that score. If you and I want a resolution of the issues, only Christ can produce it. We must go to Him. FL

Robin answered IBIG: (snip) "One. There is no actual reason there need be more than that given the phrasing of your question."

IBelieveInGod said: How many questions have you posed to me about God, the Bible, etc??? I fact check your previous post

nmgirl said: "ybe, unlike you, nmgirl is willing to stop acting like a moronic toddler who needs a God that is without any proof of his existence and has bigoted jerks like you for followers. Standing on your own two feet is the essence of maturity. Only an abusive cult wants to keep its followers dependent on it for everything." I still believe in God. There may even be Christians out there that I agree with, but for now, I will not call myself one. FL and biggie are not the only a$$holes for christ out there. While Phelps may be the extreme, plenty of the other "good christians" are more hate than love. My God is a god of love,not hate. I have found it interesting that so many of these"good christians" concentrate on the vengeful god of the old testament instead of the message of love in the new. Shouldn't Christians emphasize the New testament instead of the old?

I would just like to remind IBIG, that the "New Covenant" with God specifially does NOT repudiate the Biblical Laws of the Old Testament (no matter what you think it means).

So, everytime you eat shellfish or where two types of fabric or do anything that is against Biblical Law (like lying), you are committing sins against God.

But, that's typical of most Christians (and especially fundamentalists), they don't know what the Bible even says. They just take the parts they want (usually involving killing the unbeliever and stoning Teh Gay) and ignore the rest (like lying and eating shellfish).

BTW: You ever going to support your position on the diversity of life?

How did this thread turn into the new BW? Oh, thats right, IBIG and FL started commenting and it soon became about them instead of Florida's new Anti-evolution legislation. One good thing did come of it with FL admitting that microevolution can account for speciation and all. It seems IBIG and FL can go home now because FL already admitted that microevolution can account for the origin of species. And according to Creationist sources microevolution is a fact.

IBelieveInGod said:

nmgirl said: "ybe, unlike you, nmgirl is willing to stop acting like a moronic toddler who needs a God that is without any proof of his existence and has bigoted jerks like you for followers. Standing on your own two feet is the essence of maturity. Only an abusive cult wants to keep its followers dependent on it for everything." I still believe in God. There may even be Christians out there that I agree with, but for now, I will not call myself one. FL and biggie are not the only a$$holes for christ out there. While Phelps may be the extreme, plenty of the other "good christians" are more hate than love. My God is a god of love,not hate. I have found it interesting that so many of these"good christians" concentrate on the vengeful god of the old testament instead of the message of love in the new. Shouldn't Christians emphasize the New testament instead of the old?

I agree Christians should emphasis the New Testament, because it represents the covenant that we live under now. God is a God of love. Where have I posted that God was a God of hate, I have defended that God is a God of love, it was others here who have attempted to paint God as a murderous God, a God of hate. I have pointed out more times then I could ever remember how we live in a new and better covenant, that Jesus propitiated God's wrath against man, and turned God's wrath into mercy. That is what grace is about, even though we never deserved it, Jesus gave His life to pay the price for our sin. If that isn't love then I don't know what is.

IBelieveInGod said: ... Jesus gave His life to pay the price for our sin.

I'm taking my comments to the bathroom wall.

John Vanko said:

IBIG said: "It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor."

Many? You could have fooled me. I can only think of three - you, FL, and Byers. Is that many? Or are you deluding yourself?

John Vanko said:

IBIG said: "It appears that many here actually find it hard to believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor."

Many? You could have fooled me. I can only think of three - you, FL, and Byers. Is that many? Or are you deluding yourself?

I still don’t believe that heavy objects fall at the same rate as light ones.

OgreMkV said: I would just like to remind IBIG, that the "New Covenant" with God specifially does NOT repudiate the Biblical Laws of the Old Testament (no matter what you think it means). So, everytime you eat shellfish or where two types of fabric or do anything that is against Biblical Law (like lying), you are committing sins against God. But, that's typical of most Christians (and especially fundamentalists), they don't know what the Bible even says. They just take the parts they want (usually involving killing the unbeliever and stoning Teh Gay) and ignore the rest (like lying and eating shellfish). BTW: You ever going to support your position on the diversity of life?

IBelieveInGod said: ... Jesus gave His life to pay the price for our sin.

IBelieveInGod said: My question about how many hominid intermediates would be necessary for homo sapiens (man) to evolve is a legitimate question and is not a lie in the form of a question. Man is said to have evolved from an earlier hominid ancestor, and if that is true, and there would have been many hominid intermediate species prior to the emergence of homo sapiens (man), my question is how many hominid intermediate species would be necessary before the emergence of man. Did homo sapiens not evolve from an earlier hominid ancestor? Were there not intermediate species of hominid between the earliest hominid and homo sapiens?

You know what we've never seen? We've never seen anything CREATED.

Surely, as an exercise in the power of creation, those of a mind could entreat their lord and saviour to CREATE a dog with feathers and wings.

