/sniff

Impaler? Impaler? Beuhler?

And you know this how?

Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong.

Darwin’s theory predicted the discovery of organisms that could at least be interpreted as intermediary between known forms. Archaeopteryx is one such organism discovered subsequent to Darwin. You may not be convinced that Archaeopteryx is an intermediary form, but I don’t see how that translates to “he just got this wrong.”

How all living things where made of these building blocks, does that mean I am related to a daffodil

Yes it does. Do you have something against daffodils?

Troy was regarded as a myth until discovered by a German.

That’s right, but what Schliemann did not prove was that much else in the Iliad had any basis in fact. Are you telling me that you believe in Achilles’ talking horses? That Zeus weighs out people’s souls on Mt. Olympus with a little pair of scales? That the goddess Aphrodite spirited her son Aeneas off the battlefield when he got wounded? Seems to me you’re making a fundamental logical error here, Imp.

I believe that this assumption is the problem,

I don’t understand. Are you saying that you question the scientific assumptions on which the theory of the Big Bang depends? Then why believe in the Big Bang?

Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books. But to deny the question of G_D’s existence with the data on hand today, is not education, it is a lack thereof,

Okay, if that’s all you’re on about, I agree: a science teacher has no more business telling children that God doesn’t exist than he has telling children that He does exist. Neither one is his/her job. Still don’t see what that has to do with teaching biology.

Looking forward to it. Based on what’s gone before, I can’t see anyone here shifting their view much. (You, for example, seem so utterly fixed in your belief that evolution is a crock that I don’t think you’d change your opinion at all even if absolute, undeniable, heaven-sent proof were placed in your hand.) But I would much rather debate this based on the support you can find than on a you said we say basis.

Sean D, and Wilbur, thanks again for the civility.

Same.

OK, so now you’re backing off and admitting Creation as an act of God can’t be proven.

Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books.

Then you’re MORE opposed to teaching the Bible in school that the folks on the left here are. Our objection was to it’s being taught as Science. You apparently are opposed to it being taught in schools at all.

In the earlier posts between me and Wilbur we were discussing the mamobchicken and egg problem, I understand Speciation thanks.

mamochicken Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong. Another reading comprehension problem here. the key to this was like the appendix? Let the anger surge through you.

As I said I understand Speciation, but am trying to move to the larger point with Wilbur. I have to type fast, (in between work).

Sean D. I will be posting what you seek, this is taking time to give you a list of works, from scientists to support my views, the works are numerous, but I am only selecting PhD level scholars. Will post in 24hrs or so, as time permits.

Sean D, and Wilbur, thanks again for the civility.

Dumbass.

Yeah, what mambo said. Plus? It’s affect not effect.

Translation: Since Troy turned out to be a real place, and not a myth, then the Bible is true and God created everything including man and evolution is false and Darwin was a big no-nothing poopyhead.

What the fuck are you talking about?

No, Man cannot create life in a lab.

Says who? You? God? Perhaps man hasn’t created life yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Many years ago people thought flight was impossible, then look what happened… the Wright Bros. fucked it all up for everyone.

Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong.

No, you ignorant jackass, he didn’t. The theory holds, and all the fossil evidence, and all the DNA evidence, points towards evolutionary theory being correct. Are there details to be worked out? Sure. But that’s what happens when you’re dealing with science. You investigate, you collect data, you corroborate or challenge previous conclusions, and then you revise your worldview to fit the fucking evidence. You DON’T start with an endpoint (e.g., God did it) and then work backwards, trying like a dope to fit things into your worldview.

The only species that can effect the outcome of a mutation and pass it through are self propagating organisms.

Dumbass. Let’s say, for the ease of simplicity, there’s a population of crocoducks living on an island in the Pacific. They are the only crocoducks in the world. Then, one day, a massive hurricane blows through the island, killing many, sparing a few, and shipping a few others to a nearby island (previously uninhabited by crocoducks). The conditions on the islands are slightly dissimilar – different food availability, different water sources, etc. On Island A, the crocoducks continue as they had before; on Island B, the population of crocoducks adapt to the new conditions. Previous phenotypes (e.g., a large, strong jaw) prove to be maladaptive here on Island 2, and so smaller-jawed crocoducks are propagated. With the advent of many years and many generations and many mutations along the way, the two populations will drift apart in their genotypes. Eventually, this drift may be large enough so that they cannot successfully interbreed. BAM! There are two species, where once there was one.

It’s not that fucking hard to understand.

(and I know, everyone else, I simplified a lot)

1. No, Man cannot create life in a lab. The scientific theory of Creation cannot be proved, either way, G_D or science.

2. Of course it is possible that God created it and the thousands of other transitional fossils discovered (along with vestigial organs in many current animals), like the appendix ? Okay I will stop picking on Darwin, he just got this wrong. I would consider as stated in other posts a belief in Natural Selection, and for that matter Macroevolution. Just not microevolution.