It would sure make me sit up and take notice - you know, about a billion times more so than any faked-up footprint casts that purport to 'prove' humans co-existed with dinosaurs before the Ark and all that.

It takes a bit of spine-tingling projection to presume that people who accept evolution would not accept blatant evidence to the contrary. It's like being told that we'll be sorry when Galactus comes and sets us straight or something.

"IF WE HAD THE EVIDENCE, YOU WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT because you don't believe me right now."

...or something.

IBelieveInGod said: blah blah blah

[fingers-in-ears]

HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-HLA-

[/fingers-in-ears]

stevaroni said: ...(snip) "It's the difference between being in front of a firing squad and being in the dunking booth at the state fair."

Indeed. Two thoughtful, meaningful posts. (But don't expect a reply.)

If your answer is the Bible, then please explain how 5 people (3, being the offspring of two others, don’t count) with a maximum of 10 alleles for HLA factors can mutate and evolved into the 600+ HLA factors we see in modern man. Include in your explanation a discussion of how a mutation rate that high would render any human being not much more than a mass of cnacerous tissue.

Ritchie Annand said: You know what we've never seen? We've never seen anything CREATED. Surely, as an exercise in the power of creation, those of a mind could entreat their lord and saviour to CREATE a dog with feathers and wings. It would sure make me sit up and take notice - you know, about a billion times more so than any faked-up footprint casts that purport to 'prove' humans co-existed with dinosaurs before the Ark and all that. It takes a bit of spine-tingling projection to presume that people who accept evolution would not accept blatant evidence to the contrary. It's like being told that we'll be sorry when Galactus comes and sets us straight or something. "IF WE HAD THE EVIDENCE, YOU WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT because you don't believe me right now." ...or something.

John Vanko said:

stevaroni said: ...(snip) "It's the difference between being in front of a firing squad and being in the dunking booth at the state fair."

Wow Steve, I guess you're not afraid of lightning. I can here my old Sunday School teacher saying, "Johnnie, don't listen to that boy. Stick your fingers in your ears, and don't listen."

IBelieveInGod said: We see the miracle of life every day, why don't you ask an Obstetrician if he/she have witnessed the creation of a new life.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: ... Jesus gave His life to pay the price for our sin.

Of all the Christian bafflegab, this claim has always struck me as the dumbest. And I mean always, like way back in Sunday school when I was still a wee lad. It's just a flat-out nonsesical claim. Always has been. When you or I die, it means something. To die is, to a mere human, the big stop light at the end of the road. Some of us may fervently expect an afterlife, but as far as we can empirically determine, there is no evidence that anything actually awaits us. Dying makes humans, even religious ones, justifiably nervous. When one of us sacrifices our life for a good cause, ti is a big deal because he may be giving up everything. When Jesus sacrifices his life it's simply not the same big deal. First of all, he didn't die. To die, in normal parlance, is permanent. It means not to come back. The very fact that he did come back, using a mechanism unavailable to any of us mere mortals, means that he did something else. More than that, being part of the holy Trinity, he was omniscient, meaning that he knew that he was going to come back before he got into it in the first place. Yes, being crucified was a terrible way to die, full of carefully engineered pain and humiliation, but somehow I suspect that it's not quite as bad for you if you're omnipotent and you know that at any point in the process you can stop it if it gets out of hand and turn your tormentors into newts. Jesus knew all this going in. He knew that he was going to have a really crappy Friday afternoon, but he also knew that after that he'd just spend the weekend hanging out at his Dad's place and then be back on the job Monday morning. He did not “sacrifice his life” for our sins. If he wanted to do that he would have poofed himself out of existence and not come back Monday afternoon. At the very best, he sacrificed his Friday afternoon letting the locals make fun of him. It's the difference between being in front of a firing squad and being in the dunking booth at the state fair.

IBIG, you do realize that, by God's command, Jesus cannot be the Messiah right?

Your Biblical scholarship is sadly lacking.

Read the Gospels again. All four of them. Take careful notes on what each one says about Jesus and his life. Now, which one claims divinity for Jesus? Only one of them, The Gospel According to John. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), this was the last of the canon Gospels to be written.

In my opinion, based on writing and conceptual ideas, I suspect that "John" was written by a disciple of Paul in order to portray Jesus as what Paul wanted him to be, rather than what he actually was (an itenerant preacher).

Paul and the Jewish Christians had a massive falling out. The Jewish Christian Church (which doesn't really exist anymore) led by Jesus' brother James, basically chased Paul all over the place trying to undo what he was preaching. But to no avail. Paul, not the disciples of Jesus, is the founder of modern Chrsitianity. It's all there in the letters of Paul... if you actually read them.

BTW: You ever gonna explain the diversity of life according to IBIG? How about you FL?

IBelieveInGod said: preachy, preachy, preachy bible verses; no independent thoughts.

IBelieveInGod said: Would you have done what He did? Would you have suffered a horribly painful death just to give life to others. I'm sure you wouldn't!!!

IBelieveInGod said: Life creating life is witnessed all the time, but what isn't, and never has been observed/witnessed is non-life creating life.

IBelieveInGod said: We see the miracle of life every day, why don't you ask an Obstetrician if he/she have witnessed the creation of a new life:) Life creating life is witnessed all the time, but what isn't, and never has been observed/witnessed is non-life creating life.

IBelieveInGod said: Trivializing what Jesus accomplishes nothing.

You think that He didn't really die, because He knew He would be resurrected

but that doesn't change the fact that He destroyed death, hell and the grave.

Would you have done what He did? Would you have suffered a horribly painful death just to give life to others.

Have you been beaten until you were unrecognizable? Have you had a crown of thorns placed on your head? Have be crucified on a cross? Read this about Crucifixion A Physician Testifies About the Crucifixion by Dr. C. Truman Davis About a decade ago, reading Jim Bishop’s The Day Christ Died, I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted – that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details and a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn’t even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don’t help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary. So we have only the concise words of the Evangelists: “Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified – and they crucified Him.” ( what follows is a about 2000 words of brutal detail about the morbid efficiency of how the Romans tortured crucifixion victims to death. )

I propose this thread die with post 666.

dpr

Ritchie Annand said: "You know what we've never seen? We've never seen anything CREATED."

D. P. Robin said: I propose this thread die with post 666. dpr

John Vanko said:

D. P. Robin said: I propose this thread die with post 666. dpr

dpr, I think you said it once before, and it is still just as poignant, "Shaka, when the walls fell," his eyes closed.

Thank you dpr. Truer words never spoken.

He will no more understand them than he did the answer "forty-two", as pointed out earlier by Wolfhound.

Shaka

Never mind the two of every ‘unclean’ animal. I mean, what an amazing population bottleneck that would be!

Nmgirl has a rather difficult question for you and FL over on the Bathroom Wall. And both you and FL need to loose those huge sectarian erections in your attempts to go after her. She’s not yours to have today or ever.

"If you put your position on the table, then it's fair game for a rational critique."

IBelieveInGod said: We see the miracle of life every day, why don't you ask an Obstetrician if he/she have witnessed the creation of a new life:) Life creating life is witnessed all the time, but what isn't, and never has been observed/witnessed is non-life creating life.

Ritchie Annand said: Never mind the two of every 'unclean' animal. I mean, what an amazing population bottleneck that would be!

Ah, FL and IBIG are back. I was just reading an article on "Marks of the Delusional" and thought I'd check them. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/ten-marks-of-deluded-person.html

There's an eleventh here:http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-mark-of-deluded-person.html

1) Born into their faith: FL - Don't know, IBIG - Don't know

2) As adult, never adopts the adult attitude of doubt: FL - true, IBIG - true

3) Never reads widely or is exposed to other points of view (This is tricky, they are here, but they sure aren't listening) FL - mostly, IBIG - mostly

4) Does not travel widely or is exposed to other cultures. I don't know for either.

5) Never deeply studies his/her own faith: FL - true. IBIG - true.

6) Lies in order to defend own faith: FL - probably true. IBIG - true. (I have no iterest in going back through all the crap for examples.)

7) Preaches to people who think differently rather than egaging them: FL - mostly true. IBIG - True, TRUE, TTTRRRUUUUEEEEEE!!!!!!!

8) Claims he/she doesn't need evidence to believe. I honestly don't remember either of them saying this directly, but then IBIG doesn't ever say anything directly.

9) Must be convinced that his/her faith is impossible before seeing it as improbable: FL - true. IBIG - true.

10) Must denigrate the sciences to retain faith; FL - true. IBIG - Epic true.

11) Treat skeptics as enemy to be beaten rather than a person to have conversation with: FL - true. IBIG - Epic True.

There you go, both FL and IBIG are delusional, though IBIG more so than FL. Byers... I can't even apply these requirements to him... I don't want to get in his head that much.

Now, FL, IBIG, before you freak out and yell at me about this, you need to realize that this is the IMPRESSION YOU HAVE GIVEN ME. I don't know you except through this format. All I have to go on is what you write in this place. Under that stipulation, you need to accept that myself (and, I think, most people ehre) see you as delusional based on the above characters.

If you think this is not fair, then perhaps you should carefully examine your own writings and compare them to the characters above to see if you think you are matching those characters. Then, perhaps, you will think of something you can do to reverse the opinion of everyone here about you. Something like engaging in discussion, not preaching, answering questions, reading about your own faith, reading about science, asking questions and listening to the answers.

If you actually think that you have done the things in that list, then you are too delusional to even continue here.

FL said: 21 pages!! You guys sure love to discuss religion, don't you?

Pretty good article. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be coming back and I hope you post again soon.

stevaroni said:

FL said: 21 pages!! You guys sure love to discuss religion, don't you?