The funny thing is I remember in my Sixth grade class learning about the building blocks of life, DNA. How all living things where made of these building blocks, does that mean I am related to a daffodil if you go back far enough, then a evolutionist would have to say yes, that something came out of a primordial sludge. This I reject, the problems with the science/religion argument, is just as much the fault of the religious right as the Science left. Observations have been made about the universe and things in it that cannot be explained (violate various laws, including the laws of physics). Nor direct influence by G_D to effect things out of the current laws, be proved (beyond a shadow of doubt). I believe G_D created the building blocks (lego’s), If you where going to “create” life would it not make sense to create a system for life to prosper in as well? It is excepted that Species have a beginning and an end, just as the Universe had a beginning, and at some point an end.

3. So it takes an immeasurable amount of time, for the Theory to work, therefore it cannot be proved as we have only existed for a wink of time. Convenient, so the Theory of Evolution can be proved in a billion years?

4. The only species that can effect the outcome of a mutation and pass it through are self propagating organisms. This is why your chihuahua and your great dane can get jiggy and produce funny looking puppies. When a horse mates with a donkey the offspring is sterile, still a problem, mules cannot propagate. Hybrid offspring dies out. Dogs changed due to natural selection this I do not have a problem with, therefore they can create ugly pets, but they can interbreed.

Does this mean that Achilles’ talking horses that Homer tells us about actually existed? Not true how do you explain Mr. Ed? LOL, and Troy was regarded as a myth until discovered by a German.

Ironically, the big bang theory depends on scientific postulates, including uniformity and the conservation of matter and energy, that presume the absence of divine intervention. I believe that this assumption is the problem, my quest for G_D was not based on blind belief, it was the question, are signs of G_D’s presence in the affairs of the planet, and the stars. To me the theory of the existence of G_D is observable, and documented as a reference point for man, Just as Homer Iliad was regarded as a myth in the 1900’s, this ultimately proved false, Homer’s description as chronicled led to the rediscover of Troy, thus the books of Moses chronicle the history of man and the universe, and though not proven, the empirical data and observations lead to a logical discussion as to possibility, hence the debate.

Let me be clear, I do not want the new testament taught in the class room or other testimonials from other religious books. But to deny the question of G_D’s existence with the data on hand today, is not education, it is a lack thereof, children should be taught critical thinking not indoctrination in a field of study that has been wrong more often than right. The children should be taught a quest of knowledge as I was taught in school, give them the questions, and the smart kid in a class my outshine us all, and find the proof one way or another.

Sorry Wilbur for the brevity to your response, I am doing this from work.

I was there when Jesus Christ
had his moment
of doubt and pain.
Made damn sure that Pilate
washed his hands
and sealed his fate.

Pleased to meet you!
Hope you guess my name!

That the Everest-eclipsing mountains of evidence that life existed long, long, LONG before man ever arrived have all been mis-interpreted.

Just because the “origin of man” may have moved from (making up numbers here, but I’m close enough for the example to be valid) 30,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago as additional fossil evidence has been discovered and our understanding of what “origin” means changes doesn’t mean the date would EVER get pushed back BILLIONS of years to when the first living forms appeared on earth.

You can measure something and find it an inch long, and then re-measure it and find you didn’t actually have it fully unwound and it’s actually two or even three inches long. But it doesn’t mean you’ll ever find that it’s well over 15,000 miles long (a billion inches).

2) Evolution is more philosophy than science,

No. Religion is more philosophy than science. Evolution is science. You’re continually equating religion and science is clearly continuing to confuse you. It’s as valid a position to take as saying steam and a block of titanium are the same.

Ecology, as I understood it when I was in high school … was based on the idea that all of nature is interrelated. How can that be so, if there are species that contribute nothing, but are simply able to reproduce their own kind?

You’re presuming that there are species that contribute nothing, that have no interactions with their environment. And that is simply not the case. You can’t name one. Even the organisms discovered at the extreme depths of the ocean interact with their surroundings.

The conclusion you’re trying to draw from your false start is baseless. It’s akin to saying “Since there’s this room in my house where gravity doesn’t exist, anything put in the room will rise to the ceiling.” Well, OK, they might if gravity didn’t exist in that room. But it does, so your conclusion that things would rise has nothing to do with reality.

And, again, nobody is objecting to this being taught in class. Or that children couldn’t handle it. The objection is specific and clear: That is not be taught in a Science class as a valid scientific theory. It simply isn’t and shouldn’t be taught as such.

Explained where? What is the explanation?

2. Parting of the red sea, explained,

Explained where? What proof are you providing?

3. Human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA, pointing to Eve the common mother,

Which doesn’t contradict at all a non-Eden description of history. In fact, actually supports that the common ancestor was not a Eden-style Eve who looked just like modern women but was rather something closer to earlier, less evolved,forms. Where is your proof that the common ancestor looked just like modern women?

4. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, happened, nothing will grow there to this day.

Again, what are you providing as proof of this?

I’ve provided several links, as have some others, to things that refute what you say and provide the support that you asked for for things that we say.

Can you do the same? Can you provide the proof that you imply exists as we have, or are we just to take what you claim has been “scientifically explained” on faith?

Let me get this right. Religion is being forced into a place where, buy the highest law in the land, it doesn’t belong. And it’s those who resist that who are accused of being on the attack?

When a burglar forces his way into your house, does he then get to complain that there is an unfair “attack on burglary” going on?

And did the man say that the cause of the burst of creation at the Big Bang was “God”? Because unless he did that, unless his work says “and the mechanism for this was God” you cannot use the Nobel Prize winner to support your claim.