No, we like to discuss science. We like to discuss observed fact. We like to discuss hard, physical evidence. Neither you, IBIG, nor any other Creationist is all that interested in doing that. you guys like to play with words and talk about God. At length. So that's always where we end up because you guys take us there.

A software developer salary can be great motivation to get into the it field.

JimNorth said:

IBelieveInGod said: Life creating life is witnessed all the time, but what isn't, and never has been observed/witnessed is non-life creating life.

At the risk of feeding the troll, "What is your definition of life?" You can't answer this question because you don't know anything about continuums. Nor do you care. And that story by stevaroni about Jesus's "death" is spot on.

By that definition, a steam turbine that powers a generator for an electrical grid is a living thing. Have another go.

u forgot a small detail there Dave Luckett. A steam turbine just happens to be a part of a system, which in turn is part of a living metasystem.

Oh? So an electrical grid is a living metasystem, is it? How fascinating.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Steve P., Taiwanese rug merchant extraordinaire, opined: u forgot a small detail there Dave Luckett. A steam turbine just happens to be a part of a system, which in turn is part of a living metasystem.

John Kwok said:

Steve P., Taiwanese rug merchant extraordinaire, opined: u forgot a small detail there Dave Luckett. A steam turbine just happens to be a part of a system, which in turn is part of a living metasystem.

Since when are steam turbines "part of a living metasystem"? Sorry Steve P., but go back to your Chi Qong. You're utterly clueless.

And to recap, the purpose of this bill, as with all of the identically worded, and ironically named "academic freedom bills" is to trick, force, intimidate or permit teachers to lie to children about science, so that these children can be more easily brainwashed into becoming science-hating idiots.

If you guys don't believe me, then why is it that the states where these bills are passed, i.e., Kansas, Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, have the lousiest science education programs in the entire country?

Hell, for a while, thanks to those bills, even being a science teacher in one of those states, like Kansas, in particular, was considered to be a job even more onerous than a garbage collector.

Dave Luckett said: Oh? So an electrical grid is a living metasystem, is it? How fascinating. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

You've just moved the goalposts. Nothing about "constructing or operating itself" appeared in your original definition of life. But that's actually a step towards a more useful definition of "living things". Well done. Living things actually do "construct and operate" themselves.

Your problem now is that you actually deny this fact. According to you, living things only replicate themselves (and that imperfectly) while the original construction was not done by themselves, but by Something Else. That is, the criterion you now set for living things is one that you say living things cannot meet. The definition is therefore self-contradictory.

Of course, it can be met even by non-living things, because both your contentions, that life is entirely unique and that it can be explained only by design, are both equally wrong.

The sun "constructs and operates itself". Its differential heating of the Earth's surface plus Earth's orbit, atmosphere, axial tilt and rotation (with many other complex factors) produces wind, which is work in itself, and can do further work. All of the several components of this system constructed and operate themselves. They constitute "two or more interactive systems which convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a metasystem."

Hence, the sun and the Earth are, by your definition, living things.

Try again.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. Nothing about “constructing or operating itself” appeared in your original definition of life. But that’s actually a step towards a more useful definition of “living things”. Well done. Living things actually do “construct and operate” themselves.

The sun “constructs and operates itself”. Its differential heating of the Earth’s surface plus Earth’s orbit, atmosphere, axial tilt and rotation (with many other complex factors) produces wind, which is work in itself, and can do further work. All of the several components of this system constructed and operate themselves. They constitute “two or more interactive systems which convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a metasystem.”

It isn't a scenario.

1) Yes. The sun consists of a series of gradually differentiating but regularly arranged regions of differing properties, the inmost one of which is hot and dense enough to mandate the fusion of hydrogen to helium, while other regions transmit the energy from this fusion reaction and radiate it outwards. It is therefore composed of differing parts that perform different functions. It is a system. The description of the system I just gave constitutes a metasystem. It is an abstract description of the structure of the system, albeit an incomplete one.

2) It is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

3) The Earth's atmosphere, also a complex system - in fact, a number of complex systems.

4) Neither. It is not doing work in order to operate any system, nor for any reason. As always, you assume intent and motivation where there is none.

5) The attributes of the sun - principally, radiant energy and gravity, are products of the sun, which is a system. Considered as abstract quantities, the interaction of these attributes forms a metasystem with the similarly described qualities of the Earth's atmosphere. They are therefore parts of that metasystem.

6) The properties which emerge from the interaction of the attributes of the several parts of the system - and the sun's radiant energy and gravity are parts of the system - ARE its metasystem.

steve p. the utterly clueless Taiwanese textile merchant extraordinaire babbled:

You’ve just moved the goalposts. Nothing about “constructing or operating itself” appeared in your original definition of life. But that’s actually a step towards a more useful definition of “living things”. Well done. Living things actually do “construct and operate” themselves.

Actually, no. It is self-evident that turbines are objects designed by Man. They are part of something constructed by living organisms so obviously it cannot be used as evidence to contradict the definition of life. It would be non-nonsensical. The point is not whether the turbine can construct itself or not; it is that it was constructed, operated and fueled by an organism in the form of Man. Back on track here. The criterion I set is for "a set of systems and sub-systems which interact to convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a meta-system." to which you propose as below:

The sun “constructs and operates itself”. Its differential heating of the Earth’s surface plus Earth’s orbit, atmosphere, axial tilt and rotation (with many other complex factors) produces wind, which is work in itself, and can do further work. All of the several components of this system constructed and operate themselves. They constitute “two or more interactive systems which convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a metasystem.”

I have some questions IRT your scenario: (1)Can the sun be considered a system? (2) It is converting energy but what work is it doing? (3) What is the other system it interacts with? (4) Is it providing energy to that system in order for that system to operate or visa versa? (5) What metasystem are they part of? (6) Does the two or more systems the sun is part of sustain the metasystem?

Oh, and as for the first part of your response: of course steam turbines are constructed by man. Of course they aren't living things. That was the point. They aren't living things, but they met your first pass at a definition of life.

You attempted to remedy this by adding another proviso: that living things "construct and operate themselves". Well, so they do. The trouble, as I pointed out, is that your new attempt at a definition contradicts your own doctrine that there was a class of living things that did not construct themselves, but were constructed by Someone Else.

Exquisitely cogent and patient replies Dave. Now let's see if Steve is honest enough to accept the truth of your answers.

If I want to make an argument about the origin of living systems and I have to come up with my own definition for life, what does that say about my argument?

SWT said: If I want to make an argument about the origin of living systems and I have to come up with my own definition for life, what does that say about my argument?

Stanton said: That your argument is less reliable than a 3 dollar bill?

Dave Luckett said: 2) It is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

A better example might be the work done in elevating the charged particles of the solar wind out of the Sun’s electrical and gravitational potential wells.

Steve,

Can or can you not distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed thing of the same class and size?

If you cannot, then ID, even if true, it utterly worthless.

Another question, so according to your definition, are viruses alive or not? What about prions? Why or why not?

One last question, where, in any definition of ID, is 'intelligence' actually required? If you think it is required, then I suggest you visit ATBC and discuss this with JoeG who thinks that termites are intelligent agents of design.

If intelligence is not required, then why cannot evolution be the designing agent?

OgreMkV said: One last question, where, in any definition of ID, is 'intelligence' actually required? If you think it is required, then I suggest you visit ATBC and discuss this with JoeG who thinks that termites are intelligent agents of design.

If intelligence is not required, then why cannot evolution be the designing agent?

Dave Luckett said: 2) It [the sun] is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: 2) It [the sun] is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

Side quibble; converting mass to energy is not 'work by definition.' It only requires work when (i) the reaction is endothermic or (ii) its exothermic but has a big kinetic barrier. Hydrogen to helium fusion is the latter.

Mike Elzinga said: Stars have negative heat capacity. Once the fusion process kicks in, electromagnetic radiation outflow slows the infall of the matter participating in the reaction.

Are you saying that American schools should teach the critical analysis of Newton's Gravitation theory?
And what about the theory of relativity?

Why out of all the theories that are thought at school, only evolution gets singled-out?
Isn't this what universities are fore?

I wouldn't know, being unsure what "critical analysis" even means in this context. Outside of the misuse of that phrase by certain groups, I'd take it to mean look at the actual reasoning that causes scientists to accept a set of hypotheses as being supported by current evidence (and explaining some patterns in that evidence). Describing the reasoning behind the theory would make sense if it can be fit in, but that's within the rules anyway.

steve p. said: It is self-evident that turbines are objects designed by Man.

What Zack Kopplin says about Louisiana could apply to Florida if its state legislature ever passes - and the state's governor ever signs - an anti-evolution education bill:

My state is addicted to creationism!
Louisiana doesn't remember the lesson it was taught back in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards vs. Aguillard, invalidated a Louisiana law requiring creationism be taught alongside evolution and ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science classes.

In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new creationism law, making us second-time offenders. We are the only state with a creationism law on the books.

Named the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the law pretends to promote critical thinking. In reality, though, it is stealth legislation designed to sneak the unconstitutional and unscientific teaching of creationism or its offshoot, intelligent design, into public school science classes.

Because the Edwards decision established that creationists cannot legally foist their religious views on public school students directly, the creationist zealots are now trying misdirection. Their new legislation employs code language like "critical thinking" and "teaching the alternatives" in order to pretend to be promoting something noble. But creative language doesn't change the fact that they are simply pushing their religious agenda into the science classroom.

And LSEA doesn't change educational and scientific realities.
•Teachers are already supposed to teach critical thinking.

•There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.

The sole purpose for the Louisiana Science Education Act is to insert creationism into a public school science classroom.

Even as the bill's proponents toss around their education-friendly phrases like "critical thinking," they have on numerous occasions openly identified the true aim of the law: to teach creationism as science.

Senator Ben Nevers, the sponsor of the Senate version of the LSEA said,

The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill ... They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory.

Jan Benton, the Livingston Parish School Board Director of Curriculum, also openly admitted to her board that the law's purpose was to allow "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes.

If these so-called "leaders" were serious about academic freedom, they would not have scrapped the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education's original rules about implementing the LSEA which expressly prohibited the teaching of creationism because it lacks scientific merit.

The true intent of this law, rather than the rhetoric associated with it, is clear; sneaking unconstitutional and unscientific creationism into public school science classrooms.

This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs.

This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations.

Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law.

Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids.

I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us.

If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world.

This is excerpted from here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/how-you-can-join-the-figh_b_837896.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1398671,b=facebook

Dave Luckett said: It isn't a scenario. 1) Yes. The sun consists of a series of gradually differentiating but regularly arranged regions of differing properties, the inmost one of which is hot and dense enough to mandate the fusion of hydrogen to helium, while other regions transmit the energy from this fusion reaction and radiate it outwards. It is therefore composed of differing parts that perform different functions. It is a system. The description of the system I just gave constitutes a metasystem. It is an abstract description of the structure of the system, albeit an incomplete one. 2) It is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases. 3) The Earth's atmosphere, also a complex system - in fact, a number of complex systems. 4) Neither. It is not doing work in order to operate any system, nor for any reason. As always, you assume intent and motivation where there is none. 5) The attributes of the sun - principally, radiant energy and gravity, are products of the sun, which is a system. Considered as abstract quantities, the interaction of these attributes forms a metasystem with the similarly described qualities of the Earth's atmosphere. They are therefore parts of that metasystem. 6) The properties which emerge from the interaction of the attributes of the several parts of the system - and the sun's radiant energy and gravity are parts of the system - ARE its metasystem.

Dave Lovell said:

Dave Luckett said: 2) It is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

Cue for an argument from Steve that this is a special case. A better example might be the work done in elevating the charged particles of the solar wind out of the Sun's electrical and gravitational potential wells. This work is no different to that done by a plant capturing a photon to energise an electron, or a fly doing a press-up (my old chemistry teacher's ball park definition of an erg). But I doubt even this is good enough; Steve is already working on a definition of Intelligent Work.

steve p. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Dave Luckett said: 2) It is converting mass to energy, which is work by definition, because it requires energy - just less energy than it releases.

Cue for an argument from Steve that this is a special case. A better example might be the work done in elevating the charged particles of the solar wind out of the Sun's electrical and gravitational potential wells. This work is no different to that done by a plant capturing a photon to energise an electron, or a fly doing a press-up (my old chemistry teacher's ball park definition of an erg). But I doubt even this is good enough; Steve is already working on a definition of Intelligent Work.

Dave Lovell, Except that in the case of a plant, the end result of the plant capturing a photon, is not the plant capturing a photon, nor in combination with carbon dioxide producing sugar. The end result is growth of the plant; i.e. work. So if we would want more specificity as to what constitutes work, maybe I can add more detail such as work = a cascade of energy conversion cycles greater than or equal to 2, with each subsequent cycle more complex than the previous one (the definition of complex being more components involved and the energy produced larger than the subsequent cycle).

steve p. said: 6) I didn't make up the definition of meta-system. If you would reread it, you may then see how your reply doesn't make sense.

1)The sun is a system. Look up a dictionary. Your "challenge" is ludicrous. What, do you think that there's a list of systems somewhere, and the sun is on it?

2) The sun converts energy into work, as three separate posts give above. You've ignored them. Why am I not surprised?

3) You concede.

4) I correctly characterise the sun as a system. Stevep's definition of life is therefore shown to apply to non-living things, and is therefore shown to be incorrect.

5) You made an assertion that is not in evidence, not an answer.

6) Try explaining how the emergent effects of the systems of the sun and the Earth's atmosphere, which include the wind systems of the Earth, are not themselves metasystems. I say they are, and I say your definition says the same, though excessively gnomically.

Work: energy transferred by a force acting over a distance. The transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere of the Earth results in work by non-living entitities as well as by living ones, and is therefore irrelevant to any definition of life.

Living things do not convert energy. They use energy in chemical reactions that produce chemical changes in molecules taken from their environment. Gazelles do that with molecules they take from grass. Lions do it with molecules they take from gazelles, but the lion is no more "complex" than the gazelle, so your "energy conversion cycle" makes no sense on two separate grounds.

steve p. said: Dave Lovell, Except that in the case of a plant, the end result of the plant capturing a photon, is not the plant capturing a photon, nor in combination with carbon dioxide producing sugar. The end result is growth of the plant; i.e. work. So if we would want more specificity as to what constitutes work, maybe I can add more detail such as work = a cascade of energy conversion cycles greater than or equal to 2, with each subsequent cycle more complex than the previous one (the definition of complex being more components involved and the energy produced larger than the subsequent cycle).

Dave Luckett said: 1)The sun is a system. Look up a dictionary. Your "challenge" is ludicrous. What, do you think that there's a list of systems somewhere, and the sun is on it? 2) The sun converts energy into work, as three separate posts give above. You've ignored them. Why am I not surprised? 3) You concede. 4) I correctly characterise the sun as a system. Stevep's definition of life is therefore shown to apply to non-living things, and is therefore shown to be incorrect. 5) You made an assertion that is not in evidence, not an answer. 6) Try explaining how the emergent effects of the systems of the sun and the Earth's atmosphere, which include the wind systems of the Earth, are not themselves metasystems. I say they are, and I say your definition says the same, though excessively gnomically. Work: energy transferred by a force acting over a distance. The transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere of the Earth results in work by non-living entitities as well as by living ones, and is therefore irrelevant to any definition of life. Living things do not convert energy. They use energy in chemical reactions that produce chemical changes in molecules taken from their environment. Gazelles do that with molecules they take from grass. Lions do it with molecules they take from gazelles, but the lion is no more "complex" than the gazelle, so your "energy conversion cycle" makes no sense on two separate grounds.

1) Are you really so incapable of inductive reasoning that you can't read a definition and conclude that a specific example meets that definition? The sun is a system by any reasonable general definition of the word "system".

2) Yes, of course you will. They aren't what you want to hear.

3) Your definition of life: "A set of systems and sub-systems which interact to convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a meta-system" is defeated by a single example of such a set of systems that is not living. I provided one.

4) All right, I'll use "convert" in the loose sense you use it.

Meteors - which are rocks considered as bodies of mixed minerals - possess kinetic energy, which is converted into heat, light and mechanical energy. Waterfalls convert kinetic energy into work, such as moving sediments - whole boulders, for that matter - against resistance from friction, and they produce chemical changes in the strata they flow through. A volcano's output of heat, reactants, gases, and kinetic energy from moving gases, solids and liquids does mechanical work, such as blowing its own cap off, produces light, and powers chemical changes in its own structure.

So the answer is, practically all of them. You don't seriously mean to say that you think that only life can do "these types of energy conversions," do you?

Dave Luckett said: 1) Are you really so incapable of inductive reasoning that you can't read a definition and conclude that a specific example meets that definition? The sun is a system by any reasonable general definition of the word "system". 2) Yes, of course you will. They aren't what you want to hear. 3) Your definition of life: "A set of systems and sub-systems which interact to convert energy into work as a means to sustain and function as part of a meta-system" is defeated by a single example of such a set of systems that is not living. I provided one. 4) All right, I'll use "convert" in the loose sense you use it. Meteors - which are rocks considered as bodies of mixed minerals - possess kinetic energy, which is converted into heat, light and mechanical energy. Waterfalls convert kinetic energy into work, such as moving sediments - whole boulders, for that matter - against resistance from friction, and they produce chemical changes in the strata they flow through. A volcano's output of heat, reactants, gases, and kinetic energy from moving gases, solids and liquids does mechanical work, such as blowing its own cap off, produces light, and powers chemical changes in its own structure. So the answer is, practically all of them. You don't seriously mean to say that you think that only life can do "these types of energy conversions," do you?

Before I returned to academe, I spent some time working for a multinational chemical manufacturing company. Nearly every one of this company's manufacturing sites had multiple, interacting manufacturing units that took in raw materials, produced products (some of which were raw materials for other processes on-site or at other sites owned by the same organization).

Each manufacturing unit at a site was a set of systems and subsystems that converted energy to work (as Steve P. has defined it, as "something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing") as a means to sustain and function in a metasystem (the global manufacturing industry).

By Steve P.'s definition, every process unit was alive.

Remarkable.

I am not reaching, but you're quibbling, and it's getting you nowhere. The word "system" means a number of interconnected parts or processes which work together to produce a defined output. The sun is a system, and making like Humpty Dumpty doesn't change the fact.

Meteors "dissipate" their energy by converting it into other energy, some part of which is "captured" and "utilised" by other systems. The atmosphere, for example, which you have agreed is a system. Waterfalls are actually sustained as falling bodies of water by their mechanical energy wearing away softer strata below the lip of the fall. The water actually gains energy from this, as the friction acting on it is decreased once it is falling free. Whether you think this is "incidental" is entirely irrelevant.

You now seem to be groping towards the idea that living things use energy and material taken from their environment to fuel chemical processes that, among other things, may create nutrients for themselves by chemical recombination, build their own tissues, store energy within them, convert that energy into movement and heat, and ultimately provide nutrients to other living things. Yes, so they do.

But although this is very, very complex chemistry, it is not different in principle from what a fire does, or a hurricane, or a geyser. All are systems that arise from the abstracted properties of various precursor systems, and which use energy and matter from the environment to release heat, produce kinetic energy and cause physical and chemical changes which in turn may provide energy for other systems.

What I can't understand is why, in all this wordy groping in the dark, you haven't stumbled over the one most significant defining property of living things: that they self-replicate with variation. Could it be that you are trying to avoid that fact, and its implications?

Dave Luckett said: I am not reaching, but you're quibbling, and it's getting you nowhere.

SWT said: Before I returned to academe, I spent some time working for a multinational chemical manufacturing company. Nearly every one of this company's manufacturing sites had multiple, interacting manufacturing units that took in raw materials, produced products (some of which were raw materials for other processes on-site or at other sites owned by the same organization). Each manufacturing unit at a site was a set of systems and subsystems that converted energy to work (as Steve P. has defined it, as "something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing") as a means to sustain and function in a metasystem (the global manufacturing industry). By Steve P.'s definition, every process unit was alive. Remarkable.

steve piss the idiot said: 1)You're reaching again. If the sun were a system, it would be defined as such. 'nuff said.

2) Its not a matter of what I want to hear but what is. The sun is not doing work.

3) If only it were that easy. I understand you belief that refuting a person that accepts design should be a cinch. But in this case, I think a bit more effort is called for. To recap: a. The sun is by no means considered a system.

b. You have conflated system with meta-system. A meta-system is not defined by a single-system, hence the prefix meta. I gave the definition of meta-system, which is pretty straight forward. c. You have not described how the sun's light interacts with the earth's atmosphere to sustain (and function as part of)a meta-system. 4) the processes you describe are incidental. i.e. a straight line cascade. Contrast that to living systems, where the energy conversion cascade is circular. The linear/circular distinction clearly supports the definition of 'systems interacting to sustain a meta-system'. Your examples in turn: a. meteor - from your description, the energy produced is immediately dissipated, and is neither captured by nor utilized by another system.

b.waterfall - the action of the water displacing a boulder is incidental and does not create an interaction between the waterfall and the boulder for mutual support, which is implicit in interacting systems that convert energy to sustain a meta-system. The waterfall receives no energy from the boulder, as a means to keep water falling. Contrast this to an animal, where the energy conversion cascade ultimately results in an appendage being extended out to grasp for nutrients, which are ingested and starts the whole energy conversion cascade again. c.volcano - same as with the waterfall.

steve p. said: What is interesting here is that you, like Luckett, seem only able to choose examples of things that are related to human activity. Why is that? If a rock is essentially the same as a rabbit, a waterfall the same as a watermelon, why not choose such examples to falsify the definition I proposed?

Rather, observation and experimentation easily supports the notion that organisms are fundamentally different than non-living entities. It would seem only a heavy investment is a philosophical position would preclude you (pl) from admitting the obvious.

Hunkering down in a counter-intuitive bunker won't do much more than give you an intellectual backache.

This steve p. character is either jerking people’s chains or is, in fact, so bat shit loopy that no one can possibly get a concept across to him.

That allows him to smugly declare that nobody can answer his “profound” questions.

The untruth of your first sentence is plain to anyone who reads the thread.

We are not arguing that a rock is the same as a rabbit. We are arguing that your definition of living things does not distinguish between the two, and hence fails.

You have done no experiments and reported no observations. Your implication that you have done so is untruthful.

Your intuition is neither useful nor can it stand in place of evidence. It is also, in this case, false.

Wheels said:

OgreMkVYou don’t want evolution taught, then give us something else to teach. We have to explain diversity of life. My 4-year-old understands that the diersity exists. So what should I teach him?

I made the mistake of trying to point Casey Luskin at a statement about ID written by a researcher whose paper he cited a couple of years ago (see this post from a few pages back). In responding to his reply (he very considerately sent me a draft an E:N&V post he was going to make about it) I asked him how ID could explain diversity in light of invasive organisms...

Mike Elzinga said: This steve p. character is either jerking people’s chains or is, in fact, so bat shit loopy that no one can possibly get a concept across to him. That allows him to smugly declare that nobody can answer his “profound” questions.

steve p. said:

SWT said: Before I returned to academe, I spent some time working for a multinational chemical manufacturing company. Nearly every one of this company's manufacturing sites had multiple, interacting manufacturing units that took in raw materials, produced products (some of which were raw materials for other processes on-site or at other sites owned by the same organization). Each manufacturing unit at a site was a set of systems and subsystems that converted energy to work (as Steve P. has defined it, as "something that has been produced or accomplished through the effort, activity, or agency of a person or thing") as a means to sustain and function in a metasystem (the global manufacturing industry). By Steve P.'s definition, every process unit was alive. Remarkable.

What is interesting here is that you, like Luckett, seem only able to choose examples of things that are related to human activity. Why is that? If a rock is essentially the same as a rabbit, a waterfall the same as a watermelon, why not choose such examples to falsify the definition I proposed? Rather, observation and experimentation easily supports the notion that organisms are fundamentally different than non-living entities. It would seem only a heavy investment is a philosophical position would preclude you (pl) from admitting the obvious. Hunkering down in a counter-intuitive bunker won't do much more than give you an intellectual backache.